That’s what you have to believe if you take the Democrats and the establishment media seriously. And what has this fiend-in-human-shape done to deserve the enmity of all right-thinking people? He has (gasp) vetoed the SCHIP bill sent to him by Congress.
Why, you ask, would he do such a thing? Doesn’t he care about the health and well being of low-income children? Doesn’t he want the wee bairns to have proper medical care? Well, actually, yes. In fact that is precisely why he vetoed the bill. In his weekly radio address, he explained it thus:
I strongly supported SCHIP as a governor, and have strongly supported it as President. My 2008 budget proposed to increase SCHIP funding by $5 billion over five years, a 20 percent increase over current funding.
The proposal congressional leaders are pushing would raise taxes on working Americans and … would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year.
In other words, Bush vetoed the bill because the Democrats have converted a program meant to cover low-income kids into a vote buying scheme paid for by the poor. In fact, much of this money won’t even go to children. At least six states are planning to spend more SCHIP money on adults than on children.
So, one hardly has to hate children to be against the SCHIP legislation that Congress sent to the White House. Indeed, for all their moral posturing, the people who have denounced Bush for this veto are the real reprobates. Otherwise, they wouldn’t support a bill that obviously rips off poor children.
Comments 8
I thought the $83,000 was only for New York. And he’s talking about poor children - you more accurately say ‘low income’. As for adults, from what I’ve read it is vital to include parents and pregnant women to achieve good coverage. I also read that the SCHIP extension is widely supported by both sides, making you and your beloved commander in chief even more lonely.
Posted 08 Oct 2007 at 10:58 am ¶The most disgraceful thing about this version of the SCHIP bill is that it leaves some low-income kids with no coverage.
So, basically, you’re taking a program meant for poor kids and using it to cover middle class adults–all the while leaving some poor kids in the lurch.
It’s utterly contemptable.
Posted 08 Oct 2007 at 12:40 pm ¶SCHIP should be a unit of Medicaid and the administration of the program should be subject to a 10 year bid by private insurance carriers.
Posted 08 Oct 2007 at 3:15 pm ¶It’s a fairly modest extension to a fairly successful programme, but it’s not yet reaching enough people. Anyway, your remarks are utterly cynical - you have no interest whatsoever in the plight of the poor, or of anyone suffering under your ’system’ - don’t forget you’re on record as being bored by ‘cheesy’ accounts of suffering.
Posted 08 Oct 2007 at 3:39 pm ¶BTW, speaking of your heart-rending “accounts of suffering,” that poor downtrodden family you trundled out turns out to be rather well off. Among other things, they send their kids to a $20K-a-year private school.
Yes. I can see why it makes sense to tax the (real) working poor in order to provide such people with free government health care. I think we’re in reverse Robin Hood territory, Marc.
Posted 08 Oct 2007 at 9:12 pm ¶The working poor don’t pay hardly any federal income tax. Are you referring to another kind, or just have a broad definition of the “(real) working poor”?
Posted 09 Oct 2007 at 6:27 pm ¶Pay attention, dude. The Dems claim tey’re going to pay for this with a tobacco tax. And that type of regressive tax falls most heavil on the working poor.
Posted 09 Oct 2007 at 6:44 pm ¶How is this a bad thing if those people are the most likely to use healthcare services as a result of their smoking? And least likely to be able to pay for those services?
Posted 11 Oct 2007 at 9:59 am ¶Post a Comment