Bush Is Prepared to Veto Bill to Expand Child Insurance

[Dave]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/washington/15child.html?ex=1342152000&en=c056687392859d9c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

So Dems and Reps both push to increase health coverage for children. And one of the problems is that some people will not buy commercial health coverage? "Let's not give kids health coverage because the health insurance industry will lose some money"? That's just wrong.

I've worked in both a children's hospital and in medical bill collections. Dealing with gov't programs like Medicaid (the national gov't health care program for those who need it) was just fine. The person needed medical treatment, they pay for it. Dealing with commercial insurance sucks for all involved. They will do anything and everything to keep from paying. It's just the nature of the beast, they need to put their bottom line first, and the wellfare of the patients second, NOT the kind of thinking I want when dealing with the health of a person.

Anyway, I just needed to toss that out.
_________________
"Addiction can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed."
-Clango, Diesel Sweeties
===
I (heart) Hanners of Questionable Content.

[Dipsosis]

I'll toss you out, you commie rat bastard pinko!

But really, he's lost touch with reality. W. is still behaving as if he still had a Republican Congress and and 70% approval rating. Any president who vetoes a populist goal backed by bi-partisan sponsors is acting on pure rhetoric. It's not even like he still needs to answer to the big business lobby; he's not running again (thank the Almighty Lord!) It's not even going to cost much, as expenses would be largely offset by punishing cancer stick consumers (sorry Joel, and other smokers )

[Zeke]

All that means is that my ill habits are going to pay for my own health coverage right?
_________________
Anyone who says money can't buy happiness doesn't have enough money.