Bush Vetoes Child Health Insurance Plan

Oct 3rd, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- President Bush vetoed a bipartisan bill on Wednesday that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

The White House sought as little attention as possible, with the president wielding his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.


And yet, when it comes to finding money to kill children in Iraq, somehow that's always available.

Fortunately, knowing that he'd promised in advance to fuck over poor children if the congress DARED to try to give them medical insurance, several states -- recognizing that in matters involving heartless pissant prickiness, he's a man of his word -- went ahead to object:


Monday, October 1, 2007

(10-01) 17:59 PDT East Orange, N.J. (AP) --

Several states said Monday they would challenge the Bush administration in federal court over its new rules that block the expansion of a health insurance program for children from low-income families.

Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Washington are joining in the litigation, either as plaintiffs or by filing supporting briefs.

The states object to rules issued by the Bush administration in August that make it harder for them to provide coverage to children in middle-income families by limiting the total income of families who participate.


The only possible logic to this is that Bush, having fucked up everything from the Middle East to our Economy and everything in between BEYOND ALL POSSIBLE MANAGEMENT is determined to have a Democratic majority controlling everything, so they can be blamed for HIS WAR.

So my question is this: if, after the 2008 election, the Democrats, benefiting from Bush's entry into the "Meanest Man in the World" contest, find themselves with an overwhelming majority of, say -- a Democratic president, 300 members (out of 425) in the House of Representatives,
and 75 members in the Senate --





My cynical guess is that they won't.


eXTReMe Tracker