Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program.

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Following is a list of 31 Republicans who voted against the bill. There were 68 votes for, so we'll see how many who initially voted for the bill change their minds and vote along party lines and with the President. I would love to see the veto overturned.

Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

Will never get to the Senate. The House votes on their override Thursday, and it looks like they will be atleast 25 votes short.

 

[senseamp]

http://www.npr.org/news/graphi...oll/kaiser_charts.html
Dems plan has overwhelming support in general, and about evenly splits GOP itself.
Looks like GOP is in for a beating over this
Of course it's self inflicted beating, so that's OK, it's a free country, you can be masochist if you want to.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.npr.org/news/graphi...oll/kaiser_charts.html
Dems plan has overwhelming support in general, and about evenly splits GOP itself.
Looks like GOP is in for a beating over this
Of course it's self inflicted beating, so that's OK, it's a free country, you can be masochist if you want to.

USA Today poll

52% agree with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level ? about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40% say benefits should go to families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.

55% are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop private insurance. Bush and Republican opponents have called that a step toward government-run health care.

Like most polls, it depends on how you word the question. The USA Today poll was pretty explicit in their terms while other polls (especially the ones with 'overwhelming' support for S-CHIP expansion) were more vague.

Watching some of the coverage on the debate is silly. The Dems keep bringing out families that are covered by S-CHIP already and bringing up Iraq and silly hyperbole. The Repubs arguing against S-CHIP are generally sticking to facts and figures.

 

[Genx87]

It is interesting that when you ask about UHC in this country. The majority of the population doesnt want it. Yet the democrats forge ahead on the backs of children to get their foot into the door for power and control of our healthcare.

So really, I thank the house today for not overidding the veto and look forward to democrats on the campaign trail explaining how expanding this program to over 200% of poverty level doesnt set the UHC ball rolling.

I think republicans should use to bash democrats over the head with this is, will they lower income taxes on people over 200% of income? Obviously democrats feel they are "poor".

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is interesting that when you ask about UHC in this country. The majority of the population doesnt want it. Yet the democrats forge ahead on the backs of children to get their foot into the door for power and control of our healthcare.

Do you mean the majority of right wing wingbat radio listeners or the majority of Americans? I'm guessing the former because you obviously didn't get the correct information in the talking points memo that must have been recently distributed.

http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm

Check out all of the questions that relate to UHC for adults.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is interesting that when you ask about UHC in this country.

The majority of the population doesnt want it.

Yet the democrats forge ahead on the backs of children to get their foot into the door for power and control of our healthcare.

So really, I thank the house today for not overidding the veto and look forward to democrats on the campaign trail explaining how expanding this program to over 200% of poverty level doesnt set the UHC ball rolling.

I think republicans should use to bash democrats over the head with this is, will they lower income taxes on people over 200% of income? Obviously democrats feel they are "poor".

That's a lie.

At least post a link to some sort of prrof when making such a bold claim without supporting it.

From what I see and talk to without a supporting link it's mainly GOP supporter P&Nr's and rich republicans that have full coverage from their employers say they don't want UHC in this country.

Everyone I talk to that is not a staunch Republican or die supporter says they are for UHC.

 

[Queasy]

Republicans will submit the following as an alternative to expanding the S-CHIP today.

1) A full reauthorization of SCHIP. The program would continue to cover children in families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level;

2) A child health care tax credit. Rather than putting more people on a government-run program, the legislation advances tax credits to families with incomes between 200% and 300% of the poverty level; and

3) A health care ?federalism? initiative. This piece would complement both the reauthorization and the tax changes in expanding health care coverage, and would encourage even more dramatic health care experimentation at the state level with different approaches to coverage expansion.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Republicans will submit the following as an alternative to expanding the S-CHIP today.

1) A full reauthorization of SCHIP. The program would continue to cover children in families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level;

2) A child health care tax credit. Rather than putting more people on a government-run program, the legislation advances tax credits to families with incomes between 200% and 300% of the poverty level; and

3) A health care ?federalism? initiative. This piece would complement both the reauthorization and the tax changes in expanding health care coverage, and would encourage even more dramatic health care experimentation at the state level with different approaches to coverage expansion.

We'll see.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is interesting that when you ask about UHC in this country.

The majority of the population doesnt want it.

Yet the democrats forge ahead on the backs of children to get their foot into the door for power and control of our healthcare.

