Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2007 at 1:19 pm

The vetoed bill was to provide insurance for children, not health care. No one lacks health care in this country, nor has anyone in my lifetime. The many diverse ways that care was distributed gave us the best health care in the world. Tha vetoed bill would have been just one more tax disproportionately levied on the poor that it was proported to help.

Posted by Facts, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2007 at 11:27 am

As I just posted on the latest rendition of Elaine's post...this was vetoed because the "poor" who would qualify make up to $80,000/year, the "children" are up to age 25.

Anna Eshoo et al..stop it. Support a bill that is for the poor and the kids, and then you will get it. It is YOU, Anna et al, who have put the truly poor and true kids at risk of losing some health coverage here, not Bush. You are just mad because it is the first time he has used his veto pen at all for anything the Democrats have wanted in health care or education. It is never enough, is it?

No thanks. Political maneuvering pure and simple in the never ending push toward govt taking over all health insurance. ( The same people who complain the loudest about the bad way govt manages every other health insurance plan we have ...like Medicare...want govt to do it for ALL of us???)

Posted by yet another parent, a member of the Escondido School community, on Oct 4, 2007 at 11:40 am

Is that $80K income figure attached to family size?

Posted by Anna, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2007 at 11:54 am

The 80k is for a family of four.

The real problem with the bill is that may families with children currently covered by private insurance will be incentivized to switch to the government funded insurance by the bill. The CBO says that about a third of the newly convered kids will be in this category.

This is problematic for at least two reasons:

First, with all the other needs of the poor, it seems unwise to be spending money for insurance coverage people are obtaining without taxpayer help.

Second, I think in the long run the incremental approach to full government control of our healthcare system is unwise. If we're going to have a single payer system (or other heavily government controlled system), it's much more likely to be effective if it is dont with some sort of overall plan...not step-by-step, which this bill is a part of.

I'm no fan of Bush (and even laugh a bit at this opportunity to bash him by the demonstrations Elaine E is organizing). But he's probably doing us a favor by vetoing this bill.

Posted by be real, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I am completely appalled at any assumption that we even need "national health insurance" because it is all so expensive.

Look at Kaiser..they just sent an ad out that an entire family, no matter how big, can get decent coverage for $500/month. Any one individual, depending on age, can get coverage for as little as $75 per month.

This, in an era of $75 monthly cell phone bills, $100 sneakers, $3.00 coffees.. tells me that coverage is NOT too expensive for the vast majority of Americans. It is only that 1) people are unwilling to prioritize their spending and 2) people want much more than they are willing to pay for, and they believe that they will "get more" if "the government" pays for it.

If Kaiser isn't good enough for you, then there is no way any govt run plan will be.

Posted by good grief, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Oct 4, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Since when is $80,000/year for a family of 4, "poor"???