Bush vetoes children's health care bill

In the Houston Chronicle on October 3rd an article titled Bush Vetoes Children’s Health Care Bill by Jennifer Loven talks about Bush vetoing a bill to expand Childrens Health Insurance.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5183555.html

The article initially seems to be a genuine concern for the four million children who will be deprived of medical insurance as a result of Bush’s veto but the article shifts gear and focus’ on democratic political agenda and how the veto works against Bush. Loven goes on to discuss the veto as a “high stakes gambit” and how the decision “pits” him (Bush) against democrats and his own party. I do feel how we get to change is important but should it supersede the issue at hand? For the most part, the people in public office or the voting public aren’t significantly affected by this particular decision therefore the bill lacks representation compared to others.

I think it’s equally important for Loven to discuss how this will directly affect America’s children. I would like to know what it means for the 4 million children who will go without insurance. How will this impact our economy? When a child is sick and goes to a public hospital with no insurance, who picks up the tab? How does it affect children long term to go with out medical coverage as a child? I prefer to see an equal focus on the children/people directly affected by Bush’s decision.

Bush can’t be re-elected so how much can the veto hurt him? At this point in his term he doesn’t seem to be fighting for the public favor. Does it matter? Bush fought for more funding for our war which overtime seems to be alive as a result of a great marketing campaign staged from the Bush administration and others who stand to gain from it. The only positive thing I can pull out of Bush’s decision is truth. We may be seeing the true heart of our President and were his priorities lye. Will the voting public take note and if they how will it sway their next presidential vote.

It’s seems in politics the issues at hand take a back seat when compared to making policy. I am personally very interested in public policy and want to get as close as I can to bringing about change without taking office because there seems to be something corrupt about being in office. Specifically, it seems sustaining office is more important than the issues on the table. Politicians seem to advocate or lean towards a decision that will likely secure their office.