So really, I thank the house today for not overidding the veto and look forward to democrats on the campaign trail explaining how expanding this program to over 200% of poverty level doesnt set the UHC ball rolling.

I think republicans should use to bash democrats over the head with this is, will they lower income taxes on people over 200% of income? Obviously democrats feel they are "poor".

That's a lie.

At least post a link to some sort of prrof when making such a bold claim without supporting it.

From what I see and talk to without a supporting link it's mainly GOP supporter P&Nr's and rich republicans that have full coverage from their employers say they don't want UHC in this country.

Everyone I talk to that is not a staunch Republican or die supporter says they are for UHC.

Quit your spin Dave it gets old. It's not that people dont want UHC it's that they dont want to pay for it. Big different. Democrats dont love tax increases either. It's obvious UHC = major tax increase.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is interesting that when you ask about UHC in this country.

The majority of the population doesnt want it.

Yet the democrats forge ahead on the backs of children to get their foot into the door for power and control of our healthcare.

So really, I thank the house today for not overidding the veto and look forward to democrats on the campaign trail explaining how expanding this program to over 200% of poverty level doesnt set the UHC ball rolling.

I think republicans should use to bash democrats over the head with this is, will they lower income taxes on people over 200% of income? Obviously democrats feel they are "poor".

That's a lie.

At least post a link to some sort of prrof when making such a bold claim without supporting it.

From what I see and talk to without a supporting link it's mainly GOP supporter P&Nr's and rich republicans that have full coverage from their employers say they don't want UHC in this country.

Everyone I talk to that is not a staunch Republican or die supporter says they are for UHC.

That support is conditional however. Link

In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.

Given what we know about Universal Healthcare in Canada, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere where long wait times are the norm, I don't think UHC can fly here.

I also question the wisdom of turning over healthcare to the same government that has screwed up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. How about addressing the costs associated with healthcare instead?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is interesting that when you ask about UHC in this country.

The majority of the population doesnt want it.

Yet the democrats forge ahead on the backs of children to get their foot into the door for power and control of our healthcare.

So really, I thank the house today for not overidding the veto and look forward to democrats on the campaign trail explaining how expanding this program to over 200% of poverty level doesnt set the UHC ball rolling.

I think republicans should use to bash democrats over the head with this is, will they lower income taxes on people over 200% of income? Obviously democrats feel they are "poor".

That's a lie.

At least post a link to some sort of prrof when making such a bold claim without supporting it.

From what I see and talk to without a supporting link it's mainly GOP supporter P&Nr's and rich republicans that have full coverage from their employers say they don't want UHC in this country.

Everyone I talk to that is not a staunch Republican or die supporter says they are for UHC.

That support is conditional however. Link

In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.

Given what we know about Universal Healthcare in Canada, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere where long wait times are the norm, I don't think UHC can fly here.

I also question the wisdom of turning over healthcare to the same government that has screwed up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. How about addressing the costs associated with healthcare instead?

Thank you sir for the link and post :thumbsup:

I understand your question but the incumbents and those that support them chose to make the problem worse than better the last seven years resulting in being at a tipping point.

They get what is deserved coming to them.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.npr.org/news/graphi...oll/kaiser_charts.html
Dems plan has overwhelming support in general, and about evenly splits GOP itself.
Looks like GOP is in for a beating over this
Of course it's self inflicted beating, so that's OK, it's a free country, you can be masochist if you want to.

I'm inclined to think you may regret this post. I.e. veto will be upheld. EDIT: VETO UPHELD link

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is interesting that when you ask about UHC in this country.

The majority of the population doesnt want it.

Yet the democrats forge ahead on the backs of children to get their foot into the door for power and control of our healthcare.

So really, I thank the house today for not overidding the veto and look forward to democrats on the campaign trail explaining how expanding this program to over 200% of poverty level doesnt set the UHC ball rolling.

I think republicans should use to bash democrats over the head with this is, will they lower income taxes on people over 200% of income? Obviously democrats feel they are "poor".

That's a lie.

At least post a link to some sort of prrof when making such a bold claim without supporting it.

From what I see and talk to without a supporting link it's mainly GOP supporter P&Nr's and rich republicans that have full coverage from their employers say they don't want UHC in this country.

Everyone I talk to that is not a staunch Republican or die supporter says they are for UHC.

Meh. I think it's kinda useless to claim anythinh about UHC unless you define.

It means a lot different things to different people.

