Bush to Veto Health Care Bill

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920548/

Discuss.

Personally I think its bullshit. He says its too "costly". The plan would be under $100 Billion, which is less than 1/5 of what we he requested to spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

It seems like a great Idea... espically since they are only taxing cigarettes. I don't understand that man named Bush sometimes...

 

The fuck with George Bitch--I mean Bush... enough said.

Lol, jk. Before I say anything, let me see if I get it. He wants to stop childrens insurance because it is too costy for the government? If that's true, then I have to say this:
He needs to stop spending so much cash on the war, like you said. He needs to make congenial decision. What I mean by that is that these decisions he is making about the war isn't acceptable.
Also, could someone tell me why our soldiers are fighting in Iraq? Most people didn't like their ruler like Saddam Hussein. I doubt most Iraqi citizens think terrorist-like. Sorry if this is off subject of this thread, but I really want to know.

 

I mean hell yeah tax the cigarettes. I mean if they don't like it then guess what, don't smoke and pollute our air and restaurants.

 

It's sad, how most of you have the IQ of a dog, and don't even understand politics. All you hear is it will help children and Bush said no to it, so he must be an idiot, and you must be brilliant for coming up with that conclusion.

Wrong. The basis behind his veto was not simply that it would be too costly. He is also trying to make a point, that the government shouldn't be taking people who have private insurance and moving them to federal funded insurance.

He also is pointing out that he doesn't want a federal funded insurance for public people who can easily pay for private. This tax would include people who aren't insured, meaning, they may have the money to be privately insured, but they choose to basically piggyback onto the new bill and get free health care.

Secondly, adding a 39 cent tax increase on cigarettes, although I do not like smoking at all. It still wouldn't be fair to them either.

Please people, before you post, actually try to understand the reasoning behind both sides. I'm extremely tired or I'd post where the Democrats are coming from aswell, maybe I'll edit it in tomorrow.

G' night.

 

^wat he sed
(except for his insults towards dogs... I like dogs )

 

*Note*: When I say "you" I refer to all of the people who feel the way about what I'm talking about.

First off, THANK YOU... but as Cruel__Machine said that's mean to dogs.

Now to add onto it:

• The bill would have insured people who earn up to (as I recall) $82,500 per year.
  -Since when is $82,500 not enough money?
  -Liberals are trying to spead government controlled health care to the middle class.
  -As much as they love to talk about how great it is because it's for children, it extended to people up to 25 years of age.
• Nice try on social health care.
  -Social Health Care is the worst idea ever. There is no way to keep taxes from raising if you do this.
  -See point #6.
  -People point at countries like Cuba where this works great... remind me why we don't just change our governmental system to be like Cuba?
  -Because it SUCKS. Their doctors are horribly trained. They have no motivation to try hard. They are desperate for doctors because someone can earn the same amount of money being a janitor. No (if any) medical breakthroughs (i.e. cancer, AIDS, etc.) that compares to ours.
• It would cost too much.
  -Thats right. Whine about the war in Iraq and how we can get rid of that. Here's an idea, if we do end it, how about we get a ax break rather than just re-spending it? That's like living in poverty but because you are used to that low income you just throw the lotto payout away.
  -For a few hundred thousand dollars, I'd guess we can fix a few buildings in the Katrina area? Did you forget about that or did you just decide to ignore it while you complain about something new?
  -Lets cut things like NASA... hey maybe with 17 Billion dollars we could buy a few school books or help Michigan out?
• For claiming the Government is into so many conspiracies, you're handing them your control of your health.
  -As much as I'd love to let them decide whether or not to fund the tube that will one day feed the guy that made up the "Loose Change" theory, our government can be incomitant and have loopholes which I don't want my life riding on.
  -The point of the US government is as little Government control as possible. Why would you let them control something this big? You might as well save yourself 20 years and move to China.
• One more thing for people to fight over in terms of illegal immigrants.
  -When does someone qualify for this health care? Do you get it the second you come across the border? Is there a certain amount of time? Way to create one more problem on a heated issue.
• If you're an idiot, you pay.
  -If you start smoking at age 14 and you develop lung cancer by age 20, I'm not having the over 30% income tax (between state and fed) be raised to pay for something that was your fault.
  -If you choose to climb a tree with no branches and fall, you have a lot more problems than a broken arm, yet I am expected to pay for it.
• Just because Hilary is a woman and the media loves her/the bill doesn't mean its right.
  -As much as I love to see Hilary Clinton (a major advocate of this bill) ring her cash monkey of a husband and ignorant people instant dislike of George Bush, I have a theory. She might be wrong. I know its a newconcept, but something tells me just because she married someone that had an actual movement to be impeached in the House and isn't of the same political party as Bush doesn't mean she's automatically right.
  -Compare the number of people who dislike Bush when they hear a story on MSNBC composed of the words "Bush, Medical Care, Poor Children, and Veto" and a few other filler words to the number of people who bother to go online to look up why.
  -And you say Bush talks like an idiot... <Insert Infernal Dave's Entire Post Here>.

