My Challenge to the President

I want to make sure you see the latest video from Families USA, one of the most important advocates in the ongoing battle to protect children's health care.

Families USA is part of the broad, bipartisan effort that achieved a solid initial victory last week, when both the House and the Senate approved a bill extending and reforming the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Unfortunately, President Bush vetoed the bill.

Earlier this week, a group of children pulling little red wagons went to the gates of the White House to urge the President to sign the bill, because it's so vital to good health care for the nation's children in the years ahead. I hope very much that President Bush and Congress will hear and heed their plea.

Apparently this President's priorities aren't the same as mainstream America's:

He says the bill costs too much. But for the price of one day in Iraq, we could cover 256,000 children. One week would cover 1.8 million children. And just over one month of the Iraq war would cover the full cost of the bill and insure 10 million children for a whole year.

Because the current SCHIP program falls far short of meeting the need, hundreds of thousands of children have lost their coverage on President Bush's watch. It's incomprehensible that the President would threaten to veto legislation that corrects this serious problem.

There's one thing President Bush and I do have in common, though - American taxpayers cover 72% of our health care premiums, because current law has long-permitted good insurance coverage for federal employees.

So I ask President Bush and the Members in Congress who support his veto:

Would you deny your own family what you'll be denying to millions of other families if this bill is vetoed? If you don't believe the federal government should support children's health care, how can you in good conscience accept it for your own families?

All Members of Congress have the peace of mind that when their children are sick, they can afford to take them to the doctor. Why doesn't every American family deserve that peace of mind?

The President's veto will have terrible consequences - just look at the faces on the Families USA video. It's time everyone understood what those consequences are.

That's why so many of us in Congress - Republicans and Democrats alike - are fighting so hard for this bill, to keep the faith with the millions of children who are counting on us for the healthy start in life that every American deserves.

Comments

[mikeeforthetruth]

The "R"s (and I don"t mean Republicans) are trying to destroy our (human) way of life

"I seem to be living in a nation that simply does not know what freedom is."
John Whiteside Parsons

truthseekerforum.com

[moderationsmuse]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least some of the funding for the bill would come from a cigarette tax? If true, there's a reason to veto.

Please note: I'm not defending the President, but I'm not willing to be a pushover for Senator Kennedy's version either.

I disagree with President Bush's notion that we use private insurance companies. Private insurance has become a purposeless middle man between doctors and patients. Private insurers aren't providing services so much as denying services and ciphoning money from medicine into paperwork.

But I'm not going to be intimidated by Senator Kennedy's appeals to sentimentality. I am a parent, but offering medical care to children while denying it to their parents or to adults generally doesn't strike me as wise policy.

And funding medical services through taxes on persons addicted to cigarettes strikes me as short-sighted and cynical public policy. If it funds children's care, God forbid that people stop smoking!

Cigarette taxes shouldn't be funding anything medical except lung cancer treatment and smoking cessation programs. That way should the cigarette tax revenues dry up, need they satisfied will have disappeared with them.

[dadw5boys]

I challenge the President to release all information collected since the year 2000 thats does not related to terrorist.
ALL INFO!

[hsk01945]

Talk about expanding health care for poor kids without demanding that Bush be denied Iraq war money, is disingenuous. The Democrats in Congress must stand together on the Capitol steps and tell the world, "We aren't going to take it anymore."

Bush and Cheney should be facing impeachment and war crimes NOW. No more phony talk about bi-partisanship. And, if you fail to act - just wait until 2008. Most true Democrats will stay home, or vote an independent ticket.

Just imagine a Kucinich-Paul independent ticket!

[MoreWarDems4aDraft]

We are fighting a War, there are terrorists at our door, the children must learn patriotism, sacrifice and what it means to be an American.

Health care can wait, health care is useless if terrorist take over our Country, these children need to be good soldiers and suck it up. There will be time for health care when we win the war on terror.

[darker]

Everything is a challenge to this president, GWBush. He's dysfunctional, unable to handle anything without lying, cheating, destroying, killing and then some.

Bush is a hopeless mess who has been propped up by cynical, hateful, opportunistic republican zealots
who would love to DESTROY AMERICA and replace it
witha FOR-PROFIT FASCIST state.

[gems]

I just can picture was goes on in the President's mind. Do you want to know? IRAQ...IRAQ...IRAQ...That's all. Doesn't care about us.
Gemma

[research]

BushCo really really really does not care what you say!

Stop listening to them and start fighting them Edward!

[birddog]

Do not negotiate with Bush on this bill. Continue to call him the heartless sob that he is. He is willing to blow 12 billion/mo on Iraq with the mistaken belief that he is saving his and Cheney's legacy while another 1500 troops die. In 18 mos. this will pass on to the next pres. who will have the guts to get out as the situation will be exactly as it is today, just a lot more dead. The Bush-Cheney legacy is and will be as the worst duo in world history.

[JohnKemp]

It might not hurt for these people that the Dems wish to greatly expand this coverage to include think about getting a job & buying health insurance rather than flat-screen TV's & new cars.

And besides, if the states want to "cover" them, then that is each state's perogative.

Corzine, Schwartznagger (sp?) et al are hysterically criticising Presdient Bush for not doing what they refuse to do themselves.

[granny one]

"Buy" health insurance John???? For parents of children who are REALLY sick and REALLY have medical problems, they cannot BUY health insurance. Our health insurance system is market based and for profit. Insurance companies will not insure sick kids. What planet have you been on all your life?????

[deminmo]

A lot of states are cutting any programs that provide health care. After attempting to pay for about $1700 in medical expenses without the benefit of medical insurance, believe me the last thing I need is a flat screen TV!

