Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program.

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
Chee, a far-left liberal newspaper slamming Bush. <YAWN>

If that's Republicans' excuse for ignoring reality, they will be forced to face it the hard way next year.

Igoniring reality? haha the Republicans have done EXACTLY what Dems have done in regards to healthcare reform: they talk about it in speeches. Thats it. Im not saying "but the Dems do it too" Im saying BOTH parties are responsible for NOTHING getting done. Quit making it sound like its a D vs R issue. It's not.

Truer words have never been spoken in regards to most political issues.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
Chee, a far-left liberal newspaper slamming Bush. <YAWN>

If that's Republicans' excuse for ignoring reality, they will be forced to face it the hard way next year.

Igoniring reality? haha the Republicans have done EXACTLY what Dems have done in regards to healthcare reform: they talk about it in speeches. Thats it. Im not saying "but the Dems do it too" Im saying BOTH parties are responsible for NOTHING getting done. Quit making it sound like its a D vs R issue. It's not.

Truer words have never been spoken in regards to most political issues.

Except that Dems passed an SCHIP bill. It's the Republicans who are obstructing it. They are responsible for NOTHING getting done in this situation.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: tank171
This stupid bill includes people up to the age of 25 and pregnant women. Illegal immigrants can easily get in on this. People who arent even poor can get this. Maybe you people should read through this stuff. Bush wants to work with the Democrats, but they refuse to work with him. Republicans are the ones who first made the SCHIP program, so they want it to work, but Democrats seem to have memory lapses about that.

Bush can work with Democrats and sign the bill. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. GOP lost Congress in 2006, they don't get to write bills. They do however get to answer if they don't override a veto that denies poor children healthcare.

Why are poor people having kids they cant afford??

Why is Bush having a war we can't afford? That's what Americans do. Let's not punish the kids for that though.

If you want to be entireely accurate most of what we do today we cant afford.

But social programs add up to the greatest single overall drag on the budget. When your doing your very own personal budget do you stop buying a coffee every morning or do you stop eating out for lunch?

And we're not punishing the kids. Hell, we're trying to reward the parents for their poor choices. Do the kids have insurance now? Most likely not. How is not giving it to them punishing them?

But dont misunderstand me. At this point I'd vote to double every social program we have. Hell, sooner we can bankrupt this sh1tcan handout system we have the happier I'll be!

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
Chee, a far-left liberal newspaper slamming Bush. <YAWN>

If that's Republicans' excuse for ignoring reality, they will be forced to face it the hard way next year.

Igoniring reality? haha the Republicans have done EXACTLY what Dems have done in regards to healthcare reform: they talk about it in speeches. Thats it. Im not saying "but the Dems do it too" Im saying BOTH parties are responsible for NOTHING getting done. Quit making it sound like its a D vs R issue. It's not.

Truer words have never been spoken in regards to most political issues.

Except that Dems passed an SCHIP bill. It's the Republicans who are obstructing it. They are responsible for NOTHING getting done in this situation.

The dems have not done anything substantial for many, many years in regards to healthcare. When Clinton was first elected, he had 3 terms of congress with a dem majority and a wife with a hard on to get universal healthcare coverage written into legislation. That was the time to get it done.

They did it this time because Bush had already threatened to veto it and they knew that he would stick to that threat. This would give them the necessary ammo to use in campaigns next year against repubs. That is what got it done now. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the dems did this out of some noble desire. (Although I am sure that there are some on both sides that actually do give a damn....but that ain't the majority!!)

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
Chee, a far-left liberal newspaper slamming Bush. <YAWN>

If that's Republicans' excuse for ignoring reality, they will be forced to face it the hard way next year.

Igoniring reality? haha the Republicans have done EXACTLY what Dems have done in regards to healthcare reform: they talk about it in speeches. Thats it. Im not saying "but the Dems do it too" Im saying BOTH parties are responsible for NOTHING getting done. Quit making it sound like its a D vs R issue. It's not.

Truer words have never been spoken in regards to most political issues.

Except that Dems passed an SCHIP bill. It's the Republicans who are obstructing it. They are responsible for NOTHING getting done in this situation.

