Bush to America: Screw the Poor!

President Bush announced Saturday that he will be vetoing a measure by Congress to expand federally funded Health Care for children. The measure, which is expected to pass the Senate and House next week, would expand Health Care for children in low-income households by $35 billion over the next five years, adding 4 million people to program; bringing the grand total up to approximately 10.6 million people. Bush referred to the Democrats pushing the bill as "irresponsible."

"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will bevetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisansupport, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he madeearlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coveragefor poor children purely to make a political point."

Yes, giving poor children medical treatment. How "irresponsible" and partisan can you get? Congress is seriously putting these children in harms way by trying to expand their health coverage. Can't someone from the Democratic Party counter this ridiculous claim?

In the Democrat's response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendellturned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't signthe bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by theend of the month.

There we go! Bush must sign this bill or risk being branded as negligent in protecting American citizens. But then again, after looking at his track record in protecting poor American citizens, it becomes very clear where this "man" stands.

What's the point in protecting Americans from terrorism when children will suffer and die in the United States due to inadequate health care? How can a person talk about how we're fighting a war for to protect or children's future, and then threaten to sign a death warrant for some of those very same children? Hypocrisy doesn't begin to describe it.

If President Bush vetoes this Bill, the responsibility for those children's pain will rest solely at his doorstep. The deaths of those who could not see a doctor will lie on his conscience. His negligence borders on the criminal, and he says the Democrats are the ones being "irresponsible."

Comments

[Ted K.]

To say that any pain or deaths of any children as a result of a veto to this bill is ridiculous.
The responsibility for a child's health and well being lies in the hands of the PARENTS.
Get another job if the one you have doesn't pay enough to see a doctor. Hell I did that for years as do many other working men until I got a high enough paying job to only work one.
You don't want to do the right thing by your kids and get extra work to pay for their doctor?
Then go to county hospitals where the will treat illegal immigrants who don't have insurance either.
Stop relying on the federal Government to step in and help you in life.
When are people going to take responsibility for their own actions, whether it be having a kids when you only make minimum wage, having babies out of marriage, or the father up and leaving a family in the learch?

Where are the JFK Dems that adhere to the "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Stop waiting for the inneffective federal government to solve your problems and do it yourself.

[Justin]

Spoken like a true conservative. I agree the first line of defense relies on the immediate family, but if you can honestly say that it is conscionable to veto a bill that will help the American people over the course of 5 years, at the same cost of less than 4 months of what the Iraq war costs, on the grounds that it's too expensive, then you need a lesson in math my friend.

[granny]

I bet Bush doesn't have as much trouble cutting off the health care money for children, as Congress is having closing the check book on the war in Iraq. Maybe Congress can take some notes on how this "say 'no'" thing is done...

You can be entirely sure that Bush's conscience isn't getting in his way. He clearly doesn't have one. And he's thoroughly enjoying making a mockery out of us all, while the hand wringing and the whining go on around who's going to be "blamed" if we just stop the funding.

As Willie said, lo these many years ago: "all are punish'ed"

[siri]

HUH? WHAAAAT conscience? Are you kidding me? This monster has no conscience. And it was OBVIOUS before the 2000 elections!
siri@legitgov.org

[Ted K.]

Bush is not cutting off the health care, his is cutting an INCREASE in spending proposal.

FWY. .Bush won 2000.. lol, you guys just can't moveon.org on that can you?

Again, it is not the FEDs job to protect everyone.
Access to free healthcare is NOT in the Constitution.
Again, spoken like a true conservative.

You want healthcare for all? Go to your State Government and have them supply it?
I'm all for state's rights.

Even Oregon killed a bill that would have entitled free health care for all children..and Oregon is extremely Libby.
Hope Oregonians can sleep when a child gets sick or dies.

again, it is not cutting funding, but cutting a huge increase in funding for child healthcare.
I'm sorry my points make so much sense.. I know it is an overload to a progressive liberal mind.

[George]

Ted, how about states rights to not send soldiers to Iraq? Would you be for that? Someone has to make you feel safe, right?

[Ted K.]

Yeah, well thought out idea George.

A National army that lets states decide whether or not the cause is just..talk about spreading the army thin.

Why don't we just all segregate into a Northwest Europe?

[George]

Actually, I was mocking your original "thought". Sorry to confuse you.