Friday, September 19, 2008

Financial Health Versus Children's Health

Please help me out here. Bush vetoed the Children's Health Insurance Program fearing that the legislation could add $35 billion over five years.


Jack said...

What's to understand? The financial sector does not benefit from a Childrens' Health Insurance Program.
Maybe a few insurance companies may benefit and maybe the health care industry may gain some little bit, but the kids? As Bush might say, though not in public, "Screw them." My best guess is that the parents of the children that would be targeted for such a program are not registered Republicans.

jimbino said...

Bush is sensible. In these days of food, water and energy shortages, not to mention "global warming," how can a policy be justified that raises taxes on non-breeders for the benefit of brood each of which greatly increases a woman's carbon footprint while not adding anything to an economy that can get potty-trained and ready-to-work laborers from our southern neighbors?

Anonymous said...

Get with the program Mike, $35 billion for kids simply can't be spared when we need an additional $700 billion (and a debt limit increase) to purchase toxic garbage from so many well managed yet accidentally impoverished "u.s." financial enterprises.

If kids are lucky, they will be allowed to contribute unpaid labor to the greater good of debt service. We shall chain them and work them to their graves.
What reasonable system would not seek to deepen its own retrogression?

[WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- U.S. lawmakers began hammering out legislative authority on Saturday for the Bush administration to undertake a sweeping, $700 billion rescue of the American financial system.]