The dems have not done anything substantial for many, many years in regards to healthcare. When Clinton was first elected, he had 3 terms of congress with a dem majority and a wife with a hard on to get universal healthcare coverage written into legislation. That was the time to get it done.

They did it this time because Bush had already threatened to veto it and they knew that he would stick to that threat. This would give them the necessary ammo to use in campaigns next year against repubs. That is what got it done now. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the dems did this out of some noble desire. (Although I am sure that there are some on both sides that actually do give a damn....but that ain't the majority!!)

Unless the Constitution was recently rewritten and I didn't get the memo, Bush does not get to write bills. He was given a bill that would provide healthcare to poor children and he vetoed it. Now Republicans in Congress have a second chance to get that healthcare to the children by overriding the veto. The ball is in their court.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
Chee, a far-left liberal newspaper slamming Bush. <YAWN>

If that's Republicans' excuse for ignoring reality, they will be forced to face it the hard way next year.

Igoniring reality? haha the Republicans have done EXACTLY what Dems have done in regards to healthcare reform: they talk about it in speeches. Thats it. Im not saying "but the Dems do it too" Im saying BOTH parties are responsible for NOTHING getting done. Quit making it sound like its a D vs R issue. It's not.

Truer words have never been spoken in regards to most political issues.

Except that Dems passed an SCHIP bill. It's the Republicans who are obstructing it. They are responsible for NOTHING getting done in this situation.

The dems have not done anything substantial for many, many years in regards to healthcare. When Clinton was first elected, he had 3 terms of congress with a dem majority and a wife with a hard on to get universal healthcare coverage written into legislation. That was the time to get it done.

They did it this time because Bush had already threatened to veto it and they knew that he would stick to that threat. This would give them the necessary ammo to use in campaigns next year against repubs. That is what got it done now. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the dems did this out of some noble desire. (Although I am sure that there are some on both sides that actually do give a damn....but that ain't the majority!!)

Unless the Constitution was recently rewritten and I didn't get the memo, Bush does not get to write bills. He was given a bill that would provide healthcare to poor children and he vetoed it. Now Republicans in Congress have a second chance to get that healthcare to the children by overriding the veto. The ball is in their court.

What the hell are you talking about? I never said Bush had the ability to write bills (although technically he does have the ability to re-write them through signing statements and EOs).

I was stating that Clinton's first three years as president were with a dem majority. If the dems wanted to get this done so bad, they would have then. Now it is something that they realize is a good thing but, even more importantly, they know Bush will veto and the repubs will be uneasy about overriding it and they can beat them like a baby seal next campaign season with that fact.

 

[Jamie571]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
Chee, a far-left liberal newspaper slamming Bush. <YAWN>

If that's Republicans' excuse for ignoring reality, they will be forced to face it the hard way next year.

Igoniring reality? haha the Republicans have done EXACTLY what Dems have done in regards to healthcare reform: they talk about it in speeches. Thats it. Im not saying "but the Dems do it too" Im saying BOTH parties are responsible for NOTHING getting done. Quit making it sound like its a D vs R issue. It's not.

Truer words have never been spoken in regards to most political issues.

Except that Dems passed an SCHIP bill. It's the Republicans who are obstructing it. They are responsible for NOTHING getting done in this situation.

The dems have not done anything substantial for many, many years in regards to healthcare. When Clinton was first elected, he had 3 terms of congress with a dem majority and a wife with a hard on to get universal healthcare coverage written into legislation. That was the time to get it done.

They did it this time because Bush had already threatened to veto it and they knew that he would stick to that threat. This would give them the necessary ammo to use in campaigns next year against repubs. That is what got it done now. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the dems did this out of some noble desire. (Although I am sure that there are some on both sides that actually do give a damn....but that ain't the majority!!)

Unless the Constitution was recently rewritten and I didn't get the memo, Bush does not get to write bills. He was given a bill that would provide healthcare to poor children and he vetoed it. Now Republicans in Congress have a second chance to get that healthcare to the children by overriding the veto. The ball is in their court.

What the hell are you talking about? I never said Bush had the ability to write bills (although technically he does have the ability to re-write them through signing statements and EOs).

I was stating that Clinton's first three years as president were with a dem majority. If the dems wanted to get this done so bad, they would have then. Now it is something that they realize is a good thing but, even more importantly, they know Bush will veto and the repubs will be uneasy about overriding it and they can beat them like a baby seal next campaign season with that fact.