If you do a poll asking "do you support UHC, meaning everyone has health insurance coverage?" You're going to get a big "YES".

However, when you disclose how that is going to be implemented, all h3ll breaks loose and you get a pile of disagreement. You start messing with people's plans, their choice of caregivers, or funding and no one agrees on anything.

Fern

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Fern
However, when you disclose how that is going to be implemented, all h3ll breaks loose and you get a pile of disagreement. You start messing with people's plans, their choice of caregivers, or funding and no one agrees on anything.

Fern

Exactly. UHC does nothing to address costs, access, availability, etc. All it does is put everyone on the government teat.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Given what we know about Universal Healthcare in Canada, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere where long wait times are the norm, I don't think UHC can fly here.

Crappy argument and why do you not have any confidence in your fellow Americans in the Medical field to do better?

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Queasy

Given what we know about Universal Healthcare in Canada, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere where long wait times are the norm, I don't think UHC can fly here.

Crappy argument and why do you not have any confidence in your fellow Americans in the Medical field to do better?

Take a look at the military health system....that's a government run universal system. You'll be screaming when they dismiss your pain/illness as "this guy must be faking it" or "it's probably nothing" and send you on your way with a bottle of motrin (that's after you sit there all day and fill out a shitload of forms in triplicate).

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Queasy

Given what we know about Universal Healthcare in Canada, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere where long wait times are the norm, I don't think UHC can fly here.

Crappy argument and why do you not have any confidence in your fellow Americans in the Medical field to do better?

How is it a crappy argument? Waiting months for procedures that we as Americans have access to immediately is common in Canada, Japan and Europe.

It isn't a question about having confidence in those in the medical field. It is a question about not having confidence in government and bureaucracy to keep costs under control while providing the same level of access and availability that we currently have. That goes back to the point I made earlier about turning our health care system over to the same people that have screwed up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Britain's NHS has horrible cost overruns that hurts availability and quality of care. Has nothing to do with the actual medical professionals. Has everything to do with government.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Queasy

Given what we know about Universal Healthcare in Canada, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere where long wait times are the norm, I don't think UHC can fly here.

Crappy argument and why do you not have any confidence in your fellow Americans in the Medical field to do better?

It has nothing to do with fellow Americans. It has everything to do with the government overseeing an already overly complicated industry. If you can honestly say WA DC can efficiently do it, you more faith in the US government in its current form than I think most people do. And dont go on your Republican rant here. The Democrats fuck up as much as GOP does.

Can you name an industry the government has taken the reigns on and made it more cost effective and more efficient? I cant. With all the road construction here in Phoenix as well as our light rail project I remember an article a year or so ago that showed why the state of AZ turned over alot of the construction of our light rail and other projects to private contractors: they beat deadlines and came in under budget. Something government doesnt know how to do at almost ANY level.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Queasy

Given what we know about Universal Healthcare in Canada, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere where long wait times are the norm, I don't think UHC can fly here.

Crappy argument and why do you not have any confidence in your fellow Americans in the Medical field to do better?

It has nothing to do with fellow Americans. It has everything to do with the government overseeing an already overly complicated industry. If you can honestly say WA DC can efficiently do it, you more faith in the US government in its current form than I think most people do. And dont go on your Republican rant here. The Democrats fuck up as much as GOP does.

Can you name an industry the government has taken the reigns on and made it more cost effective and more efficient? I cant. With all the road construction here in Phoenix as well as our light rail project I remember an article a year or so ago that showed why the state of AZ turned over alot of the construction of our light rail and other projects to private contractors: they beat deadlines and came in under budget. Something government doesnt know how to do at almost ANY level.

5 to 1 Dave's reply is "well your heroes made the government that way".

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

it's odd that the party of Jesus would be against this... he was a total commie.

Actually Jesus was a humanitarian...I don't think his teachings fit a particular political ideology.

No matter which party he would have chosen, anyone would find it a hard argument to make that Jesus would not have supported increased support and welfare for the poor, considering that Tzedekha (charity) was one of his main themes.

But religious is neither here nor there in politics....right?

