Oh, the Places We'll Vote...

Blogging by America's next generation of active citizens.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Health Care, Kids, and a Veto

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html
Bush made the 4th veto of his presidency today. Should he have signed this bill? Why or why not?

posted by JLBinChicago @ 3:37 PM

5 Comments:

At 4:05 PM, Blogger Jordan Eselevsky said...

I think that George Bush definetly should have passed this bill to expand children's health care in the U.S. With the passing of this bill alone, 10 million more children would already be eligible to receive health care, and this is just the beginnning. We need to make sure that everyone in the U.S has the ability to have health insurance. Although the coverage may not be great for the lower class, they atleast deserve health insurance for the emergency situations. Democrats brought up that we spend the proposed amount of money for this bill in Iraq monthly as well, and we are not even helping our own welfare in this situation. We need to put more money towards helping people receive better health care, and this bill could have gotten this done for many children.

 
At 6:42 PM, Blogger Jpo said...

i agree and disagree depending on the situations if in emergency's then yes every child should have care although if its just for a doctor visit then no that should be the parents responsibility unless the parents can not afford it for there children.

 
At 8:27 PM, Blogger jfeeny8 said...

I agree with jordan, signing this bill would help out many american families tremendously. Money could be much better spent on things that would affect the "U.S. Americans" and not as much to be fighting in "The Iraq" in a war that most people are either totally against or questioning why we are even there. If children would be eligible for health care, would improve many lives of children and families within our nation.

 
At 1:57 AM, Blogger davey said...

A lot of people would argue that in doubling the funds of the national government in the state health insurance bill for children, we would be jeopardizing funds in other sections of the national budget. Well, again, while my opinions may be a little too radical/ideal to be realistic, i'll still propose them anyway:
we should revise the national budget. we should drastically cut defense funds, retreat our forces in iraq and from other parts of the world and appeal to the UN to maintain peacekeeping across the world (I seriously doubt that it is in the nation's interests to spend the lives of our honored soldiers & the money of our taxpayers to reconstitute certain disillusioned principles of our place in the world & how we must intervene on every foreign affair that isn't to our ideological standards. It is the world's job to look after the world, not ours.)
What we need to do, as made evident in plato's republic, is fortify the government's basic functions: to provide nourishment, security, and guidance. we can do this by fortifying the national and state welfare programs (including universal health care), and by focusing on education so much more than we already do. We need to provide all public school districts, especially the ones deprived of the necessities to teach a student body successfully (like the CPS districts), with a majority of the funds of the national budget. I think in the war against terror, the only way to win is to defeat the only real evil involved: ignorance. We should drop books, not bombs. Instead of training soldiers to fight and kill civilians in the middle east (and adding an extra turn in the vicious cycle of making potential terrorist recruits out of the victims' families), we should be setting an example of knowledge and truth, and all the principles that often accompany higher education (tolerance towards diversity in ethnicity, religion, and thought; respect; understanding), but maybe i'm asking too much.
should, should, should, should, should.
i'm not sure i answered the question, so i'll make a comment about bush's decision:
i don't blame him for his decision. he has dug such an enormous hole for himself in the national deficit that the last thing he wants to worry about are the sick and dying children of america asking for enough money to get better. I like this quote: Bush - "I do want Republicans and Democrats to come together to support a bill that focuses on the poorer children."
I don't even need to comment on such a blatantly elitist remark; it speaks for itself.

 
At 9:18 PM, Blogger Vishhvaan Gopalakrishnan said...

I think Bush made a mistake with regards to this bill. I think the reason that he didn't sign the bill was that he didnt ant the government involvement in the area of medicine. "I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system. I do want Republicans and Democrats to come together to support a bill that focuses on the poorer children." I dont think this is a wise decision since the private companies are out of the control of the government. Even if all the children in America are in dire need of health care, the private companies, ideally, should not feel compelled to provide for them. As the government, on the other hand, by noting it's responsibility over the children of America, should provide for them. All in all, I feel that health care is more important than money, and that one can never buy the worth of human life, and thus should make efforts to preserve it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home