Only four times in seven years that malevolent whore occupying the Oval Office has used its veto pen, twice to impede medical research, once to brush off the mildest restraint against the Iraq invasion and occupation, and this last time to limit access to medical care for children. One has to wonder at the extreme deformity of mind that can produce decisions like that. There's a sort of magnificent gall in claiming this latest bill would "increase government involvement" as being a "bad" thing by an adminstration that has enlarged the biggest socialist program in the history of humankind, a wholly government operated security function (that has failed spectacularly under this administration's supervision), and has sought to give itself unlimited, unfettered increased power unrestrained by the other two branches of the government, let alone any restraint by the people of the United States. But most disturbing of all is the complete lack of comment, particularly here in Fred's, where the slightest politial developments are dissected down to their atoms by knives, scalpels and rhetorical grenades. What gives? Mark Baird Alameda CA
I considered a post yesterday, but actually feel so close to the issue that I don't think I can be reasonable about it. This is such a disgusting abuse of power, example of how politics influences decision making, and the strength of political (aka Tobacco) lobbies that it makes me ill. There are so many positives about this bill both short term and long term and no serious legitimate negatives that the blatant abuse of the veto here deserves a resounding bipartisan override. Indeed it may be the only thing that gives the republicans a prayer in the '08 elections...to show that the can come together to stop the disgrace of the White House. Some 86% of US citizens and bipartisan support of congress isn't enough for Bush to realize that this is a situation where he needs to be smart enough to act like he's supported this from the start. Worse yet, the Dept. of Health and Human services head honcho came out and acted as a mouthpiece for Bush...it's sick, truely sick.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Oct 5 2007, 12:04 AM) [snapback]521558[/snapback]</div> Yup. And he gives me a massive headache, so I just sometimes don't want to talk about him.
The lack of postings might be my fault. Concerned that there would be a flurry of political rantings overwhelming Fred's and sparking several flame wars, I posted a photo of Alicia Silverstone as a distractionary tactic. Honestly: if you had to choose which would you rather have?
He started the day with the veto to expanding healthcare coverage for children, then flew here to Lancaster, PA for a small intimate town meeting. First thing off the plane he presented an award to Kennedy Kulish, a 10 year old girl who had started Kisses for Kaeden (her brother) and raised $48,000. for children's medical research. Is this man twisted or what?!? PA P
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA Prius @ Oct 5 2007, 08:48 AM) [snapback]521660[/snapback]</div> I am not fully informed on this bill. What was the level of coverage the bill was supposed to extend to - what level of income was to be covered?
You can craft a letter specifically on this issue and have it sent to your congressman and senators at http://www.democrats.org/RejectBush The one I wrote yesterday is reproduced below (and yes, it's frankly over-the-top and melodramatic, but I was pretty angry). To Rahm Emanuel (D), Richard Durbin (D), Barack Obama (D) Subject It's as simple as Scrooge Message This administration has enough money to give tax cuts to the richest 1% of americans. It has enough money to give tax cuts to oil companies while they're earning record profits. It has enough money to pay an army of mercenaries 6 times the salary of a regular soldier in Iraq. And it evidently has enough money to fight that war, and keep enriching companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, well...indefinitely. But it doesn't have money for sick kids. This is as simple as Scrooge. You remember that story. When the rich man give some money to the sick child's family, Tiny Tim lived. When he didn't, Tiny Tim died. Don't kill or allow to wither all those faceless and nameless Tiny Tims this bill would have helped. Overturn President Bush's veto. Don't let this country be governed by Scrooge.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 5 2007, 09:05 AM) [snapback]521664[/snapback]</div> Doctor, if you want the nitty gritty on the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, H.R.976, you can read it at <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.976:>. Briefly stated it was to add coverage for the children of the working poor, i.e. those who are working at lower paying jobs, are not covered elsewhere by health insurance, but are earning too much to be eligible for Medicaid. The $$ would have come from an increase in tobacco tax. PA P
Bush is being very consistent: War kills kids. When you wage a war kids are going to die, so going to war demonstrates a willingness to kill kids. The bill Bush vetoed would have saved kids' lives. Clearly, the bill runs counter to everything Bush stands for and believes in. He had to veto it. Why didn't anyone raise the subject sooner? Because killing kids is so much a part of everything Bush stands for (and so disgusting) that the veto was a foregone conclusion, and the actual veto itself was not news. As for the very low number of total Bush vetos: the Congress in his first four years was controlled by his own party, and his own faction of that party, and the current Congress is such a bunch of gutless wonders that they haven't given him anything he needs to veto to continue having his way.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA Prius @ Oct 5 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]521678[/snapback]</div> Evan, It is my hope and understanding appropriate action will be taken David cc: Evan Fusco, MD <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Oct 5 2007, 09:05 AM) [snapback]521665[/snapback]</div> What was President Bush's objections? What level of income did it cover through? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 5 2007, 09:43 AM) [snapback]521682[/snapback]</div> Abortions kill over 1 MILLION Americans each every year and he has not attempted to stop that?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 5 2007, 08:55 AM) [snapback]521689[/snapback]</div> It expanded the program to help more working families who don't have insurance. I suppose if the program had only covered the richest 1% of Americans, President Bush would have had no objection. The actual benefit of the SCHIP program is well documented, especially the way funding it actually SAVES money, in a study by Brigham Young University published in Pediatrics: This study shows that cost containment strategies that result in disenrollment from Medicaid or SCHIP programs can be expected to increase care at expensive sites, including EDs and hospitals, and decrease care that is received in physicians’ offices. Such changes in site of care not only will increase health care costs but also will aggravate current community problems of ED overcrowding and inpatient bed shortages. The total number of ED visits and inpatient days can be expected to increase as well as the amount of uncompensated care that is provided by hospitals and EDs that serve as safety net providers when Medicaid/SCHIP-insured children disenroll.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Oct 5 2007, 10:10 AM) [snapback]521699[/snapback]</div> Please, I am asking two simple questions that i do NOT know the answer too--- what was the President's objection and to what income level was the proposed plan going to cover through?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 5 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]521721[/snapback]</div> Oh, you know he didn't like that it offered help to more families. Can't have the government helping people, can we? Or can we...Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 5 2007, 07:38 AM) [snapback]521721[/snapback]</div> Dr. Berman, the participants in Fred's are not your maidservants. The answers to your questions are easily obtainable with a few minutes spent in Google. Do a your own homework, then frame your argument in a more considerate fashion: "Bush objects because .... and the income level is ... and I agree (or disagree) for these reasons." Then we can constructively respond to your argument (which may involve doing homework ourselves). But this constant badgering and hectoring us to do your research for you is one of the things that irritates people enough they, in exasperation, abuse your screen name. I really believe if you showed respect and consideration, not just for correspondents here but in general (e.g. the constant, tiresome, B. Hussein Obama, Billary, and other juvenile name-calling) you wouldn't find yourself running to mommy (as you do a few posts up) every time someone makes the entirely natural mistake of thinking you're a vicious canine. Mark Baird Alameda CA
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 5 2007, 07:38 AM) [snapback]521721[/snapback]</div> Horse manure. Stop pretending to be dumb. You are a medical doctor, after all, and this is a hot topic in your professional community. If you read a newspaper, listen to radio, watch TV or have access to the internet, you know the answer. Even if, by some remote chance, you did not know the answer, you could have found it in a nanosecond by doing a Google search. Your debate style on PC stopped being amusing long ago. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 5 2007, 08:05 AM) [snapback]521734[/snapback]</div> You left out his latest gem. He now refers to the Jewish governor of New York as Herr Governor Elliot Spitz, implying that he is a Nazi. P.S. Berman, if you are still playing dumb, the President's objections are based in a lie:
David, Bush claims that the 35 million is excessive and not needed (no data to support that, but that's his claim) and that this is an underhanded tactic by the democrats to start the process of universal health care. It isn't, but if it was and it was proven effective and popular wouldn't that be a good thing. This costs nothing to tax payers, has the potential to reduce future health care costs if fewer people choose to smoke due to the higher tobacco tax, creates a healthier population of children who will require less goverment funded health care for more serious advanced diseases and is more likely to create a healthy adult population in the future. Bush said he'd negotiate and proffered a $5 Billion plan....what a total joke.
The cap for coverage would be 3X the national poverty level so $61,950 for a family of 4. This would not be for all states but only for some states such as New York and California that had applied for and been granted a higher cap due to higher cost of living. The President objected to the bill because in his view it the cap was too high and expanded the program beyond its original intention of helping poor working families. In his speech he also made a mistake and quoted an earlier version of the bill which had a cap of 4x the poverty level. He said is his speech something to the effect of “I don’t know about you but, $82,600 doesn’t sound like poor to me.†President Bush also specifically objected to the program on ideological grounds as another step toward government provided healthcare and also objected to it being funded by a sixty-something cent tax per pack on cigarettes. So in a nutshell his objections are: The cap is too high. It costs too much. Government should not provide healthcare coverage. The program should not be funded by a cigarette tax.
My apologies to Dr. Berman. I thought I had deciphered your screen name, but I was wrong. Sorry! PA P
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 4 2007, 11:22 PM) [snapback]521538[/snapback]</div> It could be that people are just over it and waiting till 2008, since complaining really isn't doing any good... Just my thought/ 2 cents :mellow:
