• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Colin C. Case of Highlands Ranch writes:

Many people have chastised the President for vetoing the huge increase in the program that provides Health Insurance for “poor” children. Originally the program was created by the Republican Congress to address the needs of those families who simply could not afford health insurance for their children.
Now congress is wanting to make this program available to people who have incomes as high as $80,000. Those who criticize the President should take a careful look at the Federal Budget. If they did they would find that nearly two-thirds of the current budget is for assistance programs (Social Security, Medicare, and other assistance programs). They would also find that when the boomer generation peaks in its use of Social Security, the amount needed to fund just this one program will equal nearly 20% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The entire Federal budget has over the years been at or below this percentage of the GDP. So, ask yourself, if politicians continue to add “assistance” programs to a budget that is already soaking up two-thirds of the budget, who is going to pay for all of these new programs let alone the ones we already have? How will all of the other items in the Federal budget going to be funded in the future?

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Colin, Colin, Colin,

Your premise is shot from the get go:

Originally the program was created by the Republican Congress to address the needs of those families who simply could not afford health insurance for their children.

Wrong. The program was started to cover working Americans who can't afford health insurance, but make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid. The new proposal simply covers more children in the same predicament.

So it's back to the drawing board with your argument Mr. compassion.

CB, your absolutely right and there are some questions about the 80K. I don't know how it works nor do the republicans who attack it. Typical parlor trick played by the republican heads in order to protect their insurance industry cash cow.

It has been reported there are six states that have more adults covered than children. Is this how the program is suppose to work? You Dems keep preaching about how SCHIP is suppose to protect the children. Bush has stated when 90% of the children have been covered then he will consider expanding it. The Dems knew he would Veto the bill they send him, this is nothing more than a political ploy by the Dems.

Send Bush a bill that covers and gets enrolled 90% of the currently eligible children and he will sign it.

jgd77,

I haven't heard about the six states but then again I don't watch Fox News. I wouldn't put too much stake in it though, sounds a lot like creative accounting. As far as Bush signing the bill if 90% of eligible children sign up all I can say is "when pigs fly". No way will Bush or anyother Rep. president sign a bill that will take money away from insurance companies.

leftside,

Fact is, in Michigan 71% of the recipients of SCHIP benefits was paid to Childless adults. New Mexico came in at 52% This data comes from the Department of Health and Human Services. Maybe you should stop getting your information from Moveon.org.

Bush said he would renew and even increase SCHIP by 5 billion dollars but would not expand it to include any new groups until 90% of currently eligible children were covered and enrolled. This has been stated on many news outlets, guess Moveon.org miss that one. Does this surprise anyone with a half a ounce of brains?

Only the un-educated and or corrupt have chastised the president.

jdg77,

I explained my position on the figures and Bush's promise in my previous post.

No, I don't visit Moveon.org's site.

Yes, I am a liberal.

What I am not is a Loyalist and Keith only a Loyalist would not chastise this president.

Everyone who gets elected to public office must be highly scrutinized, constantly. And we must be acutely aware that if they get wrapped up in the status quo of political life, they also may fall into the swamp of special interest's influence and the money they spread around the halls of congress to get what they want. If they do they are, ipso facto, no longer our representatives and should be removed from office.

This applies to all public officials, including the President of the Unite States. It is the proper and constitutionally justified job of taxpayers to protect their investment in this country by demanding strict accounting of where our money goes.

To say that any politician is above such questioning and regulation is to deny your duty as a citizen to understand that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. This is not lightly said nor is it a catch phrase. It is a fundemental truth. If freedom, justice and liberty are to survive, those rights must be jealously guarded and defended at all costs by We The People.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is not just a saying, it is a truth proven by history.

When we elect people to represent us we are required, if the cherished freedom, justice and liberty we have been endowed with by the Constitution of the United States of America is to long survive, to be unforgiving of any attempt by them to undermine those fundemental rights.

POST A COMMENT

• Gore a world-class snake-oil salesman
• Gore a world-class snake-oil salesman
• Warming a real threat
• Denver, mayor reward incompetence
• What a sorry bunch of politicians
• Dems should take new look at fiscal votes
• Unworthy comment
• Al Gore & Nobel Peace Prize