Indefensible.

Vetoing a children's health care bill?

Words fail me.


http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071003/NEWS01/71003016/1004/living



2007 Washington Post Poll

 

Has a politician from Texas ever done a decent job on a national stage?

 

A.) HB, to me his concerns are valid. It even says so in your graphic you posted. If the money is going to people who can afford health care on their own, and they're switching to the government funded one just to save money...well then fuck them.

B.) Don't just read 'He vetoed a child's health care bill' and throw it up here for impact.

 

IJAG, with the rising costs of health care, the increase of inflation, the rising costs of college tuitions, receiving a break in one of the family's bill should be exactly up the Republican's alley. Why have tax cuts if they aren't to spur the economy. Thus, cutting out some health bills for children should be equivalent.

Also, there is the idea that the rising cost of health care will cause those families that used to be able to afford it to longer be able to do so.

 

I see both those points. And remember, I don't really follow politics, so I might say really stupid things here...but can you veto something based on what's expected? If right now it would only take $5 billion or whatever to cover those that need to be covered, why put forth $35 billion?

 

I want to see what else was tacked on to that bill (road projects, pork, etc) before I make a decision.

 

The president said he vetoed it, not for cost, and not because there was pork in the bill -- there wasn't -- but for purely ideological reasons, because he thought the SCHIP program was a backdoor way to "sociialism" and "socialized medicine." Neither of which he could define without index cards and a net, I believe.
And IJAG, GET more informed. This country is not meant to be run on automatic pilot. If the past seven years of horrors have proven anything, they've proven that.

 

All The Way with LBJ

 

Well, Paul Krugman is not amused.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?em&ex=1191729600&en=fb619e4d74a10758&ei=5087%0A

What’s happening, presumably, is that modern movement conservatism attracts a certain personality type. If you identify with the downtrodden, even a little, you don’t belong. If you think ridicule is an appropriate response to other peoples’ woes, you fit right in.

And Republican disillusionment with Mr. Bush does not appear to signal any change in that regard. On the contrary, the leading candidates for the Republican nomination have gone out of their way to condemn “socialism,” which is G.O.P.-speak for any attempt to help the less fortunate.

So once again, if you’re poor or you’re sick or you don’t have health insurance, remember this: these people think your problems are funny.

 

Rather not. But thanks!

 

Jeez, hard to imagine what angle you're coming from.

Seems to me if you think W is doing a bad job, then you'd be a big fan of LBJ – free spender, full of bullshit, set us up nicely for surrender in an unpopular war.

 

Plant those seeds for 20% inflation, you crude old pig.