Bush vetoes childs health insurance..

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
Have not ranted much lately, (sorry Wease) but this chaps my ass...

I guess it is ok to dump billions into the bottom-less sinkhole known as Iraq-Afghanistan and piss it away like a drunken sailor everywhere else on the planet but not to help our own is really beyond belief....:mj17: remember to vote for none of the above and go independant..







WASHINGTON (AP) ? President Bush, in a confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.
It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.


ON DEADLINE: President's fourth veto since 2001

The White House sought as little attention as possible, with the president wielding his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.


The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.

Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families.

Democrats deny that, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, 9%, or over 6 million, are under 18 years old.

Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But this was not the case in the House, where despite sizable Republican support, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's expected veto.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out."

It took Bush six years to veto his first bill, when he blocked expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells last summer. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research.

In the case of the health insurance program, the veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads Monday attacking eight GOP House members who voted against the bill and face potentially tough re-election campaigns next year.

And Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups planned more than 200 events throughout the nation to highlight the issue.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Dead in the last four years you can find about 50 sound bites of Bush saying how we need this bill. Now all the sudden it is put in his face and he showed his true colors. Just pile this one on top of the other hundreds of lies
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Sponge, from what I understand about this bill, and the republican opposition of it, I would have to agree with the opposition. I don't see why this funding should be extended to those new planned additions to the plan - the higher income families that are being mentioned.

No doubt in most ways I support this for the poor as it helps kids directly. But in this case, I can understand the opposition of the size of it for the reasons mentioned.
 

Tenzing

Registered
Forum Member
Jun 14, 2002
274
0
0
55
Austin, Texas
Hmm

Hmm

I'm sure it was vetoed becuse the United States has no bank to pay for it.

The number one issue that I agree with Liberals on is that healthcare should be a common goal, and payed for by us all. A national healthcare system would be the biggest advance in this countries history.

If a guy breaks into your house and takes your TV, which is a luxury item, the community pays the police force to track down the thief and the TV and return your life to its' previous state. Yet having a TV doesn't make you more likely to get to work, take care of family, or get an education. Being helathy does.

If that same thief, while robbing your TV, harms you, you are the one repsonsible for paying the medical bill. It makes no sense, since of course, getting you back to your previous state makes it more like you work, take care of family, and get an education.

Removing the profit motive from health care is a top priority. But neither side has a vested interest in making campaign contributors angry.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
Removing the profit motive from health care is a top priority. But neither side has a vested interest in making campaign contributors angry.
............................................................

Follow the money for the answers.

Too many doctors, hospitals, drug companies making billions to make any change to our health care system.

Besides that Bush wont have the money to continue his war games.
 

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,743
245
63
54
BG, KY, USA
dead money, I have no idea on the specifics of this bill, but rest assured children born into low income families very easily get a medical card and do not go without healthcare unless their parents don't take them to the doctor. This also includes dentistry (very involved expensive procedures).
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Sponge, from what I understand about this bill, and the republican opposition of it, I would have to agree with the opposition. I don't see why this funding should be extended to those new planned additions to the plan - the higher income families that are being mentioned.

No doubt in most ways I support this for the poor as it helps kids directly. But in this case, I can understand the opposition of the size of it for the reasons mentioned.

Chad although i was a big opponent of spending, right now i will take anything i can get for this country. What amazes me is that this president spent like a drunken sailor for every thieving thing he wanted (tax cuts for the wealthy, tax breaks for oil companies, Pharmecutical goughing, and now he cries for money for this god awful war over and over again but when it comes to this country and its very people the spending is over. I do admit i don't know much about this bill. I just saw the sound bites of him asking for this about ten times.
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
Bush argued that expanding its coverage further would encourage people currently covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage - and that the proposal was too costly.

Children deliver petitions urging President Bush not to veto the bill, 1 Oct 2007
Children had delivered petitions urging Mr Bush not to veto the bill
Speaking after vetoing the bill, Mr Bush said: "The focus of the government ought to be to help poor children and to focus on poor children.

