CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › GOP vs. children
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

GOP vs. children

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
I don't understand how these actions can be perceived in a positive light. The government throws trillions at the military-industrial complex to waste/lose in Iraq but the President bristles at the thought of providing health insurance to children. Mystifying.

Quote:
More SCHIP: Revived but already dead

Friday, September 21, 2007, 05:28 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Good News: House and Senate negotiators struck a deal on PeachCare’s parent program Friday that would expand the program by $35 billion.

The Bad News: President Bush already announced he’d veto it.

The final agreement, which still must pass the House and Senate, would insure the 6.6 million low-income children already enrolled in the program, known nationally as the States Children’s Health Insurance Program or SCHIP and locally as PeachCare. It also would as many as 4 million more kids by 2012.

The legislation would repeal President Bush’s order to the states forbidding them from expanding local SCHIP initiatives on their own.

The compromise bill encourages states to enroll children of parents who earn 200 percent of the federal poverty rate ($41,000 for family of four), but allows an expansion up to 300 percent ($62,000). The only adults allowed to get coverage through SCHIP are pregnant women. Parents and childless adults, now covered by some states, would be phased out of the program.

Bush has vowed to veto any SCHIP bill that greatly expands funding, saying it was a move toward socialized medicine. Bush said the program should continue to focus on children only, with eligibility capped at 200 percent, as the program was originally designed 10 years ago. Some states are now as high as 350 percent.

Still, the Democratic Congress continues pushing a bill Bush is sure to veto, believing that Democrats would still win a political points by portraying Republicans as virtually heartless in the 2008 election.
More here.
post #2 of 9
Yet again, The Daily Show sums it up best:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchiv...isconnect.html
post #3 of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uo-9bFJcRM

This is the answer you seek.
post #4 of 9
The government should do everything for us we could possibly need. There probably is no scientific case against that.
post #5 of 9
Quote:
The government should do everything for us we could possibly need. There probably is no scientific case against that.
...
post #6 of 9
At this point, I'm pretty much that at behind-closed-doors GOP events, they just boil kittens alive and drink the blood of puppies. What a bunch of monsters.
post #7 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg
Yet again, The Daily Show sums it up best:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchiv...isconnect.html
post #8 of 9
FACT: People without money should be forced to buy insurance because they'll always be poor unless they take some responsibility and spend their money.
post #9 of 9
Why do they do this? Because they are too busy protecting the "rights" of a cluster of cells to care about actual children. Or to better put it ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hicks
Here is my actual theory … beyond the huge, hilarious jokes I have. Here's my real theory, though: If you're so pro-life and you're so pro-child, then adopt one that's already here, that's very unwanted and very alone and needs someone to take care of it to get it out of a horrible situation. Okay? People say, "Why don't you do that?" And I say, "Because I hate fucking kids and couldn't care less."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › GOP vs. children