On SCHIP: GOP Presidential Candidates Stand By Their Man
Posted by Kombiz Lavasany on October 3, 2007 at 03:49 PM
As Americans contact their members of Congress demanding they override President Bush's veto today that would have covered 10 million low income children with health insurance, all the Republican presidential front runners are standing with George Bush and against insuring children.
Rudy Giuliani: In July Rudy Giuliani told CNBC that "you have to veto it, " and refers to the expansion of SCHIP as socialized medicine.
John McCain: John McCain voted against expanding SCHIP to children and argued on the Senate floor that the program covered too many uninsured children. In 1995 and 1997, McCain voted repeatadly against children's healthcare for low-income children, and in 1995 voted to eliminate vaccines from children's health care.
Mitt Romney: When Romney was asked whether he'd support President Bush's veto of the popular health insurance program for poor children, he responsed, "Yeah. Yeah, I sure would."
Fred Thompson: Fred Thompson has a history of holding extreme positions on children's health care. He was one of two Senators to oppose an amendment that would ensure that $16 billion of the budget would be spent over five years to provide health insurance for up to five million low-income children. He also voted against the formation of SCHIP in 1997.
Comments (8) «
I am a twenty-one year old mechanic making a little over fifteen thousand per year. The fact is, I do not want health insurance. I am currently attending college, and my school offers relatively inexpensive coverage that I could purchase if I actually wanted insurance, but I'm investing the little extra money I have instead. If I were uninformed, SCHIP would seem very appealing to me as I would be covered under this proposed expansion of the program (it covers Americans up to 25 yrs old) but the frightening reality of government sponsored healthcare is that the tax burden will be passed on to my employer who, in order to maintain his standard of living, will not give me the annual raises needed to compensate for inflation, and that is assuming that he does not simply cut my pay. So I would be indirectly paying for a product against my will that I do not want and I probably will not use. I'm sure many congressmen would be perplexed as to why I wouldn't want health coverage, but that is merely because we live in an over-medicated society. I haven't been to the doctor since I moved out of my parents' when I was eighteen, and I'm perfectly healthy, in spite having asthma and breaking my thumb. Unless they are having a child, or they have a severe condition like leukemia, there is no excuse for anyone age fifteen to thirty to need health insurance. I have found that it is far cheaper to live a healthy lifestyle and pay for the occasional medical emergency than to pay for health insurance. So while others are screaming "Think of the children," I scream back at them "Think of the struggling college student who can't afford this expansion of the welfare state."
moderates,
let me tell you that you have some growing up to do.
I worked in the Health Insurance field for 34 years. You know the calls I got trying to buy Individual Health Insurance????
Guys like YOU, who went without it so they could keep those extra dollars to buy goodies with ! THEN when they had those accidents on skis or whatever, or their knees needed replacement surgery, OR they developed stomach or other problems, THEN they tried to buy it because they could not afford their little surgeries, etc.
SO, your college tuition is paying for the Free clinic on campus for your strep throats, your x-rays, etc, but remember, what is known as Pre-Existing Conditions will not allow you to purchase Real insurance in the future , so you are outsmarting no one but yourself!!!
Get a few more years of maturity and world experience under your belt before you try and make decisions that you have no idea about.
Looks like that "Compassionate Conservative" thing was just another lie. Compassion... my ass.
If there was ever any doubt that Bush and the GOP are completely controlled by corporate America and have no regard for the American people, this veto makes it crystal clear. If a few families receive government coverage instead of astronomically-priced private coverage, so what? ONLY health insurance companies and their direct employees (like the President) would care about that. At least that's a good use of tax dollars, much better use than a pointless war. If they want to get this passed they should just attach it to the next war funding bill, it's such a small amount by comparison that no one would probably notice.
It is unbelievable what I have been hearing the past few days on this issue. We have a simple issue here to protect the children of this country that are not currently under any form of healthcare and you have the Republican party using it as a stump speech against "socialized" medicine.
It is our responsibility NOT liability to insure every child in this country is given the basic healthcare they need to grow strong. Most of the GOP in Congress see this, but a sad few will not realize the truth that we have children in this country TODAY that suffer without the care they need in this for-profit system in the greatest country on this earth. And it's all because a few congressmen fail to see the truth before their eyes.
Telling it like I see it,
Wynter
Loudon, NH
what a sad day
and they claim to be the party of life?
Posted by moderates_make_the_best_Americans on October 3, 2007 at 07:26 PM
BLAH BLAH BLAH
and I'm paying for a war I didn't want.
Everyone deserves health insurance, including our children. Please override this veto so that our innocent children will not be without the health insurance they need and deserve.
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