They better be careful that seal may bite their ass. Just about every state has many Dems and Reps. that are fed up with the illegal imigrant problem. They might not be too happy to find out some of the illegal immigrants could benefit from the bill. The illegal immigrant problem will be as hot as the Iraq war leading up to the election, and nobody wants a bloody ass.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


The dems have not done anything substantial for many, many years in regards to healthcare. When Clinton was first elected, he had 3 terms of congress with a dem majority and a wife with a hard on to get universal healthcare coverage written into legislation. That was the time to get it done.

They did it this time because Bush had already threatened to veto it and they knew that he would stick to that threat. This would give them the necessary ammo to use in campaigns next year against repubs. That is what got it done now. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the dems did this out of some noble desire. (Although I am sure that there are some on both sides that actually do give a damn....but that ain't the majority!!)

Wow, very good post, I agree with you one hundred percent. :thumbsup:

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrongNow it is something that they realize is a good thing but, even more importantly, they know Bush will veto and the repubs will be uneasy about overriding it and they can beat them like a baby seal next campaign season with that fact.

We sure will. Looking forward to Hillary + Filibuster Proof House.
Republicans, enjoy fighting against healthcare for poor children and building a permanent Republican minority

 

[EagleKeeper]

Jamie571


Please start to trim your quoting in this thread


Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Social services truly is going to bankrupt this country.

Not if this this 'war' bankrupts us first.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Social services truly is going to bankrupt this country.

Not if this this 'war' bankrupts us first.

War has cost us what, 300 billion over 5 years? Social services in this country cost us ~2 trillion in one year.

That war has a lot of catching up to do.

 

[senseamp]

I think we need to compromise. Extend the current program by one year, then have this debate all over again next October
Then we can propose a nice big increase, have Bush veto it, Republicans get slaughtered at the polls, then Hillary can sign it.
Sounds like a good compromise to me.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we need to compromise. Extend the current program by one year, then have this debate all over again next October
Then we can propose a nice big increase, have Bush veto it, Republicans get slaughtered at the polls, then Hillary can sign it.
Sounds like a good compromise to me.

Hillary cut the war? lol youre dreaming. She WILL however have no problem expanding our already bloated government and increasing taxes to do it. That much is true.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we need to compromise. Extend the current program by one year, then have this debate all over again next October
Then we can propose a nice big increase, have Bush veto it, Republicans get slaughtered at the polls, then Hillary can sign it.
Sounds like a good compromise to me.

Hillary cut the war? lol youre dreaming. She WILL however have no problem expanding our already bloated government and increasing taxes to do it. That much is true.

Providing healthcare to poor children is not bloated government to me, it's common sense government function.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we need to compromise. Extend the current program by one year, then have this debate all over again next October
Then we can propose a nice big increase, have Bush veto it, Republicans get slaughtered at the polls, then Hillary can sign it.
Sounds like a good compromise to me.

Hillary cut the war? lol youre dreaming. She WILL however have no problem expanding our already bloated government and increasing taxes to do it. That much is true.

Providing healthcare to poor children is not bloated government to me, it's common sense government function.

You actually think she can get legislation passed to cover the majority of uninsured kids? LOL Again youre dreaming. Good luck with that. Someone else figured out the projected tax increase to pay for it and it makes Iraq's budget look like peanuts.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
The dems have not done anything substantial for many, many years in regards to healthcare. When Clinton was first elected, he had 3 terms of congress with a dem majority and a wife with a hard on to get universal healthcare coverage written into legislation. That was the time to get it done.

They did it this time because Bush had already threatened to veto it and they knew that he would stick to that threat. This would give them the necessary ammo to use in campaigns next year against repubs. That is what got it done now. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the dems did this out of some noble desire. (Although I am sure that there are some on both sides that actually do give a damn....but that ain't the majority!!)

we did get the original SCHIP in 1997 with a republican congress and a democratic president

and it seems like it was a pretty good program, as programs go. get poor kids some medical insurance. i guess it worked, so, like all working government programs, we're going to torpedo it in order to score political points.