It was a bad plan that was supported because of people's dislike for Bush. I don't like most of the things he did, but I bother to get my own opinion and know why rather than just hear MSNBC's "One Second While I Wipe The Liberal Off My Lips" news broadcasts.

 

Well guys, here is the problem. Even if the bill WAS accepted, it wouldn't do any good. My dad is a doctor, and along with all the other doctors, he has staff. If this bill was passed, it would pay doctors not enough, so little, they would actually lose money. This is if you caculated the amount of money it costs to staff a doctor's office, and the amount the doctor was getting paid. Sure you may be able to get into a little crapy city clinic, but nothing more then that.This sounds selfish and it is in a way, but it's business.

 

It's sad how America is the only country with these sort of problems with health care. Anyways Dorito said it perfectly. With the passing of this bill, so many people who can afford insurance would take advantage. The solution is for the bill to provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first.

 

I can't believe people are stupid enough to agree with this free health care.

 

complete bs if you ask me...

 

I agree, after all, this free heath care is just a scheme to make the Democrats look good.

 

Or make the Republicans look like the bad guys.

 

Sadly, it appears the War in Iraq has already done that.

 

I think that this is one of many stupid decisions that President Bush has made since he was elected. We now spend around $1000 a second in Iraq, and yet you say that it would put us in to much of a debt. What we need to do is get our soldiers out of Iraq and use the money that we would be wasting there to help health care, social security, and our economy.

Just one more little thing I've noticed, nobody, not even republicans, are supporting President Bush anymore.

 

No, that made all of the US look bad, seeing as most people were in favor.
And the war's continuation only makes Bush look bad. Or at least it should... I suppose weak-minded folk would relate him to the Republican party...

 

It wasn't a stupid decision, and it was bound to happen. I'd rather have it happen now and how it did, rather than later, when even more lives would be lost.

Why do you call the money put into the war a waste? I'd also love to hear your source on the $1,000.00 USD a second fact.

Once again, your, not even republicans are supporting Bush statement made you look like a total idiot, as the republicans are backing him 100% in just about everything, if not everything.

Lastly, people keep saying, we need to just get the troops home, and end the war, bleh, bleh, bleh. What I'd like to get across is that WE CAN'T JUST LEAVE.

After all we have put into it, it'd be wasting all the time we put in there, and all the lives that have already been lost in fighting for what we are doing.

We are so in entwined in this issue, that it's not a question of is it still the right thing to do anymore. It's a question on how to get it done effectively.

 

First and foremost, you just brought this into Iraq Magikgoat. If you want to make a topic on that where myself and Dorito can own you be my guest, but future replies should kep to health care.

Just... no. What you're saying if there is a tax cut, you might as well just keep paying the same amount because you're already spending it. If we do the idiotic thing and pull out of Iraq, then GIVE US A TAX BREAK. And where did your $1,000 a second fact come from? Please tell me it doesn't start with a "y" and end in an "-our ass".

I live in Michigan, which because of the (Democratic) Governor Granholm we are in financial crisis, the worst state economy in the US. Credit to her, it is not all her fault. The auto industry is so we all suffer here. However, she chose to do a government shutdown until we RAISED taxes and she isisted on keeping the $2,500 increase (From $1,500 to $4,000) in state College aid she passed when our economy was falling. We are already starting to see statistc that say we are going downhill even faster than before. Hey, for 100B dollars how about you buy my school enough textbooks so more tha 50% of our classes that need them have them?

Many candidates propose that to pay for this, we would raise the cigarette tax. Well, there are two ways it could go. Maybe more people would pick up smoking because whatever health treatments they would need are paid for, or as many of the candidates for this option have pointed out "It will cause less people to want to smoke." If less people are smoking, then how will you be paying?!?

