Bush to Children: Drop Dead

On so-called philosophical grounds, President Bush opposes health care for children. A bipartisan group of Senators want to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $60 billion over five years, covering 3.3 million additional low-income children. Bush will only except half of that, saying "when you expand eligibility...you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government."

So the President is for children's healthcare--as long as we don't spend too much on it and private insurance companies reap the benefits. Anything less will prompt a White House veto.

That came as news to conservative Republicans Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley, cosponsors of the Senate's bill. "It's disappointing, even a little unbelievable, to hear talk about Administration officials wanting a veto of a legislative proposal they haven't even seen yet," Hatch and Grassley said on July 12th. In a follow-up release yesterday, they called the President's proposal a "non-starter."

[UPDATE: The Senate Finance Committee voted 17-4 today to reauthorize and expand SCHIP, in defiance of Bush.]

This is what Bush's presidency has been reduced to: vetoing legislation to help poor children.

SCHIP is not the only successful government program Bush opposes. "I believe government cannot provide affordable health care," he said yesterday. I guess he forgot Medicare and Medicaid.

Comments (69)

1. I wish the Congress would get this bill through ASAP and dare Bush to veto it. It would be yet another gift to the Democratic party for the 2008 election. As if the Dems needed anymore gifts, but I'm sure they'll take it if he's offering.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 07/19/2007 @ 11:27am

2. "I believe government cannot provide affordable health care," he said yesterday.

   And the "free" market has proven incapable of providing affordable healthcare.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 07/19/2007 @ 11:29am

3. Why does Bush hate children?

   Posted by BlueTexan at 07/19/2007 @ 11:31am

4. BERMAN: Bush will only except half of that, saying "when you expand eligibility...."

   There maybe a several reasons for Bush's "half" support such as offsetting budget cuts elsewhere to pay for this....

   One thing Bush is absolutely correct is in pointing out the perils of expanding "eligibility".....this is exactly how well-meaning social engineering/welfare programs grow, grow and grow, and grow some more until the dependency group becomes the tail that wag the dog!

   Posted by Happy at 07/19/2007 @ 11:33am

5. Posted by HAPPY 07/19/2007 @ 11:33am

   "this is exactly how well-meaning social engineering/welfare programs grow, grow and grow, and grow some more until the dependency group becomes the tail that wag the dog!"

   I think you meant war spending and how it just grows and grows, until the military industrial / mercenary group becomes dependent on it. Right?

   Posted by BlueTexan at 07/19/2007 @ 11:36am

6. Posted by BLUETEXAN 07/19/2007 @ 11:36am

   Just to make you a bit HAPPY, my fellow Texan, yes, that too! Each has its own advocates with less than noble purposes....profits and votes as the usual `carrots'!

   Posted by Happy at 07/19/2007 @ 11:42am

7. Posted by HAPPY 07/19/2007 @ 11:42am

   I think healthcare for children is about healthcare for children, not votes.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 07/19/2007 @ 11:48am

8. Theory vs reality.

   Faith based vs reality based.

   Posted by crabwalk at 07/19/2007 @ 11:48am

9. i'm suprised bush wouldn't support this--healthy poor kids would grow up to be good strong cannon fodder for his (their) megalomaniacal vision(s)

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/19/2007 @ 11:49am

10. I think healthcare for children is about healthcare for children, not votes.

    Posted by BLUETEXAN 07/19/2007 @ 11:48am

    follow along, Blue. It's about profit. Always about profit.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/19/2007 @ 11:49am

11. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 07/19/2007 @ 11:49am

    I am trying not to be a curmudgeon...but...

    Follow along Frosty, we don't need fodder anymore. Rummy has proven that a fast, lean techno-force can get the job done in weeks, maybe months. Certainly not years. Or decades.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/19/2007 @ 11:52am

12. Uh, it's not just about "the kids"...

    "Some states have received section 1115 demonstration authority to use SCHIP funds to cover the parents of children receiving benefits from both SCHIP and Medicaid, pregnant women, and other adults."----wikipedia.org

    Posted by Mask at 07/19/2007 @ 12:02pm

13. And the band played on.

    The Democratic Party will push for some sort of system which will be dressed up to serve "the kids". In reality it will be a transfer of wealth from all taxpayers largely to corporate coffers.

    Meanwhile the Republican Party will rail against the system saying it's inefficient.

    In the end the owners of both parties get want they want.

