Bush vetoes child health bill
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
man who advises this guy anyways....lets take money from poor children...that will help the republican's yeesch!!
my God, whatever is wrong with allowing working people and well to do people from getting their own insurance and haveing the government support the ones who can't afford it... It's happening in Canada if you like ti or not...and it's the system in Ireland....
In Canada we seem to think private means killing off people who don't pay..while the U.S. thinks gov. insurance is a 80% swing to the red commies....
There are other ways...
But again vetoing a bill to help kids.....maybe he should have signed that one on Halloween...grim reaper he is
my God, whatever is wrong with allowing working people and well to do people from getting their own insurance and haveing the government support the ones who can't afford it... It's happening in Canada if you like ti or not...and it's the system in Ireland....
In Canada we seem to think private means killing off people who don't pay..while the U.S. thinks gov. insurance is a 80% swing to the red commies....
There are other ways...
But again vetoing a bill to help kids.....maybe he should have signed that one on Halloween...grim reaper he is
One thing that was made clear was that the children of the dock worker will not have the coverage the bankers children have. Much like the touted Judicial system it will be definitely a two tiered health system One for the rich and another for whoever can scrape the money together. I did hear a weak offer from Bush to come back and discuss a less costly proposal. But he really doesn't care, he has his security and so does his offspring.
This veto is coming back to bite them on their posterior behind. I'll bet a round of negotiations gets under way soon. But I did find out there were some "Trailers" attached that should have gone down to defeat. Ain't the American way of politics grand?? All the crooks are after each other during office hours and socializing with each other in the evenings. That way tomorrows plan can be discussed discreetly.
These are the reasons of course behind accepting low level nepotism and being outraged by government nepotism. I would point out that with these reasons you can easily justify only hiring white people or only hiring men for a business. The point is that once you decide to hire someone you are no longer acting in a private manner and what you do becomes a public affair. Which is of course why it is within the power of government to ban smoking in restaurants and bars: they are not "private" establishments when the door is open to the public; and also why they are able to institute anti-discrimination hiring practice laws: a call for applications from the public is hardly a private affair. That is why nepotism at any level is bad, once a person decides to open the doors of their business to the public it becomes a public concern.
When a party rises to power, they generally want to do things differently than their predecessors. Necessarily they will find businesses with different mission statements more qualifying than the businesses that the predecessors hired: different aims = different qualifications. It just so happens that the businesses allied with whatever party will probably fit the qualifications of that party, and so the nepotism is easily be justified. What cannot be justified is when the nepotism turns into theft.
Which is what you are trying to get at with the hiring of idiotic brothers and make work projects: theft. The nepotism becomes something much more sinister in these cases, which is what I was getting at.
Seriously. Ive never been more thankful for term limits than these past few years.
And as far as a snowballs chance, well....thats what we reasonable US voters thought last time!
American, supports the children, in other war torn countries that they helped to create.
Americans support little visible minority children because they know that they will never come to America.
Republicans support the veto because these are children of visible minorities and in the Republican point of view they have to be kept in their place.
On another note, I heard that enough republicans in the senate had crossed the left vs. right line in the sand to give the bill the two thirds majority they needed for veto immunity. Any truth behind that rumor?
Americans have addressed the issue of creeping socialism and public health care!
Don't pander to the masses who have ill or diseased, injured or infirm children, and with any luck some large American corporation will swoop in to harvest the rewards of "altruism"...
Or, it doesn't matter that your child is ill, what matters is Belinda Stronach (wealth) can get whatever they need....
Great nation that United Corporations of America...
Don't pander to the masses who have ill or diseased, injured or infirm children, and with any luck some large American corporation will swoop in to harvest the rewards of "altruism"...
Or, it doesn't matter that your child is ill, what matters is Belinda Stronach (wealth) can get whatever they need....
Great nation that United Corporations of America...
How ya gonna fight international terrorism and save the planet if you don't have healthy children to stuff into the war machine?:smile:
Compassionate Conservatism In Action -- "Socialize Medecine" Is an Empty Term
Wow!
This one REALLY boggled my mind!
Here's a reality-check for Americans who fear alleged "socialized medecine". The words mean absolutely nothing (in the same way "aspirational targets" mean nothing when it comes to the environment).
The words "socialized medecine" are ones that are thrown about by politicians to strike fear into people that they'll be waiting forever for criticial, life-saving treatments... don't believe a word of it anymore, because it simply is NOT TRUE.
US politicians often brag that the USA has "the best health care in the world." That is true if you happen to have that 1 in 1,000,000 illness. Places like the Mayo Clinic are indeed first class.
...and you know what? When a Canadian gets that 1 in 1,000,000 disease, we'll send them down to the USA and cover the cost of the treatment anyway!
However, if you are a US citizen and you happen to be in the ER because your appendix is about to rupture, better hope you have insurance. Nobody in Canada dies in the ER waiting room, or is sent home, in these cases because of insurance issues. Nobody in Canada has to lose their house or declare bankruptcy to get chemo.
We may have to wait a bit longer for knee and hip replacements, or cataract surgery, but these are non life-threatening conditions. If you are about to drop, you are treated. The concept of TRIAGE does exist in Canada for the love of...
The US government seems to have no issue with "socialize medecine" when it comes to the military. You don't see servicemen and servicewomen paying for their amputations and prosthetics out of their salaries now do you? If "socialize medecine" is good enough for US men and women in uniform, shouldn't it be good enough for the average US citizen?
And here's the richest one of all. During an interview on "Face the Nation", Tony Perkins, who represents a religious right point of view, said he could not support the bill because there were some things in it that dealt with abortion.
I'd like to know why it is Tony Perkins is MORE concerned about the lives of children who had yet to be born than he is about the lives of children who are ALREADY ALIVE!
Wow!
This one REALLY boggled my mind!
Here's a reality-check for Americans who fear alleged "socialized medecine". The words mean absolutely nothing (in the same way "aspirational targets" mean nothing when it comes to the environment).
The words "socialized medecine" are ones that are thrown about by politicians to strike fear into people that they'll be waiting forever for criticial, life-saving treatments... don't believe a word of it anymore, because it simply is NOT TRUE.
US politicians often brag that the USA has "the best health care in the world." That is true if you happen to have that 1 in 1,000,000 illness. Places like the Mayo Clinic are indeed first class.
...and you know what? When a Canadian gets that 1 in 1,000,000 disease, we'll send them down to the USA and cover the cost of the treatment anyway!
However, if you are a US citizen and you happen to be in the ER because your appendix is about to rupture, better hope you have insurance. Nobody in Canada dies in the ER waiting room, or is sent home, in these cases because of insurance issues. Nobody in Canada has to lose their house or declare bankruptcy to get chemo.
We may have to wait a bit longer for knee and hip replacements, or cataract surgery, but these are non life-threatening conditions. If you are about to drop, you are treated. The concept of TRIAGE does exist in Canada for the love of...
The US government seems to have no issue with "socialize medecine" when it comes to the military. You don't see servicemen and servicewomen paying for their amputations and prosthetics out of their salaries now do you? If "socialize medecine" is good enough for US men and women in uniform, shouldn't it be good enough for the average US citizen?
And here's the richest one of all. During an interview on "Face the Nation", Tony Perkins, who represents a religious right point of view, said he could not support the bill because there were some things in it that dealt with abortion.
I'd like to know why it is Tony Perkins is MORE concerned about the lives of children who had yet to be born than he is about the lives of children who are ALREADY ALIVE!