The mood of people in the last 20 years seems to be if you can't get it, steal it. If you got it but don't want to pay, cheat. Maybe if everyone could get whatever they call the "American Dream", there would be less cheating.

[truth101]

Senator Kennedy is certainly one of the best informed and brightest of Senators, second only
to Senators Boxer adn Schummer in basic intelligence and the gift of public speaking.
It is therefore surprising to hear him speak of
'good conscience' with reference to members of Congress who will go along with the PRESIDENTS'
VETO. They are able to do so because they are
mainly --- and Senator KENNEDY KNOW THIS -- represenastive of those financed their campagnes
and talk of
CONSCIENCE
IS
ENTIRELY
OFF THE
TABLE WHEN IT COMES TO AN ETHICAL
SYSTEM OF MEDICINE.

[Ryokan]

400 years ago in Britain and across most of europe
there were alms houses for everyone in need in any village of any size. The local aldermen administered and tithes from the church helped. To call this principle "socialized medicine" is as nonsensical as their ignorance of history.

[Robert59]

I put the same challenge to my military (active and retired) coworkers. Their answer is they earned it. Part of the contract. What about the free care their families get? It was part of the contract.

Wouldn't you like everyone to have access to that same kind of healthcare? They can go and buy it. But it's unaffordable? Tough.

What about the workers who had it as part of their contract? UAW, Delta are just two examples. Tough. Their medical costs are breaking the employer.

But it's part of their contract. And unlike your employer who merely prints more paper when his expenses exceed his receipts theirs doesn't have that same luxury.

Silence. Then they mumble something about socialists trying to take over the country.

That's the face of compassionate conservatism, heartless. I sent the same message to George Will about how great my medical coverage is and how I wish all Americans could have that same coverage. No response.

What I've found is Republicans hate anyone who wants to feed at the same entitlement trough they consider theirs. Unlike the rest of us, theirs is an owed entitlement, earned by the sweat of their brow or their intellectual genius, or their love of country. The rest can go screw themselves.

5 trillion dollars later you can see what Bush and his supporters are all about, sucking the taxpayer dry.

[moderationsmuse]

Robert59

Your comment: "What I've found is Republicans hate anyone who wants to feed at the same entitlement trough they consider theirs," is an example of how name calling wrecks discourse.

Cut through the generalities and stereotypes. If you've got an idea, say it.

As an Air Force brat, I went through the military medical system as a child and have seen my elderly parents go through it also. It's changed into Tricare now for non-active duty military retirees, but it's still a good provider of medicine to people who were willing to put their lives on the line.

Perhaps it should be the model for nationalized health care. I have no idea what the projected cost of such a program might be. And it would of course impact physicians and patients who resist giving or receiving care in a bureaucracy.

For instance, I recall some very, very long waits when I was a youth, and one amusing era of being shifted from one waiting room to another before eventually seeing the doctor. But I also saw a standard of care that saved my elderly dad's life a couple times and I met some terrifically dedicated physicians over the years.

I voted Republican and currently live with health insurance from month to month. Maybe next month we join the uninsured. So perhaps you should rethink your stereotyping.

But some kind of public consensus needs to happen if the problem is ever to be solved, for in the meantime we have a great medical infrastructure that many people are finding impossible to afford.

[granny one]

Rob, the UAW is not an employer...you must live in "la, la land."

[slmncty]

Sorry, Yes they are.

[Robert59]

Granny,

I know UAW is not an employer, but it's the organization that negotiates (collective bargaining) with the manufacturer(s).

The point I'm trying to make is I don't dispute medical costs put business at an economic disadvantage. What I find irritating is public servants to include the military see nothing wrong with their 100 percent taxpayer funded medical care being continued in spite of the government running huge deficits while big business and the employee are supposed to suck it up.

Why not apply the same rules to government employees as we want business to apply to its employees? The government is in the red so it's time to make cuts. First thing to cut is medical care. Tell the employees to pay it out of their own pocket.

If that ever happened you'd see universal health care tomorrow.

[benalbanach]

"Incomprehensible"....You see here is the problem.The word is too large for your president to unnerstan .You need smaller words and bigger print. Good luck !

[Fightnmad]

(DISCLAIMER: I debated long and hard before posting this, and to make it clear to the powers that be, I am in no way advocating a violent overthrow of this government. This is my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.)

Do any of you remember this article by Leonard Pitts, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Miami Herald?:

http://shop-money-time.com/911/id5.html

Every time I read this, I resolve once again to do all in my limited power to not let any harm come to my beloved country and Her people.

And even though this is an open letter to the terrorists who lead the 9/11 attacks on America, I could, at this point in time, easily speak these words to the obstructionist legislators who rule our nation and further oppress the American people.

To feel any less about societal issues that so often stomp on the little guy, is to be wholly Un-American. That "little guy" happens to be MY brother and MY sister. And if there's one thing that was instilled in me from birth, it is to always stick up for the little guy, you know- "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Jesus' Golden Rules epitomizing God's love for humankind.

Republicans (and spineless Democrats) WILL reap what they have sown. All leaders know that to repudiate We the People, is to do so at their own peril, as countless kings have learned.

With power comes accountability and responsibility. This is not a novel concept, but you couldn't tell from the leadership in our nation for the last dozen years.

The higher the pedestal upon which you sit, the longer and harder is the fall. You're going to wish there were people down below to catch you.

[deminmo]

Accountablity. Integrity. Two words most in Washington don't seem to know.

[RobertH]

These people, the "Decider" himself, and those who support his veto, are allegedly Christians. Well, they're exposing their own hypocrisy. They do not care what Jesus would do. They would rather render unto the insurance companies what they believe is rightfully theirs. Disgusting.

[Overd0g]

I doubt that Jesus would have robbed Peter to pay Paul, and then claimed it was "compassion".