    1. Further wealth transfer from taxpayer to corporate profits

    2. Continued illusion of democray.

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/19/2007 @ 12:20pm

14. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/19/2007 @ 12:20pm

    So what's your plan, FREEDOM?

    Seriously, if those are your views, what's your future scenario?

    "Wait for the inevitable collapse/Second Great Depression...then watch REAL progressivism re-emerge?"...or "save up for a move to Toronto"?...or what?

    Posted by Mask at 07/19/2007 @ 12:26pm

15. Mask,

    I've told you before...quite a few times.

    Until we radically change the election funding process things will only get worse.

    It isn't the 1970's anymore.....there isn't any unions left in the country. That means all the election money comes from the same place.

    This is the point where you now go off on screeds about the 1st ammendment and how do you determine who should get election money yada yada. In otherwords, you're happy that the band keeps playing.

    Meanwhile....yes I'm saving for Toronto.

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/19/2007 @ 12:44pm

16. It will take a very large lever to force any sort of change.

    Posted by ZERO 07/19/2007 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person

    zero, you are not incorrect in these posts, but change will come gradually and incrementally. as I have pointed out, we will have to choose imperfect candidates, to replace the truly awful ones, who are in power now. there are no, and never will be, any saints in politics, or elsewhere for that matter.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 1:12pm

17. ya' know, if i were CEO of a big insurance company, i think our next take-over bid would be for kraft foods, general mills, maybe mcdonalds--something like that. that way we could sicken the people and deny them coverage all at the same time, all topped-off with a nice haveaniceday smile.

    to freedomplease: if you're saving for toronto, you'd better come fast. viceroy harper and his conservative party (just as the liberals before them) are letting the public healthcare system die so that the people will clamour for a "better" (i. e. private) system, thus making their buddies in the insurance industry happily extra-richer-est. add on a growing disparity between classes, inner-city blight and a influx of u.s. guns and you've got a recipe for st. louis, washington d.c., detroit, philadelphia, etc.

    and yes, campaign funding reform is a necessity. but just as pressing is a change in the campaign itself--how about a ban on advertising for political purposes (ooh, that smells like communism!!)? make these candidates address the people directly, talking about issues of importance (for example healthcare) instead of 30-second sound-bites saying "my opponent slept with a horse"

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/19/2007 @ 1:18pm

18. Personally I think this is very revealing. It shows that Bush knows exactly who is constituency is, corporate donors.

    My guess is he is hoping to modify Article II Section 1 of the constitution to read;

    Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the rights of my corporate donors."

    Comments From Left Field [commentsfromleftfield.com]

    Posted by Goose3five at 07/19/2007 @ 3:28pm

19. As the prophet Molly Ivins said, Bush will try to do for America what he did for Texas.

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/19/2007 @ 3:42pm

20. In otherwords, you're happy that the band keeps playing.

    Meanwhile....yes I'm saving for Toronto.

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/19/2007 @ 12:44pm

    No, FREE, I'm not happy. But the Constitution is pretty clear on free speech, especially since it was primarily written to be "free POLITICAL speech". And unless you are going to impose censorship of the air-waves, impossible now even with the "We the People own the air-waves" 1930s thinking...since most people are watching CABLE and not broadcast television...and an increasing number are listening to their radio on satellite and Internet.

    "Big Money" was actually MORE involved in our political process back in the "Good Ol' Days". Despite the Tillman Act of 1907 (banning direct corporate contributions), "Big Money Guys" like newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, Joseph P. Kennedy, and William G. McAdoo (who took kickbacks during Tea Pot Dome)...were major supporters of Franklin Roosevelt. Hearst, hated by the Left and mocked in "Citizen Kane" was a staunch New Dealer and wanted Roosevelt to be a total populist, regardless of Constitutionality.

    The problem is one of perspective. The Left (like yourself) want America to become some Euro-socialist entity, basing our economy, tax rates, and government largesse on the French, German, Scandanavian models. And, given your post-1960s "We want it NOW!" mentality, anything less than "Revolution, Day One, Hour One" from a poltical candidate or party means "It's over, America is finished!"

    Same thing from the Right...though they've gotten a LOT of what they wanted from Bush. The Religious Righties thought "not enough" when it came to trying to ban gay marriage, no evolution in schools, and anti-choice judges and justices.....they wanted the whole thing or else "America has fallen into abject and irretreivable degeneration" ("Left Behind" really took off during Clinton...watch for a resurgence of that "Rapture" stuff if Her Nibs takes over in 2008).

    Both sides see "Ultimate Doom!!!!!" (5 exclamation minimum) because they're not getting 100% of what they want. "We're not even getting HALF of what we want!"...yeah, yeah. Well, you will...half and you'll still complain. Hillary will work out SOME kind of universal health care eventually (or a Republican will pull a "Bill Clinton" and get one passed while "triangulating"). "Big Oil" will pay a bit more, but not 90% windfalls or "nationalization".

    BTW, don't think you'll be "safe" in Toronto if things "really do" go to Hell. If it really did...the next President really would be a "dictator" (not the hyperbolic label thrown at Bush) and a good LOCAL invasion of "lefty-pinko Canucks" would be just the start of things!....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/19/2007 @ 3:45pm

21. As the prophet Molly Ivins said, Bush will try to do for America what he did for Texas.

    Posted by NATHANHALE 07/19/2007 @ 3:42pm

    Not sure you want Molly's "prophecy" to come true, NATE. After all, when Bush left the Governor's Mansion in Texas....

    another Republican took over as governor!

    Posted by Mask at 07/19/2007 @ 3:48pm

22. I recall Dick Cheney once saying, "If people are poor, they must have done something wrong." That kind of faith underlies everything the Bush/Cheney administration does. Pardoning a wealthy buddy while not even looking at cases of people sentenced to death for not being able to afford a good lawyer. Sending modest-income people to their deaths in Iraq and never even considering the possibility of sending rich people's kids as well. Giving trillions in tax cuts to the rich (who presumably have done everything Jesus wanted) and cheap but poisonous trailers to Katrina victims. The list goes on. And now children? Well, if they're too poor to have health insurance, "they must have done something wrong."

    Posted by hans bavinck at 07/19/2007 @ 4:01pm

23. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/19/2007 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person

    a saint, and a constitutional scholar too.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 4:14pm

24. "In the end the owners of both parties get want they want.

    1. Further wealth transfer from taxpayer to corporate profits

    2. Continued illusion of democray.

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/19/2007 @ 12:20pm

    Actually , you also will get what you want..

    3. Health care for you paid by some evil rich person

    4. Huge transfer of wealth from private hands into govt coffers in return for well intentioned but horseshit service at a higher and higher cost.

    Posted by john maasch at 07/19/2007 @ 4:26pm

25. I think you meant war spending and how it just grows and grows, until the military industrial / mercenary group becomes dependent on it. Right?

    Posted by BLUETEXAN 07/19/2007 @ 11:36am

    According to Robert Samuelson, 55% of tax revenue goes to welfare programs and only 19% to the military.

    Stinkin' "welfare-nonindustrial complex."

    Posted by usc1 at 07/19/2007 @ 4:37pm

26. Stinkin' "welfare-nonindustrial complex."

    Posted by USC1 07/19/2007 @ 4:37pm | ignore this person

    I wish to starve the military industrial complex, so we can drown it in the bathtub. did I get that right?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 4:40pm

27. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/19/2007 @ 4:46pm | ignore this person

    yes, I've heard that, but in regard to federal expenditure of health care, that horse left the barn long ago.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 4:49pm

28. I am with Bush on this, perhaps for a different reasons. I would like to see a universal health care for all citizens, including children...but taxing tobbaco companies to achieve this objective dishonest. Why not also tax fast food restaurant or any other bad products. In my views, it is a stupid way to do it. And, why not insure everyone, why just childrens? Dont adults who have to work and raise families need health care too? Are we goind to have separate programs for different segment of the population?

    Posted by kevin99999 at 07/19/2007 @ 5:04pm

29. I wish to starve the military industrial complex, so we can drown it in the bathtub. did I get that right?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/19/2007 @ 4:40pm

    You better bone up on your Arabic then.

    Posted by usc1 at 07/19/2007 @ 5:06pm

30. a non sequitur, C1

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 5:07pm

31. The other torrid piece to Bush's idiotic opposition is his outright support of Big Tobacco. He stated his objection to increasing the tax on cigarettes as providing the funding for the SCHIP funding. This would have provided an incentive for the reduction or elimination of tobacco use. So Bush is against children and for nicotine addiction - he opposes allowing the FDA to regulate nicotine as a drug. His sycophantic HHS secretary Leavitt is contorting himself to voice support for Bush's disgusting pronouncements and threats.

    Posted by Nequals1 at 07/19/2007 @ 5:07pm

32. Kevin

    In general, it's a badf habit to impose taxes to try to influence people's behavior.

    Posted by usc1 at 07/19/2007 @ 5:09pm

33. Kevin, I agree completely. these "sin" taxes are a way for cowardly politicians to avoid raising taxes. I object to gov't lotteries for the same reason. the gov't should not be in the business to fleece the rubes.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 5:10pm

34. USC, the arab threat has been ridiculously overstated. what have the "jihaidst" accomplished, apart from a handful of commando raids? they hold no territory, they have not destabilized any gov't. get a grip on reality.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 5:12pm

35. JR

    It wasn't meant to be taken seriously...just like I did not take your post seriously.

    Posted by usc1 at 07/19/2007 @ 5:27pm

36. "Big Money" was actually MORE involved in our political process back in the "Good Ol' Days".

    Posted by MASK 07/19/2007 @ 3:45pm

    MASK, Are you kidding me? How do you figure that Big Money is less involved in the political campaign process. Look at the amount of money being thrown into the campaign war chests of these candidates. Millions of dollars. The money is just laundered through fake tax exempt organizations to support the candidates that they like.

    The tax exempt organizations that really get me fired up are these churches that front as churches, but really just keep the right wing neocons in line. For example, look at luuvy. He goes to church every sunday and spews his political rhetoric disguised as religious beliefs. Whether or not he believes in God is up to him, but when he starts pushing his political views via on his congregation, he crosses the line. I think if church folk get to congregate for political purposes tax free, then maybe it's time to make a church for non-believers and make that tax-exempt for us to congregate and mobilize voters the way the right wing churches do. Why doesn't the IRS shut half of these church/ campaign centers down or remove their tax exempt status? Half the churches in the South are nothing but GOP campaign centers. Oh, and by the way, these churches donate money right back into the campaigns for the politicians they wish to see elected.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/19/2007 @ 5:48pm

37. Posted by USC1 07/19/2007 @ 5:27pm | ignore this person

    regardless, my point stands. the islamic threat has been widely exaggerated.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 6:35pm

38. Good for Bush for vetoing unnecessary legislation that would have brought us closer to socialized healthcare under the guise of helping kids.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/19/2007 @ 6:37pm

39. Bush is threatening to veto it, I mean. My bad.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/19/2007 @ 6:43pm

40. I guess I should expect unreasonable titles to articles on here, since this is a liberal web site, but really..."Bush to children: Drop dead"? The White House is not saying that, literally or figuratively. Pretty inflamatory, albeit incorrect.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/19/2007 @ 6:47pm

41. Posted by NEQUALS1 07/19/2007 @ 5:07pm

    Sin taxes are nannyesque, discriminatory bull-shit.

    Why did we allow big tobbaco to lie under oath, for years. And now, people who knew smoking was bad for them, are suing the perjurers, who never went to jail. It is insane.

    Tobacco is produce.

    Alchohol is rotten fruit/grain.

    Show me a compelling government interest (Healthcare) first, then start worrying if everything I do is healthy. We're doing it backwards.

    (For the record, smoked for 32 yrs., quit about a year ago. I no longer smoke, but I still reject discriminatory taxes. Besides, these folks are addicted. If you raise the price to $10 a pack, they will still buy them. Sin taxes do not reduce consumption. They are a subtle form of class warfare, like vagrancy laws and PD laws.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 07/19/2007 @ 6:52pm

42. Half the churches in the South are nothing but GOP campaign centers. Oh, and by the way, these churches donate money right back into the campaigns for the politicians they wish to see elected.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 07/19/2007 @ 5:48pm

    I didn't know there had been a study on how many churches were GOP campaign centers.

    I think most of the people at my church are conservatives, and I'm guessing lots of them do vote Republican. However, I can tell you that what is preached over the pulpit there are moral issues, without any espousal of candidates or ballot issues. And many people would rather not even talk about politics at all. The people who vote are voting their conscience, and if it happens to be that most of them support Republican views over Democrat views, then so be it. But no one is telling me how to vote at my church.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/19/2007 @ 6:55pm

43. I think if church folk get to congregate for political purposes tax free, then maybe it's time to make a church for non-believers and make that tax-exempt for us to congregate and mobilize voters the way the right wing churches do.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 07/19/2007 @ 5:48pm

    Actually, I agree with you, in a way. People should not be "creating" churches and religions for the purpose of becoming tax-exempt entities.

