Bush and healthcare





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Bush and healthcare
By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 02:16 pm: Edit

I've been doing some research based on conservative claims that Bush has nothing to do with the rising cost of healthcare or the problems with our economy and I would like to share them...they are, of course, up for debate.

Though I can't truly say that Bush is single handedly responsible for the rise, many of his policies and attitudes add to the problem.
Starting with medicare: The changes Bush has made to medicare promise reform which would give seniors more choice and more affordable coverage. Though the sentiment is nice...it's just not working out that way. Because private health care is so expensive, many seniors still don't have a choice. ANd yet, because of rising costs the coverage they have from former employers may be dropped or made more expensive. Also, many on a fixed term government plan may lose theirs. The price of the prescription drug benefits could possibly deplete medicare, and that's not worth it. Bush assumes that private health insurers will take advantage of the competition and create more affordable plans. But, that's not necessarily true. There are even many conservatives who are criticizing this plan.
Notice that in Bush's speech at the convention, when he mentioned the benefits he has made for certain groups in healthcare, he did not mention seniors. Also the cost of these changes in a budget that is out of control is irresponsible.
Finally, an article in the Wall Street Journal estimated that bills related to these expensive Medicare changes could create an additional unfunded liability of 7.5 trillion or $25,ooo for every AMerican.
The number of uninsured rose 1.4 million from 2002 to 2003 with a net 5 million uninsured between 2000 and 2003. Some may say that this in not Bush's fault. But in evaluating a president, you look at what has happened in the country while he is in office. That's one of the few ways we can evaluate given all that the public is just not privy to.
Finally, it is outrageous how Bush has treated veterans concerning healthcare. The very people he was willing to send to battle in a war that is arguably unjustified are people that will one day be vets. Not to mention the current vets who have put their lives on the line for our country. Examples: Bush pushed to close many veteran hospitals and succeeded in some instances. He proposed (not sure if it happened) an annual $250 annual fee increase in drug copayment.
Essentially, he has asked vets to cover their own healthcare to make up for budget shortages partially caused by a war that he has asked future vets to fight in. IT's unacceptable.
Please respond.

Note to mom101: I don't know why the moderator criticized you in the Ok Ok Kerry thread. There were people who were much more rude and offensive than you. Maybe you are right that this site as part of the elite academia world is also biased and squelching conservative views. Maybe I will be banned for saying this. But, despite our differing opinions, I support you and appreciate your intelligent comments and if you are still around, I hope we can continue our discussion.
Squiddd

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 02:38 pm: Edit

CC, and academia in general, is conservative??? haha.

By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit

I find it interesting to see the words Bush and healthcare in the same sentence.

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Yachityack: IF you re-read my post more clearly, I stated that CC and academia are liberal and possibly squelching, which means stopping or censoring, conservative views. As of late, I am in support of a more liberal view, but that doesn't mean that I think it is OK to ban someone partially based on their less popular views.

Alongfortheride: I agree...Bush and healthcare put together is some kind of oxymoron as my above statements are evidence to.

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 05:29 pm: Edit

squiddd:


Sorry, I didn't read carefully.

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 09:31 pm: Edit

I agree that mom101 is the most intelligent voice on many of these topics. A victim of Dem trashing just like conservative thinkers at my school.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 10:44 pm: Edit

I am a libertarian, so I can't even really say I adore the idea of medicare to begin with (which may sound crazy, but I have reasons.) I will be voting for Bush, but I have to agree that perhaps he hasn't fulfilled his promises regarding these issues and I think Squiddd's claims are perfectly reasonable.

But, perhaps Bush did intend on fixing these issues, but they had to be put on the backburner after September 11th (cliche, I know, but work with me.) Perhaps whoever was in office during 9/11, regardless of political affiliation, would not have had the ability to get around to issues that were not as drastic as global terrorism.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 11:11 am: Edit

Finally, it is outrageous how Bush has treated veterans concerning healthcare. The very people he was willing to send to battle in a war that is arguably unjustified are people that will one day be vets.

This is factually wrong. Bush has increased spending on veterans health benefits more in 4 years than were done in the previous 8 years. The Democrats are spinning half-truths and lies when they try to paint Bush as being anti-veterans.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 01:08 pm: Edit

you're right, bush hasn't cut off any veterans, but his administration is actively trying to put a damper on the growth of spending. you cite the years of the previous administration, but our country was not at war under clinton. it is irrelevent. veterans have called for mandatory funding that the bush administration will not give, and john kerry has endorsed it. this would allow middle income vets without service related disabilities to continue signing up for the coverage. while the bush administration wants to do away with a drug co-payment for very low income vets, they are actively trying to double it for the rest! as well, they want a 250 dollar annual fee. veteran organizations have asked for much more than bush is delivering, and even bush's secretary of veteran affairs sadly claimed that the OMB gave him 1.2 billion less than he requested for veteran spending.

i'm going to vote for a candidate who wants to help our veterans, not price gouge them.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 02:51 pm: Edit

People will always ask for more than what the government can afford - that's a fact of life. As a candidate, Kerry can promise anything (and he has done so); however a president has to make choices. The issue of war vs. peace is irrelevant since the veterans under the Clinton administration are essentially the same as the vets under the Bush administration. The botton line is that their benefits went up substantially more under Bush. This is apparent from the support from the vets for Bush rather than Kerry.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 03:54 pm: Edit

the war in iraq alone has wounded well over 7,000 to date and it can easily reach 10,000 by the end of this year. these are all veterans who will need health care and didn't 8 years ago. you continue to attack clinton when he has nothing to do with this. welcome to 2004 and stop whining about clinton. you also criticize kerry for making promises. why don't we elect him president and then see how he performs instead of making baseless statements. we already know that bush is a poor leader, and we know what he is trying to do to the VA health care: he says one thing but does another.

By Poetsheart (Poetsheart) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 02:14 am: Edit

Our Veterans have been seeing the steady erosion of their promised health benefits (as well as many other benefits) over the course of many years, and it's a crying shame. This erosion did not see a temporary cessation under President Bill Clinton, and so too, has G.W. Bush failed to step up to the plate and fulfill the moral obligation that our nation clearly owes our fighting men and women. John Kerry has talked a good game during this campaign, just as ALL political candidates do when trying to convince voters to pull the lever in their favor. But it's deeds, not words that matter. No one would be more thrilled than me if, as President, John Kerry, along with the Congress of the United States, would actually DO that which they have promised for our Veterans. However, I'm not holding my breath. I think it's far more likely that Kerry will do nothing, or allow the erosion of Veterans benefits to continue, all the while, enjoying a ready contingent of liberal apologists, willing to excuse his lack of action, or blame "a republican congress" for somehow having tied his hands.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page