"And the policies of the government ought to be to help people find private insurance, not federal coverage."


Too costly for who? The insurance companies?
But 190 billion for war is ok? Bush has to make sure his friends the war contractors get paid. What percentage of that 190 billion is contractor money?

I for one was glad that Bush did this, he's going to sink the republican party, he a anker around their necks and he's dragging them to the bottom, and they don't care.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
Chad hit the nail on the head--Bush was for continuing plan as set up initially.

What AP fails to point out as usual is the specifics WHY he vetoed the bill that would have--

"WASHINGTON (AP) ? President Bush, in a confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance."

the reasons being were (remember also the Dems on Rebs spending like drunken sailors)

The Dems "dramatic increase" was for coverage to included some families making $80,000 a year (4 times poverty level) and also to include some 700,000 adults.

Now I wonder why Dead Moneys AP article didn't mention this--is it not the meat of why he rejected it.

Despite this being correct call--it was very detrimental to GOP--The AP/ NYT and other arms of liberals will flaunt "the children" in front of public and you will have most in the Dead Money catagory that never see the reasoning behind veto.

--another version of Micheal Fox off meds sympathy ploy.

P.S. Dead Money and others--if you want to be informed on boths sides opinions--I might ask you to do a little more reading from the "fair and balanced" after reading below--ask yourself--If I had read only AP article what would I have missed--and had I only read fox article-what would I have missed ;)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299129,00.html

and to show you not just AP showing you half the story they want you to see --you get the same from Reuters--
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/pl_nm/usa_health_kids_veto_dc;_ylt=Aq6uJSLIQeI9WSXR2vQifSNZ.3QA
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Honestly, the way this is being handled by the dems - and the entire Iraq war situation - and the increasing threatened usage of additional taxes publicly for many issues - really bothers me. I know many times in this forum one side cannot give an inch or it shows some form of weakness and it gets pounced on. But if I expect reality and sensibility from conservatives, I think I have to face reality on the side I lean towards.

I think the dems are honestly squandering a wonderful opportunity - and not sure what is going to happen moving forward - in the big picture. The voting for the Iran Republican Guard terror labeling bill was weak (IMO) and was a tremendous opportunity to stand up against the misuse of trust by the Bush administration. I admire Edwards for his position on this. And the overwhelming support of additional funding was also problematic to me. And now proposing adding a war tax to the wealthy to pay for ongoing operations? Just a bad tactic, and I'm getting frustrated.

There, that's about all you'll get from me for awhile, Wayne & Co...:tongue
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
Honestly, the way this is being handled by the dems - and the entire Iraq war situation - and the increasing threatened usage of additional taxes publicly for many issues - really bothers me. I know many times in this forum one side cannot give an inch or it shows some form of weakness and it gets pounced on. But if I expect reality and sensibility from conservatives, I think I have to face reality on the side I lean towards.

I think the dems are honestly squandering a wonderful opportunity - and not sure what is going to happen moving forward - in the big picture. The voting for the Iran Republican Guard terror labeling bill was weak (IMO) and was a tremendous opportunity to stand up against the misuse of trust by the Bush administration. I admire Edwards for his position on this. And the overwhelming support of additional funding was also problematic to me. And now proposing adding a war tax to the wealthy to pay for ongoing operations? Just a bad tactic, and I'm getting frustrated.

There, that's about all you'll get from me for awhile, Wayne & Co...:tongue

Most amzing thing I've ever saw Chad.--They were sitting in ideal position and now bring up all their intents on taxes and others prior to election--I was anticipating them bring these to front after election--but never dreamed they would do it prior.
 

saint

Go Heels
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
9,501
140
63
Balls Deep
I don't post in here too much but figured I'd chime in on this one because it's a topic of interest to me.

As has been said, the focus isn't where it needs to be. Everyone (media, etc) is focusing on the fact that the bill was vetoed, yet most fail to see why it was vetoed. This has already been brought up in this thread.

This isn't about denying access to care to poor children, as is the crux of the original schip plan. This is about it's expansion to cover kids in families with income levels high enough that they are already covered by private insurance. This creates bigtime issues. Instead, the democrats are shuffling kids through the white house for dramatic effect.

Eligibility under this bill would cover families earning up to 400% the federal poverty level (FPL)!! That's 82k for a family of 4...hardly what I would call low-income. More importantly, look at a breakdown of private coverage and the % of kids receiving healthcare in those demographics:

89 percent of all children between 300 percent and 400 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance

77 percent of all children between 200 percent and 300 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance

50 percent of all children between 100 percent and 200 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance

(Source: Congressional Budget Office, "The State Children's Health Insurance Program," Pub. No. 2970, May 2007)

This is a step towards socialized medicine, not towards helping kids in need.

It's pointless to debate things like this unless both sides are EDUCATED on the subject. How many of you in here bitching and moaning have actually read the entire bill? Yeah, that's what I thought. Unfortunately, the general public is similar to a lot of you on here...basing their opinions on bias-riddled accounts from the american media. There are many other reasons why this bill is ridiculous and needed to be vetoed. Providing healthcare to poor children is not one of them.

As has been said, most poor kids in the country receive excellent coverage. I know this because I treat them every day. The hardest part isn't getting these kids coverage, it's getting their parents to give a shit to even take advantage of that coverage. Ask me how I know.
 

abc

on probation
Dec 30, 2006
2,238
25
0
I will comment on this also. Look the plan was fine before the democrats tried to expand coverage. So your telling me 19 - 24 our children? This is an attempt at socialized medicine. The democrats don't want this bill to pass right now anyway... it is perfect for them to keep it in the news and they can smear the republicans in the house who voted against it.

Im sorry but the majority of these kids who are eligible for schip have not even signed up for it.

I agree the media is basically saying oh bush is denying kids care. So 19 - 24 year olds are kids? Also with the threshhold in ny and a few other states.. the poverty level is 84k thats a tad high imo for state funded health care.

Whatever
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
I don't post in here too much but figured I'd chime in on this one because it's a topic of interest to me.

As has been said, the focus isn't where it needs to be. Everyone (media, etc) is focusing on the fact that the bill was vetoed, yet most fail to see why it was vetoed. This has already been brought up in this thread.

This isn't about denying access to care to poor children, as is the crux of the original schip plan. This is about it's expansion to cover kids in families with income levels high enough that they are already covered by private insurance. This creates bigtime issues. Instead, the democrats are shuffling kids through the white house for dramatic effect.

Eligibility under this bill would cover families earning up to 400% the federal poverty level (FPL)!! That's 82k for a family of 4...hardly what I would call low-income. More importantly, look at a breakdown of private coverage and the % of kids receiving healthcare in those demographics:

89 percent of all children between 300 percent and 400 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance

77 percent of all children between 200 percent and 300 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance

50 percent of all children between 100 percent and 200 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance

(Source: Congressional Budget Office, "The State Children's Health Insurance Program," Pub. No. 2970, May 2007)

This is a step towards socialized medicine, not towards helping kids in need.

It's pointless to debate things like this unless both sides are EDUCATED on the subject. How many of you in here bitching and moaning have actually read the entire bill? Yeah, that's what I thought. Unfortunately, the general public is similar to a lot of you on here...basing their opinions on bias-riddled accounts from the american media. There are many other reasons why this bill is ridiculous and needed to be vetoed. Providing healthcare to poor children is not one of them.

As has been said, most poor kids in the country receive excellent coverage. I know this because I treat them every day. The hardest part isn't getting these kids coverage, it's getting their parents to give a shit to even take advantage of that coverage. Ask me how I know.

Excellent research Saint--I knew the #'s were high but didn't know they were that high.

Bottom line--if everyone was informed would be no brainer--however only small % of Americans will know the facts-- per AP/Reuters articles above--how can general population that uses these resources for news--have a clue.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top