    On moral grounds, it is deceptive, self-serving, and dishonest. On religious grounds, there is no salvation in some man-made organization with no true authority from God. On legal grounds, they are purposefully breaking the law in order to promote their cause and save some bucks.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/19/2007 @ 7:55pm

44. BERMAN: ....Senators want to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)....

    Driving around at lunch, the one "on Loan from God" went into some details on this SCHIP issue....For what it's worth, the part I heard from the Loaner:

    - The expansion of elgibility includes `Children' up to Age 25!

    - The expansion of elgibility includes families earning FOUR TIMES the poverty incomes!

    IF these are in fact what have been proposed, small wonder Bush reacted to the expanding "elgibility"!

    Posted by Happy at 07/19/2007 @ 7:56pm

45. Posted by HAPPY 07/19/2007 @ 7:56pm

    You don't need Limbaugh to figure that one out, HAPP.

    Hook, crook, or "for the children". The point is obvious...to create a nationalized health care system. When honest, "progressives" ADMIT that is their goal. When slightly DIS-honest, it's "only a program for kids, not everybody, why do you want CHILDREN TO DIE!!!!"

    Then it gets expanded to pregnant women, parents who want to sign up for it, and eventually "Oh, why not just everybody?"

    But, as I've said so many times on other "health care" threads....they're going to win. Health care is so broken now, that the ONLY "solution" will be a nationalized system....which the proponents will deny til they're blue in the face will be "Government control" (as if the Fed is just going to pass out checks, no questions asked, no service too small OR too big).

    "But it works so well in Europe!!!!"....yeah, well...we ain't in Europe....or Canada...or Norway (where they're getting pissed about high taxes....in Scandanavia!?!!?!).

    Doctors will flee the system, hospitals will become what SCHIP clinics are now (over-crowded...look into it), and none of the rich politicians or pundits will be waiting for services like the rest of us "fairly and compassionately UNIVERSALLY covered" folks will.

    Posted by Mask at 07/19/2007 @ 10:21pm

46. This man(and I use that term very loosely)is a racist, elitist, incompetent, amoral, I-D-I-O-T. Why are we not flogging him (and well, that "DICK")in the town square? I don't believe your fore fathers -mine were slaves, and wouldn't of had a forum to voice displeasure- would have tolerated this study in bovine excrement. Why are we?

    Posted by Bush PhD at 07/20/2007 @ 01:14am

47. Bush: Failed President Tries His Hand at Philosopher!

    Bush is the spawn of Satan. IMPEACH NOW Madam Speaker!

    BloggerRadio [bloggerradio.com]

    Posted by BloggerRadio at 07/20/2007 @ 01:32am

48. One thing Bush is absolutely correct is in pointing out the perils of expanding "eligibility".....this is exactly how well-meaning social engineering/welfare programs grow, grow and grow, and grow some more until the dependency group becomes the tail that wag the dog!

    Posted by HAPPY 07/19/2007

    Then what is Bush's alternative for those children?

    Besides, since when is health care for children "social engineering"? This is about the government actually responding to a palpable social need and we all know that insurance companies are not going to provide those services for free otherwise we would not have 47 million Americans without health insurance.

    There are times when the government must lead the fight to help those in need because private business does not have the incentive to do so. It is the government that can provide the necessary leadership.

    Health care as social engineering. . . no wonder we don't have comprehensive health insurance.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/20/2007 @ 09:45am

49. I think the prez is sore because his plan for private accounts went nowhere. He ought to give up the ghost as it is clear Americans don't want privatized social security or private health accounts.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/20/2007 @ 09:47am

50. HH, the aim of the Bush mis-administration has been to steal our bundle. where do you think all that money for the war goes? to the defense contractors of course. same with the tax cuts.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/20/2007 @ 11:36am

51. Corporations can do it at higher cost, more overhead and with more stock options for the top, than can the citizens that work for the people by the people.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/20/2007 @ 11:54am

52. Corporations can do it at higher cost, more overhead and with more stock options for the top, than can the citizens that work for the people by the people.

    Posted by CRABWALK 07/20/2007 @ 11:54am

    Then, logically, you favor EVERYTHING being run by "the citizens that work for the people by the people", since to allow corporations to run ANYTHING means we will suffer "higher cost and more overhead".

    And if you don't favor that, then you don't believe what you just wrote.

    So which is it?

    Posted by Mask at 07/20/2007 @ 12:24pm

53. privatization is nothing more than inserting a middle man into the transaction. and of course the middleman gets a big slice.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/20/2007 @ 12:26pm

54. Posted by MASK 07/20/2007 @ 12:24pm |

    I believe you have too much time on your hands. Maybe a job would help.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/20/2007 @ 12:58pm

55. JOHANNESROLF,

    Yes, privatization means making things "for profit" because somehow if it is for profit it becomes more "efficient."

