1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

And all this time I've been told Bush doesn't care about the poor.

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Refman, Oct 26, 2002.

Tags:
Page 1 of 3
  1. Refman

    Refman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66766,00.html

    NEW YORK — A bill President Bush signed Saturday will help expand community health centers around the country and will give more Americans quality health care, the president said Saturday during his weekly radio address.

    Bush also promised to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

    Bush has set a goal of creating 1,200 new and expanded community health centers by 2006. These centers provide prenatal care, checkups and preventative treatments to anyone who walks in the door. They serve an estimated 1 million people, mainly in remote areas and inner-city neighborhoods.

    "If Congress funds my budget request for these important health centers, we can help an additional 1 million Americans get health care in 2003, and 4 million more by 2006," Bush said.

    Bush also on Saturday signed a bill aimed at providing faster access to safe and effective medical devices such as sophisticated pacemakers. Bush said because the Food and Drug Administration is overwhelmed with the volume of new medical technologies to approve, delays in getting the devices to market are becoming more frequent.

    "Under the new law, we’re going to speed up and improve the approval process," Bush said. "The entire nation will benefit from a faster approval of lifesaving innovations."

    Under the legislations, companies that make these devices will have to pay a fee to the FDA. The money will go toward hiring more staff to conduct the reviews at the agency within a shortened time frame.

    Earlier this week, Bush said he would try to put more reasonably priced generic drugs on store shelves. He said his administration is working to set new limits on how much time it can take to approve generic drugs. He said Saturday that currently, brand name drug companies are using "legal maneuvers" to extend their patents and delay the approval of generic products.

    "By reducing the public’s wait for quality generic drugs, we will reduce the cost of prescriptions in this country by more than $3 billion each year," Bush said. "These savings will help employer health plans, state Medicaid programs and seniors who buy medicines on their own."

    The new rule, similar to legislation that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, will limit drug makers to a single 30-month extension of their patents -- provided under the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act -- rather than allowing drug companies to reapply for copyright status based on minor alterations such as the drug's appearance.

    The president rejected the generic drugs bill that had passed the Senate with more than three-quarters' support from the body, saying that it created unacceptable liability provisions.

    Patents on several top brand-name drugs, including Zocor, Paxil, Flonase and Cipro, are set to expire in the coming months.

    But Bush cautioned Americans that there is still much work to do in the area of health care reform. He congratulated the House for passing a prescription drug benefit bill that will help senior citizens and for trying to fix the medical liability system that spikes the cost of medicine, but he said he is "disappointed" that the Senate has not yet acted on these issues.
     
    #1 Refman, Oct 26, 2002
  2. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,291
    Likes Received:
    8,116
    Good for Bush... but it could have been passed up to a year earlier if the House GOP Leadership had not tried to tie an anti-abortion clause to the legislation... and it was the moderate Republicans like Shays teaming with the Dems who forced the issue.
    _______________

    Armey Feels Pressure From Republicans To Lift Legislative Road Block on Health Care For the Poor, Uninsured

    Washington, DC (September19th) Nearly two dozen key Republican Congressmen, led U.S. Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT), are urging Majority Leader Dick Armey to pass H.R. 3450, bi-partisan legislation to reauthorize key federal health programs. In a letter sent to the Majority Leader’s office, 21 Republicans expressed concern that the measure has been needlessly delayed for almost a year, jeopardizing health care for the poor and uninsured.

    “On behalf of the millions of low-income Americans who rely on health centers across the country, we respectfully call on you to bring H.R. 3450 to the House floor for a vote,” said the letter. “We know you share our commitment to these important health programs and are certain that H.R. 3450 can pass the House with an overwhelming majority. We are concerned, however, that this measure must still be reconciled with the Senate-passed version (S. 1533) and return to the House before the end of the 107th Congress.”

    Besides Rep. Chris Shays, the letter was also signed by Representatives Kolbe (AZ), Hefley (CO), Simmons (CT), Johnson (CT), Castle (DE), Goss(FL), Norwood (GA), Leach (IA), LaHood (IL) Weller (IL), Bereuter (NE), Bass (NH), Sweeney (NY), McHugh (NY) Walsh (NY), Kelly (NY), Graham (SC), Wamp (TN), Davis (VA), and Capito (WV).

    The Members sent the letter out of mounting concern about the funding for community health centers, which are increasingly the only available source of health care for the poor in rural and inner city communities. Doctors and nurses who staff health centers around the country, as well as their patients, have flooded the Majority Leader’s office with telephone calls, urging him to schedule the bill for the vote. Community health centers deliver health care to about 12 million people a year, half of whom have no insurance. Armey is holding the bill until a House floor vote on a separate controversial bill (H.R. 4691) he supports can be scheduled. H.R. 4691 would allow hospitals and insurance companies to “opt out” of abortion services with a so-called “conscience clause.”

    “We are very concerned that the linkage of the two issues has already unnecessarily delayed passage of H.R. 3450 and may jeopardize enactment altogether if not resolved very soon. H.R. 4691 is not germane to the Health Centers’ legislation and adds controversy to an otherwise popular and bipartisan bill,” said the letter.

    Dan Hawkins, Policy Director for the National Association of Community Health Centers, praised Rep. Shays and his colleagues for their letter in support of the bi-partisan legislation. “H.R. 3450 is good medicine for the medically underserved and for low-come men, women and children who fall through the cracks of traditional medical care. This is the wrong bill to hold up in a game of political brinksmanship.”

    H.R. 3450 has over 230 co-sponsors. Companion legislation already passed unanimously in the Senate last April. Community Health Centers enjoy bi-partisan support in Congress, and from President Bush, who has called for a doubling of the number of low-income people they serve over the next five years.
     
    #2 rimrocker, Oct 26, 2002
  3. Refman

    Refman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    I misspoke. It is Bush and 21 other Republicans who have been erroneously villified all this time. Thank you for showing me my mistake. :)

    So now we are forcing hospitals to perform and insurers to pay for abortions? As to the hospitals...I thought America was about choices. If one hospital won't do it...you'll find one who will. The government shouldn't be forcing a doctor to perform a procedure he/she finds morally offensive.

    As to the insurance companies...what's next? Are we going to force insurance companies to pay for other elective procedures such as plastic surgery? ALL of our premiums will go up because of this. It isn't fair to force ALL of us to subsidize abortions via increased premiums at the behest of government.
     
    #3 Refman, Oct 27, 2002
  4. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1
    You know the poverty rate will go up this year for the second year in a row under Bush. First time since like 92-93 that it's gone up at all. Isn't that weird? :)
     
    #4 Timing, Oct 27, 2002
  5. Refman

    Refman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    Actually the unemployment rate during the current recession is markedly less than what it has been in our previous 2 recessions. Just a tidbit I thought I'd share. :)
     
    #5 Refman, Oct 27, 2002
  6. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,256
    Likes Received:
    25,284
    But it's because our unemployment rate was already freakishly low to begin with before Bush started his term. Timing also refered to the poverty rate (I don't know the stats for that offhand).

    I like the bill, but this isn't going too far against the party line. Prescription drugs and healthcare are issues the elderly look heavily into. Getting votes from the elderly was a "bipartisan issue" the last time I checked.

    If incumbent Congressmen don't boast this bill in their next flood of ads for re-election, then you can call me pessimistic. ;)
     
    #6 Invisible Fan, Oct 27, 2002
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2002
  7. t4651965

    t4651965 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    0
    What kind of person gets joy over a high poverty rate, in hopes a certain political figure gets the blame?:confused:

    This recession started in the last quarter of 2000, when Clinton was President. Guess what? The business cycle exists.
     
    #7 t4651965, Oct 27, 2002
  8. Refman

    Refman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    Not to mention the fact that the accounting pracices which brought down Enron and Worldcom were being practiced under Clinton and Bush happened to be unfortunate enough to be President when these practices were uncovered.
     
    #8 Refman, Oct 27, 2002
  9. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1


    I'm stating fact. Poverty rates also rose 3 times in 4 years while Papa Bush was in office. That's 5 out of 6 years for the Bush family. My do they care or what.
     
    #9 Timing, Oct 27, 2002
  10. Refman

    Refman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    You can't honestly tell me that the unemployment rate has nothing to do with poverty rates.

    What in the hell makes you think that the Dems really care more than the Republicans? That would be very naive.
     
    #10 Refman, Oct 28, 2002
  11. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1
    We're talking about the record here Refman. If the Bush's want to blame their problems on prior administrations and take credit for what happens in later administrations then maybe they should just get out of politics.
     
    #11 Timing, Oct 28, 2002
  12. Refman

    Refman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    I understand what we are talking about. The record shows that the unemployment rate has been lower than in prior recessions. The enemployment rate will directly affect the poverty rate. That's just simple economics. To ignore that fact is to ignore economic reality.

    The Bushs never balmed anything on prior administrations...I did. Economic reforms take quite some time to actually impact the economy overall. If you can't understand that fact then maybe you should stop arguing politics.
     
    #12 Refman, Oct 28, 2002
  13. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1

    You mean if I don't agree with you I should stop arguing politics, nice misdirection jab there buddy! The point your making about recessions is pretty weak unless you call not allowing unemployment to go up 4 points in 2 years an indicator of success. We'll see where Bush's economic reforms take him, I'm betting on four years and out just like his father.
     
    #13 Timing, Oct 28, 2002
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2002
  14. t4651965

    t4651965 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    0
    Every morning on the farm, the rooster crows, and the Sun comes up. Using your logic, the rooster controls the Sun.

    If you are going to attack Bush, at least make some sense.
     
    #14 t4651965, Oct 28, 2002
  15. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1

    Sure thing Old McDonald... e i e i o


    :rolleyes:
     
    #15 Timing, Oct 28, 2002
  16. Refman

    Refman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    No...there are many who I debate with a lot that disagree with me. But they use these things called facts. You ignore them or are ignorant of their existence. You are the one who is misdirecting.

    Not success...but it certainly shows that he's able to manage a recession. Stop obfuscating and answer the actual point.
     
    #16 Refman, Oct 28, 2002
  17. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1
    Originally posted by Refman
    No...there are many who I debate with a lot that disagree with me. But they use these things called facts. You ignore them or are ignorant of their existence. You are the one who is misdirecting.

    Yeah like the facts I've pointed out here.

    Not success...but it certainly shows that he's able to manage a recession. Stop obfuscating and answer the actual point.

    Crediting Bush with having a lower unemployment rate than in previous recessions really means nothing. Unemployment and poverty rates have both risen in all but one of the years of the Bush presidencies. You think drawing a correlation between the two is making a point? Seems you had no point other than to say it's not the poverty, it's the unemployment. Thanks, I guess.
     
    #17 Timing, Oct 28, 2002
  18. giddyup

    giddyup Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,464
    Likes Received:
    488
    Go Aggies!
     
    #18 giddyup, Oct 28, 2002
  19. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,785
    Likes Received:
    3,393
    Timing. have you heard the definition of a Republican from an old yellow dog Democrat from East Texas?




    A Republican: someone who can't enjoy a good meal unless they know some other people are starving.;)
     
    #19 glynch, Oct 28, 2002
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2002
  20. t4651965

    t4651965 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    0
    LMAO! This response suits you.;)
     
    #20 t4651965, Oct 28, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3

Share This Page

Toggle Width
Style
ClutchFans Original

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now