Especially in terms of that last sentence, other than Ron Paul (to my knowledge) no candidate (and no candidate that is mentally sound in general) is for us pulling out of Iraq right away. Rudy Guiliani who has (had? - haven't checked lately) been leading the Republican polls, is for staying long term. If anything heats up in Iran, wouldn't it be great to a) have troops in the area, b) to have an ally n the area we can launch more troops from and c) someone running our country who doesn't listen to MSNBC like its the gospel, grew a pair and said hey, Congress is worthless and never agrees on anything, so I will. Your statement that Republicans back him shows how ignorant to the facts you are.

And what kind of message would be sending if we pulled out? Hey, people who lost a limb, lost a family member, or LOST THEIR LIVES, I know you gave all of that knowing exactly what you were commiting to and felt pride in saving people from a dictator, but, so many people are sad that we are making cruel dictators stop killing people so pack up your napsack, and enough planes are right there so we can just load everyone up and fly away in one happy trip. Just, NO.

News flash buddy, Congress DOES have the power to pull the troops out and both houses have a DEMOCRATIC majority. Here's the thing, it is obvious that enough people agree on us sticking it out that all they do (like usual) is talk and do nothing.

Before you diss someone, get the facts strait. Bush was 100% correct going in there. Many complain about how "Saddam never attacked us, the terrorists did." Ya, if you want to go through all of those mountains and find Osama by all means go for it. Otherwise, realize that if we could nab him I'm sure we would and stop complaining. Anyways, its almost as good, they are both peas in a pod creating fear, nuclear weapons (according to reports that at the time even caused MSNBC saying a few pro war comments), financing/sheltering the people (or type of) who DID attack us on 9/11, etc. He killed over an estimated 300,000 people during his regime. If you're getting Deja Vu on another war we went into when someone else attacked us, you're tight. FDR (a DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II after Pearl Harbor. Japan attacked us, yet our initial focus of fighting was Germany and then Italy. I seem to remember a large number of people being killed for no reason under that regime too (and no, I'm not trying to say that the numbers or horrors of WWII are the same as Iraq, only both were cruel and senseless wastes of life). From 1941 when we first got involved to 1945 when it "ended", over 450,000 lives were lost.

Truman (ANOTHER DEMOCRAT) was president at the end of that war, and started another one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us (nor did any terrorists funded by Koreans, probably because they didn't exist). We went in there because of the massacre and turmoil there, and that at the time the people in the UN the people were more concerned about having stones than kissing everyone elses. From our initial involvement in 1950 to when we left in 1953, over 55,000 lives were lost.

John F. Kennedy (No, way, is this... no... it can't be another DEMOCRAT? Aww, sounds like the people that say the Replublicans are doing this should back the "No Child Left Behind Act" a bit more...). Maybe you should stop saying all Republicans are bad because of Bush not only because it makes no sense, but also because the Democrats have him 3-1) entered us into the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam nor any Vietnamese terrorists ever attacked us. Johnson (Hey hey, another DEMOCRAT who could have "pulled us out" like so many ask for now) turned Vietnam into our first "lost" "conflict". From his reign during the conflict, 1965-1975, over 58,000 lives were lost.

Clinton (wait a minute... is this another Democrat?) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia (and once again any Bosnian or Bosnian funded terrorists) never attacked us. He was pretty much offered Osama's life multiple times and yet he didn't take it. What happens when we let people go?

In the time since we were attacked, President Bush (a REPUBLICAN) has brought peace to two countries, liberated one country, crippled al-Qaida and the Taliban into secrets video tapes from mountains (which nobody even cares enough about to air on the fact they're around on the news), put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea, AND removed a cruel dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his people.

Breaking news: MSNBC and most other news channels can be WRONG and BIASED. I know it may hurt, but if you bother to get the facts you may see a baseless, ignorant statement and stop yourself in time.

Hehe, that made me lol. People not being too ignorant to see that they could have been one of the many pro war people, and not blaming either the Republican party or Bush... if people were that smart it will be harder to get a job...

 

I think I love you. Someone who actually goes the extra yard and goes in depth on his points.

Now I feel bad I didn't go into it deeper myself, and as you said, let's keep this on health care for anyone else who feels the need to go into and off topic about the Iraq war.

 

Haha, I'm sure there are so many of these that you can't keep doing it for each one. This was my first and I had lots of the facts from a paper I wrote for Civics class, so it was a 10 minute cut and paste job warped based on the specific "foolish (in a non flaming way)" statements. I just saw that this was the tip of the iceberg and Shredderbeams leaves a lot more to argue with. And its on topic, hah.

Anyways,

Health Care. What I'd like to know from those of you nuts who say the government has too much control now, why are you for handing them control of your medical treatments and health? They could easily pass a law later that says you don't get paid for after 70 because "you're almost dead anyways and its costly".