    Of course, what is left out of the efficiency discussion is that it is "efficient" not to provide health care to people who cannot afford it.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/20/2007 @ 1:08pm

56. Corporations can do it at higher cost, more overhead and with more stock options for the top, than can the citizens that work for the people by the people.

    Posted by CRABWALK

    Exactly and the name for that is "clientelism."

    We want to make citizenship into consumerism.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/20/2007 @ 1:09pm

57. Posted by CRABWALK 07/20/2007 @ 12:58pm

    So, you don't really have an answer or WANT to answer my question?

    I understand.

    Posted by Mask at 07/20/2007 @ 1:23pm

58. Then what is Bush's alternative for those children?

    Posted by HHEMWM 07/20/2007 @ 09:45am

    I would think, the same "alternative" as existd under his predecessors. Do you wish me to list them?

    I don't recall Bush 43 running on a health care platform.....not that it isn't important to tackle at some point. But since Bush had 9/11 dumped on him, and given the difficulties of the aftermath (yes, Iraq, Afghanistan, Hamas, Lebannon, and on and on), plus the `drains' of dealing with a hostile opposition party (worse since Nov. `06), no one seriously expect Bush to put any political capital (what little he has) into BIG healthcare/social welfare programs masquerading as SCHIP!

    Posted by Happy at 07/20/2007 @ 6:28pm

59. How about "Faith Based Healthcare" ? Bet he'd be ok with that.

    Posted by jmonday at 07/20/2007 @ 7:25pm

60. Posted by MASK 07/20/2007 @ 1:23pm

    I'll stick with my answer.

    You can make what ever you want out of my post, you usually do, with all of your spare time.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/20/2007 @ 7:33pm

61. FEITH based health care.

    We will use false information to create our own reality.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/20/2007 @ 7:34pm

62. No, MASK, I don't think Dougie Feith is Satan in primate form.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/20/2007 @ 7:35pm

63. Old W is on his narcissistic path unwavering with no compassion or even sense of what a poor child is. I am really proud of those folks who forced that bill through. Let W bask in his own ignorance and antipathy for the least of those we have. My only hope is that this veto will drive down the like-minded with him.

    Posted by niehbur at 07/20/2007 @ 8:19pm

64. "So, you don't really have an answer or WANT to answer my question?

    I understand."

    Posted by MASK 07/20/2007 @ 1:23pm

    I'm sure you do understand, that there was no real response, to your non-sequitur.

    Do to their semantic nature and your seeming joy, when things seem hopeless, most don't care to answer your questions.

    Mask caught Plungey in a lie! Everybody pat mask on the back or he'll keep whining.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 07/20/2007 @ 9:01pm

65. Note to Editor; it should be "Bush will only ACCEPT half of that", not "except".

    Posted by jstiel at 07/21/2007 @ 12:08pm

66. Sounds like someone's a little anti-Bush to start. Come on. Bush doesn't hate children. There could be tons of reasons that one piece of legislation got vetoed. For instance, it could have something else tagged onto it. It could have some influence on taxes. The money might not have been going to the right place. There are tons of organizations that say they help kids, but abuse the money that they are given. If you're not 100% sure of something, don't put it in the title and try to get people on your side. This is not unbiased and unvarnished news, if there is such a thing anyway.

    Posted by Jesuslives at 07/21/2007 @ 12:55pm

67. In answer to the question "Why does Bush hate children" one could only guess that had he fathered any children of his own without use of test tube of petrie dish or surrogate his attitude might be somewhat different.

    Posted by tucanofulano at 07/21/2007 @ 12:56pm

68. when I underwent this procedure last year, which my insurance did pay for, with a co pay of course, my doctor also recommended an endoscopy, the oral version of the probing, also paid for. I asked him that if he was using the same equipment, would he please do the endoscopy first.

    I came out of anesthetic sleep, to see, on a big screen TV above, the inside of my colon, complete with polyps being lassoed and clipped. I felt no pain or discomfort at this point. I told the doctor I was sure he was just playing a tape, since I felt no invasion.

    there is another test, a sigmoidoscopy, which peers only into the near colon. take the test, man, take the test sistah.

    L'chaim.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/22/2007 @ 10:38am

69. It is truly amazing that a chimp that states that Jesus is his favorite philosopher could even have a philosophy which would allow children, or any other person for that matter, to go on suffering

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 2:18pm