It's no longer charity when you are forcing someone to give up their possessions/wealth to support another. The Lord/God/Providence helps he who helps himself. If you want to start babbling religious BS to support a flawed argument, perhaps you should examine your own faith first. If people followed those often trumpeted tenets of faith that they love to tell us we should live by, then we wouldn't be forced to offer up our productive efforts to support the stupid and lazy. People who were capable of helping themselves would and those who were not would be cared for by those around them and those who chose not to take care of themselves would perish and a great deal of us wouldn't shed a tear. Yes, society as a whole could stand to be more charitable, but I'll be damned if you or any politician is going to tell me what cause is worthy and what is not. I'll deal with God myself when it's my time and I will stand strong and humble before him to accept His judgment. This does not frighten me in any way.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Queasy

Given what we know about Universal Healthcare in Canada, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere where long wait times are the norm, I don't think UHC can fly here.

Crappy argument and why do you not have any confidence in your fellow Americans in the Medical field to do better?

It has nothing to do with fellow Americans. It has everything to do with the government overseeing an already overly complicated industry. If you can honestly say WA DC can efficiently do it, you more faith in the US government in its current form than I think most people do. And dont go on your Republican rant here. The Democrats fuck up as much as GOP does.

Can you name an industry the government has taken the reigns on and made it more cost effective and more efficient? I cant. With all the road construction here in Phoenix as well as our light rail project I remember an article a year or so ago that showed why the state of AZ turned over alot of the construction of our light rail and other projects to private contractors: they beat deadlines and came in under budget. Something government doesnt know how to do at almost ANY level.

5 to 1 Dave's reply is "well your heroes made the government that way".

Im not taking that bet, sir.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is interesting that when you ask about UHC in this country. The majority of the population doesnt want it. Yet the democrats forge ahead on the backs of children to get their foot into the door for power and control of our healthcare.

So really, I thank the house today for not overidding the veto and look forward to democrats on the campaign trail explaining how expanding this program to over 200% of poverty level doesnt set the UHC ball rolling.

I think republicans should use to bash democrats over the head with this is, will they lower income taxes on people over 200% of income? Obviously democrats feel they are "poor".

Have any of the resident pro SCHIP folks addressed this very valid point?

 

[ayabe]

I was thinking today that we should have fistfights in Congress. They have fistfights in the Korean Parliament and I think it helps them rise above partisanship. It also doesn't allow douchebaggery to rise to this level:

Today on the House floor, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) introduced a new name for the acronym SCHIP ? ?Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents?

For the record SCHIP doesn't cover illegals in any manner. Though I guess the R definition of illegal means having a child for whom you can't afford healthcare, or that it should be illegal to have a child with some sort of degenerative disorder. I'm not sure on that, someone should fill me in.

In any event, I believe Rep. King should be tasered, followed by a judo chop to nuts. What an f'ing tool.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.npr.org/news/graphi...oll/kaiser_charts.html
Dems plan has overwhelming support in general, and about evenly splits GOP itself.
Looks like GOP is in for a beating over this
Of course it's self inflicted beating, so that's OK, it's a free country, you can be masochist if you want to.

USA Today poll

52% agree with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level ? about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40% say benefits should go to families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.

55% are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop private insurance. Bush and Republican opponents have called that a step toward government-run health care.

Like most polls, it depends on how you word the question. The USA Today poll was pretty explicit in their terms while other polls (especially the ones with 'overwhelming' support for S-CHIP expansion) were more vague.

Watching some of the coverage on the debate is silly. The Dems keep bringing out families that are covered by S-CHIP already and bringing up Iraq and silly hyperbole. The Repubs arguing against S-CHIP are generally sticking to facts and figures.

I wonder if part of it has to do with the lack of understanding the fact that Bush's 5 billion proposed "increase" would result in a net loss of available coverage.

 

[senseamp]

Looks like GOP committed suicide for their ideology and took a bunch of innocent children down with them. Sounds like something the people we are fighting in the Middle East would do.
Republicans will get plenty of opportunities to vote on this bill until they either get it or get out.
Dems should add $5B more to the next version, just to let Republicans now that blocking children's healthcare is not free.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Queasy

Given what we know about Universal Healthcare in Canada, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere where long wait times are the norm, I don't think UHC can fly here.

Crappy argument and why do you not have any confidence in your fellow Americans in the Medical field to do better?

How is it a crappy argument? Waiting months for procedures that we as Americans have access to immediately is common in Canada, Japan and Europe.

It isn't a question about having confidence in those in the medical field.

It is a question about not having confidence in government and bureaucracy to keep costs under control while providing the same level of access and availability that we currently have.

Bahahahaha like the private Insurance & Medical Industry has kept cost down now?

You guys are a hoot :laugh: