The President would be right

[RetiredGySgt]

I know what Bush is claiming. But...



This is more about Bush's desire that the health coverage be privatized. Something many of us don't agree with.

Again, I don't think that either the fact that our politicians have this coverage for themselves or that our resources are being diverted elsewhere are strawmen.

Has Bush given up his own government coverage, given he's so supportive of the private sector and all?

Once again changing the parameters. You have claimed Bush wanted to REMOVE people from coverage. I provided you, from this link , proof he has made no such request or demand.

The Democrats will end a program purely for politics sake in a failed effort to blame Bush, while millions of children suffer.

 

[jillian]

Once again changing the parameters. You have claimed Bush wanted to REMOVE people from coverage. I provided you, from this link , proof he has made no such request or demand.

The Democrats will end a program purely for politics sake in a failed effort to blame Bush, while millions of children suffer.

I don't mean to change perameters. There are simply many things to be considered. The money is there for the coverage and it should be used for it.

By the same token, one could say the president is going to allow the program to end for the sake of politics. It isn't just one-sided. Moreover, if he were a different kind of president, he could probably work an agreement with the Democrats which would give everyone a little of what they want. He doesn't know how to do that. He'd rather use the veto pen because we aren't veto proof -- yet.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't mean to change perameters. There are simply many things to be considered. The money is there for the coverage and it should be used for it.

By the same token, one could say the president is going to allow the program to end for the sake of politics. It isn't just one-sided. Moreover, if he were a different kind of president, he could probably work an agreement with the Democrats which would give everyone a little of what they want. He doesn't know how to do that. He'd rather use the veto pen because we aren't veto proof -- yet.

Or, the democrats are not interested in compromise because they think they can win a PR campaign aided and abetted by the MSM. Remind me of all the Republicans they have included in crafting this bill. Of any attempts to offer ANY compromise other than, do what we demand or else?

Other then rhetoric provide a commissioned study by someone that substantiates their claims. All I see is that Some Governors want more money, wanna bet they are Democratic Governors?

It is simple. Bush has provided them a means out. Extend the current law and he WILL sign it, then continue to work on the new law the democrats want, either convincing the President or convincing enough members of Congress to overrule a veto. The democrats do not want compromise. I stand by my statement, they are responsible when this law ends for cutting off millions from health care insurance.

Bush did not even say any time limit. They could pass an extension with any time limit they want. Then if Bush veto's anyway THEY do have the high ground.

 

[jillian]

Puleeze... Bush has spend almost 7 years refusing to compromise. He keeps whining that he wants "bipartisanship". But his version of bipartisanship is that Dems give him what he wants.

Off to sleep now. Good night. Nice speaking with you.

 

[American First]

This congress is the worst in history. A bunch of traitors led by "the road to peace is in Damascus" Pelosi. They are doing anything to aid the enemy with their timetables and trying to defund our mission. Thats ok though. Bush has cleaned her clock at every turn. She really is incompetant thank God. That whiney rat Reid should be put up against a wall and...oh, forgot, we are not like the countries he worships. But they both should recieve the Benedict Arnold Oscar or something. Pelosi and Reid. Democrats and liberals really sicken American First's stomach

 

[William Joyce]

So you and Bush have no problem finding all the money you want to fight your war in Iraq, but you can't bring yourself to spend 30 billion over 5 years for american children's health insurance.

Hmmm...

Why not food for the children?

Why not food and medicine for the adults?

Why not food, shelter, clothing, medicine and entertainment for everyone?

Why not...

 

[Larkinn]

Hmmm...

Why not food for the children?

Why not food and medicine for the adults?

Why not food, shelter, clothing, medicine and entertainment for everyone?

Why not...

Slippery slope logical flaw.

You lose, try again?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Slippery slope logical flaw.

You lose, try again?

Not quite, the Democrats ARE demanding more money and changing the parameters so that people that already can afford insurance can get Government paid Insurance. AND they are cutting off millions in their attempt, so as to try and turn it into a blame game for their failures.

 

[Larkinn]

Not quite, the Democrats ARE demanding more money and changing the parameters so that people that already can afford insurance can get Government paid Insurance. AND they are cutting off millions in their attempt, so as to try and turn it into a blame game for their failures.

Might want to look at what I was responding too. Or is your claim that the Democrats are offering free food, shelter, housing, and medicine to everyone, or are planning to do so?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Might want to look at what I was responding too. Or is your claim that the Democrats are offering free food, shelter, housing, and medicine to everyone, or are planning to do so?

They would if they thought they could get more votes by doing it and get it passed or embarress the Republicans enough to win votes. Your claim that Democrats do not routinely try to bring more and more people under the "protective" umbrella of Government care and control is ludicrous on its face. Democrats are controlled by Liberals and THAT is the Liberal agenda.

 

[Larkinn]

They would if they thought theycould get more votes by doing it and get it passed or embarress the Republicans enough to win votes. Your claim that Democrats do not routinely try to bring more and more people under the "protective" umbrella of Government care and control is ludicrous on its face. Democrats are controlled by Liberals and THAT is the Liberal agenda.

Sure, as would the Republicans. But thats not the belief of the Democratic party, nor is it the belief of liberals (except perhaps far left ones). My claim is NOT that Democrats do not routinely try to bring more and more people under the protective umbrella of the government. Its that once they get those protections, they will be happy with them. They, obviously, aren't going to have the government pay for food, medicine, shelter, and entertainment for everyone .

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sure, as would the Republicans. But thats not the belief of the Democratic party, nor is it the belief of liberals (except perhaps far left ones). My claim is NOT that Democrats do not routinely try to bring more and more people under the protective umbrella of the government. Its that once they get those protections, they will be happy with them. They, obviously, aren't going to have the government pay for food, medicine, shelter, and entertainment for everyone .

Well ya not EVERYONE, anyone that can pay huge taxes won't be covered. As for not everyone on all subjects, have you forgotten Universal Health Care? Unless I misunderstand that IS a plan to make EVERYONE covered by the Government in one form or another. And then there is the oft repeated "safety net" concept. Which THIS argument covers. The democrats ( and not just the far left) are trying to INCREASE who is covered, claiming other wise because one poster used the word everyone is disingenious to say the least.

Your penchant for playing games with words is old.

 

[Larkinn]

Well ya not EVERYONE,

And so it won't be Communism, as Joyce's post implied it would lead too. As I said, it was a slippery slope logical flaw.

 

[jasendorf]

This is nothing more than President Bush grandstanding.

If the Congress passes a law and the President vetoes it... that's on the President... no one else. Every law doesn't have to be "veto-proof" to be a law. The Congress solely needs to put the law on the President's desk. Once it's there, it's the President's call... to act as if the Congress is at fault for not passing a special law just to assuage the President is sick.

 

[jasendorf]

And another thing!

It seems to me that the message here is clear...

From 2001 to 2006, the President never vetoed a spending bill. In turn, the federal debt has risen from $5.7 trillion to $9 trillion. Where was his "fiscal responsibility" during the Republican-run Congresses? When he smiled his way through the $700 billion over ten years cost of a Medicare drug benefit you didn't hear him crying about fiscal responsibility.

The message is clear, President Bush to Democrats, "Hey dummies... kids don't vote."

 

[jillian]

Well ya not EVERYONE, anyone that can pay huge taxes won't be covered. As for not everyone on all subjects, have you forgotten Universal Health Care? Unless I misunderstand that IS a plan to make EVERYONE covered by the Government in one form or another. And then there is the oft repeated "safety net" concept. Which THIS argument covers. The democrats ( and not just the far left) are trying to INCREASE who is covered, claiming other wise because one poster used the word everyone is disingenious to say the least.

Your penchant for playing games with words is old.

I just wanted to point out that your original premise that no one would be losing coverage is incorrect.

Within a year, it said last month, states must stop enrolling families with incomes above 250% of the poverty level unless they meet several new criteria. The Democrats' bill seeks to nullify the rule

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-23-chip_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I just wanted to point out that your original premise that no one would be losing coverage is incorrect.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-23-chip_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

A criteria not allowed by the law or it couldn't be enforced. The President can not change law. And since the Democrats are going to eliminate the law all together it doesn't really matter.

 

[jillian]

A criteria not allowed by the law or it couldn't be enforced. The President can not change law. And since the Democrats are going to eliminate the law all together it doesn't really matter.

Actually, it does matter because the Democrats won't give him a bill which excludes people currently covered. And THAT was my original point.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, it does matter because the Democrats won't give him a bill which excludes people currently covered. And THAT was my original point.

Ohh I see the claim that the bill they are trying to pass will ADD 4 million families is a lie?