Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program.

[senseamp]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI...3/bush.veto/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday vetoed legislation expanding a children's health insurance program by $35 billion over five years.
art.wagons.gi.jpg

Kids pull wagons full of petitions this week asking President Bush not to veto insurance legislation.

Bush exercised the veto at 10 a.m. ET before leaving the White House for a trip to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to discuss the federal budget and taxes.

Congress sent the legislation expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, to the White House on Tuesday.

The Senate voted 67-29 Thursday to expand the program. Bush has said it's a step toward universal coverage.

It appears Congress lacks the votes to overturn Bush's veto. Though 67 votes in the 100-person Senate would suffice to override a veto, the 265-159 vote on September 25 in the House version is short of the two-thirds majority needed.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said Tuesday that he won't schedule the override vote on SCHIP until next week or later. There is no time limit in the House of Representatives on when to bring the bill up again.

Now it's time for Democrats to hammer Republicans on this until they override this veto in the house. Or if they don't let them go to their constituents and explain why they don't want to give children healthcare.

 

[nageov3t]

it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason.

 

[senseamp]

http://www.realclearpolitics.c..._a_survival_insti.html

But politics is a cruel business, and about 75 percent of the public, according to the most recent Washington Post poll, opposes the GOP position. Even allowing for possibly sneaky phrasing of the question, common sense tells one that the GOP will be badly on the losing side of the PR fight about kids' health care. And health care, remember, is the most important domestic issue to the public. When a party such as the GOP has lost about 10 percent to 15 percent market share in the past two years (from national affiliation rates in the upper-40 percents to the mid-30 percents), it's no time to stand on a principle the party cannot even persuasively explain to a majority of its own remaining party regulars.

While I admire the GOP's adherence to principle, I also admire a political party with a healthy instinct for survival. The congressional GOP has got it all backward: The time to be principled is when you are governing (as they failed to do for about eight years before they lost power). When in minority opposition, a party must think about winning -- not whining about unpopular principles. It should campaign on principles it believes in, but it should not pick its least popular principles to highlight.

Even the GOP stalwarts are scared of this fight. Bring it on. Let's settle it once and for all.

 

[jonks]

To be paid for by a .61 tax on tobacco, the easiest lobby money to get. Can we get a chart of how people voted and cross reference it with how much $ they've gotten from the tobacco lobby?

 

[fortogether10]

Hey, I?m actually doing some work on this with Families USA and I think its pretty sad this bill had such strong bipartisan support in Congress and yet Bush still vetoed it - turning his back on so many uninsured children and working families. We actually made a 30 second ad we?re using to pressure Congress to override the veto thats worth checking out over at FamiliesUSA. We're also starting up a petition so please sign up if you're really in favor of overturning this.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
To be paid for by a .61 tax on tobacco, the easiest lobby money to get. Can we get a chart of how people voted and cross reference it with how much $ they've gotten from the tobacco lobby?

So what would the dems do for the money once tobacco tax revenues dried up after much of the market moves underground?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: fortogether10
Hey, I?m actually doing some work on this with Families USA and I think its pretty sad this bill had such strong bipartisan support in Congress and yet Bush still vetoed it - turning his back on so many uninsured children and working families. We actually made a 30 second ad we?re using to pressure Congress to override the veto thats worth checking out over at FamiliesUSA. We're also starting up a petition so please sign up if you're really in favor of overturning this.

In other words you are being paid to make this post?

And it's your first post and you just joined today?

 

[Pabster]

I smell something...

 

[ProfJohn]

This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: sirjonk
To be paid for by a .61 tax on tobacco, the easiest lobby money to get. Can we get a chart of how people voted and cross reference it with how much $ they've gotten from the tobacco lobby?

So what would the dems do for the money once tobacco tax revenues dried up after much of the market moves underground?

Addicts are paying like $7 a pack in NYC now, I don't think they'll quit for another 60 cents. And there's way too much of the market to move it underground. And the billions in revenue won't be drying up anytime soon. And if the choice is between insuring uninsured kids or not taxing cigarettes, I don't see the conflict. People love to argue we should censor or ban movies and video games because "what about the children!" Now we have an opportunity to actually do something measurably beneficial for the children, and we're screaming "but what about the smokers and the tobacco companies?!"

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I smell something...

Considering where your head is this is no surprise.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

the slippery slope argument is so old and retarded.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Considering where your head is this is no surprise.

Musta been a whiff of you Moonie :laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

WILL HE EVER THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?! HOW CAN HE BE SO MEAN TO KIDS!?!?!?

:roll: What a joke. He was correct to veto it and it has nothing to do with "caring" or "for the kids".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: sirjonk
To be paid for by a .61 tax on tobacco, the easiest lobby money to get. Can we get a chart of how people voted and cross reference it with how much $ they've gotten from the tobacco lobby?

So what would the dems do for the money once tobacco tax revenues dried up after much of the market moves underground?

Fines of drug dealers selling tobacco.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

Yes, because clearly we should expect the same level of independence and responsibility from children that we expect from adults. :roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

the slippery slope argument is so old and retarded.

There was a day in this country in which the government provided healthcare for no one.

Did the system we now have in place jump into appearance in one day or did it take many years and many different programs for it to happen?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

the slippery slope argument is so old and retarded.

But rings very true.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

OMG Conspiracy!!! ..but what would be bad about those things?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

the slippery slope argument is so old and retarded.

But rings very true.

no, not really.

our entire society is based on artificial limits.

 

[jonks]

[Trent] Lott added, "Do you really believe Republicans don't want to help poor, low-income children?"

LOL

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Well investing in the education and well being of the children is definently the best thing any country can do, these children are the future of your nation, how anyone can be against doing their best for them is beyond me.

 

[Wreckem]

Welp, that nix's almost all chances of me ending up in DC after next Falls elections...

Bush is going to hand the next election to the dems on a silver platter.

I believe I said earliery they Republicans would lose 10-15 seats...

Im gonna say they are going to lose 15-20.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

the slippery slope argument is so old and retarded.

But rings very true.

no, not really.

our entire society is based on artificial limits.

And people have figured out that they can vote themselves more of other people's money if they attach some sappy emotion to the issue. In this case it's "for the children" - don't you want children to be healthy? Don't you want seniors to be healthy? etc etc etc. It's as plain as day.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI...3/bush.veto/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday vetoed legislation expanding a children's health insurance program by $35 billion over five years.
art.wagons.gi.jpg

Kids pull wagons full of petitions this week asking President Bush not to veto insurance legislation.

Bush exercised the veto at 10 a.m. ET before leaving the White House for a trip to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to discuss the federal budget and taxes.

Congress sent the legislation expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, to the White House on Tuesday.

The Senate voted 67-29 Thursday to expand the program. Bush has said it's a step toward universal coverage.

It appears Congress lacks the votes to overturn Bush's veto. Though 67 votes in the 100-person Senate would suffice to override a veto, the 265-159 vote on September 25 in the House version is short of the two-thirds majority needed.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said Tuesday that he won't schedule the override vote on SCHIP until next week or later. There is no time limit in the House of Representatives on when to bring the bill up again.

Now it's time for Democrats to hammer Republicans on this until they override this veto in the house. Or if they don't let them go to their constituents and explain why they don't want to give children healthcare.

I think, if the Dems agreed to take the hate crime legislation out of the defense approprations bill, they could get the needed votes in the house to override the veto.