 

[Queasy]

Looks like we need to fix S-CHIP before we work on expanding it. PDF Link - Department of Health and Human Services/CMS Data on how states are spending S-CHIP money.

A full 44% of S-CHIP is NOT being spent on children. Michigan is spending a ridiculous 71.6% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. New Mexico is spending 52.3% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. In this survey of 14 states, 8 are spending less than 75% of S-CHIP funds on children. 6 are spending less than 50%.

I'd like to see data for the other 36 states but this suggests that we need to fix the current S-CHIP program to concentrate on the children who need the help before expanding it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Looks like we need to fix S-CHIP before we work on expanding it. PDF Link - Department of Health and Human Services/CMS Data on how states are spending S-CHIP money.

A full 44% of S-CHIP is NOT being spent on children. Michigan is spending a ridiculous 71.6% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. New Mexico is spending 52.3% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. In this survey of 14 states, 8 are spending less than 75% of S-CHIP funds on children. 6 are spending less than 50%.

I'd like to see data for the other 36 states but this suggests that we need to fix the current S-CHIP program to concentrate on the children who need the help before expanding it.

DOH!!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Queasy
A full 44% of S-CHIP is NOT being spent on children. Michigan is spending a ridiculous 71.6% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. New Mexico is spending 52.3% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. In this survey of 14 states, 8 are spending less than 75% of S-CHIP funds on children. 6 are spending less than 50%.

And therein lies part of the problem. Now, Democrats want to expand it further. How soon before those states are spending only 20 or 25% of the SCHIP funds on insuring CHILDREN like they are supposed to?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Queasy
A full 44% of S-CHIP is NOT being spent on children. Michigan is spending a ridiculous 71.6% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. New Mexico is spending 52.3% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. In this survey of 14 states, 8 are spending less than 75% of S-CHIP funds on children. 6 are spending less than 50%.

And therein lies part of the problem. Now, Democrats want to expand it further. How soon before those states are spending only 20 or 25% of the SCHIP funds on insuring CHILDREN like they are supposed to?

They could probably expand S-CHIP to include more kids at higher income levels just by changing S-CHIP to ensure that monies go only to children's healthcare. They wouldn't even need the additional $35 billion funded by cigarette taxes.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Queasy
A full 44% of S-CHIP is NOT being spent on children. Michigan is spending a ridiculous 71.6% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. New Mexico is spending 52.3% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. In this survey of 14 states, 8 are spending less than 75% of S-CHIP funds on children. 6 are spending less than 50%.

And therein lies part of the problem. Now, Democrats want to expand it further. How soon before those states are spending only 20 or 25% of the SCHIP funds on insuring CHILDREN like they are supposed to?

Back door to universal health insurance?

Healthy adults == healthy parents == healthy children

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Back door to universal health insurance?

Healthy adults == healthy parents == healthy children

Makes sense. With HRC proposing UHC, I don't think it is a coincidence that Dems are looking to broaden the scope of SCHIP. Perhaps, if enough adults fall under SCHIP, she can fudge the numbers on the UHC package enough to pass muster.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Back door to universal health insurance?

Healthy adults == healthy parents == healthy children

It may be a back door to universal health insurance, but in a different way than you see.

Dems pass SCHIP -> Bush vetoes SCHIP -> Congress GOP sustains Bush Veto of SCHIP -> GOP gets blamed for denying healthcare to poor children -> Hillary and filibuster proof Congress get voted in -> Universal health insurance gets passed

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Queasy
A full 44% of S-CHIP is NOT being spent on children. Michigan is spending a ridiculous 71.6% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. New Mexico is spending 52.3% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. In this survey of 14 states, 8 are spending less than 75% of S-CHIP funds on children. 6 are spending less than 50%.

And therein lies part of the problem. Now, Democrats want to expand it further. How soon before those states are spending only 20 or 25% of the SCHIP funds on insuring CHILDREN like they are supposed to?

They could probably expand S-CHIP to include more kids at higher income levels just by changing S-CHIP to ensure that monies go only to children's healthcare. They wouldn't even need the additional $35 billion funded by cigarette taxes.

What about so called "childless adults" who are college students?
Yeah, they may be over 18, but they are still not working full time because they are going to college.
I don't think they should go without health insurance.