"In fact, nothing in either the House or Senate bill would force coverage for families earning $83,000 a year. That's already possible under current law, but no state sets its cut-off that high for a family of four and the bill contains no requirement for any such increase. "
<br>
<br>In other words, nothing would <b>force</b> coverage for families earning $83,000, that's currently possible under the *current law*. Which Bush doesn't like, admittedly. Bear in mind Bush isn't going to be in the White House for the next 6 years, so whether or not the president can overrule it is irrelevent to him isn't it?
<br>
<br>Holy shit man. I really dislike Bush, but you have no ability to critically analyze things.
<br>
<br>They even go as far as to concede : "It might happen in a future administration, but that would be possible without the new legislation."
<br>
<br>Well that's nice, but Bush is trying to make it more difficult because he doesn't know what the political landscape will be in 2-3 years.
<br>
<br>The rest of the article says much of the same. They say that "this is meant to go beyond poor into low income", well "low-income" in this country is a home that makes less than $41,300 per year according to Congress for a family of 4. And the rest of us (including President Bush) would define that as poor. Because that means two wage earners making slightly more than minimum wage each year, raising two children.
<br>
<br>The point is there's nothing in here that isn't shocking or uncontested. They use terms like, "70% of people wouldn't be in that category", well thats nice but what about the other 30% of people? Learn to critically think once in a while.
