WASHINGTON, Aug. 2, 2007
Senate Passes Children's Health Plan
Democrats, Republicans Unite To Boost Insurance Program, Defying Bush Veto Threat
-
Play CBS Video Video Kids Health Care Battle Grows The House and Senate are weighing competing bills to expand health care coverage for kids. President Bush says both are too costly. Thalia Assuras reports.
-
A bitter partisan battle unfolded in the Senate today, Aug. 1, 2007, over the expansion of health insurance for children. (AP / CBS)
-
News Tools The State Of Child Care See how your state ranks in a first-of-its-kind report
The 68-31 vote, one day after the House passed a more ambitious and expensive version over bitter Republican opposition, handed Democrats a solid achievement to trumpet as they leave Washington for a summer break.
It also gave Democrats, who secured a veto-proof margin, a chance to draw a stark distinction between their priorities and Bush's on an issue that resonates with voters.
“For the life of me, I can't understand why the president would want to veto this legislation,” said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Finance Committee chairman. “It's moderate, it's bipartisan, it helps low-income kids. ... It's just the right thing to do for the country.”
Bush has proposed spending $5 billion to extend the State Children's Health Insurance Program. He says the Senate's $35 billion expansion would balloon the decade-old program beyond its original mission of covering working poor children and would move more people toward government-run health care.
The program expires Sept. 30.
The Senate measure now must be reconciled with the House-passed $50 billion expansion, which was paid for partly by cutting government payments to Medicare health maintenance organizations.
Both bills include hefty tax increases on tobacco products to pay for the spending increase.
Architects of the legislation “have seized the reauthorization of SCHIP as a license to raise taxes, increase spending and take a giant leap forward into the land of government-run health care,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader.
He was one of 31 Republicans to oppose the measure, while 18 Republicans joined 48 Democrats and two independents to support it.
The health program is designed to subsidize the cost of insurance for children whose families earn too much to participate in Medicaid, but not enough to afford private health insurance.
Through federal waivers, the program has expanded in many states to include middle-income children and adults. That has led Republicans to argue that it has become a backdoor way to extend government-provided health care to an increasing number of people.
National polls show overwhelming majorities of voters support expanding the children's health program and are more likely to support candidates who back it.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Politics
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 33 CommentsPosted by gunnerv1 at 12:39 PM : Aug 03, 2007,,,
Not only is the cut off age 22, but each State gets to define "Children" and Adults can be added in addition to illegals and their kids in special cases due to language loopholes. Using the term "Children's Health Plan" is very deceptive for the people who actually read this Bill in detail. The Bill is a wolf in sheep's clothes to experts! Now we can longer trust what they name a Bill, it must be examined like never before, very clever disguise.
"...bitter Republican opposition..."
Could they be any more clueless? Are you trying to lose the White House in 2008 to the Dems?
If so, carry on. More, more, more.
I think it's outrageous that they would even consider taxing tobacco products. How dare they.
I just bought a ton of Phillip Morris stock.
Cigarettes are fine. They don't cause health problems. No one dies from smoking Camels. As if.
"...the Senate's $35 billion expansion"
What does that work out to be? Three months of what we pay for Iraq/Afghanistan? At about $12 billion a month?
Of course we just might have had more money to fund pressing domestic issues/problems (there are a few so I have been told) if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Did we ever find those "weapons of mass destruction"?
read & comprehend, instead of spouting unrelated talking points garbage.
Posted by actornaught at 01:56 PM : Aug 03, 2007
The Soviets tried COMMUNISM and it didn't work. However, hugo chavez has a place at the table for you.
You're taking a general statement and fantasizing an oversimplified context for it. The statement required 'thought'.
e.g.: Christian charity demands that we take care of society's weak and poor. Christian ethics also makes a good case that we take care of EVERYBODY.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 09:51 AM : Aug 03, 2007
Please inform me which article of the constitution or verse of the bible entitles everyone to free health care.
Yes, even George Soros will have to pay in his fair share and will have to pay deductibles, co-pays, and premiums for the basic package. If he wants extra bells and whistles he can use his largesse to purchase private supplemental insurance, they'll still be a private market for that.
Every neocon ******** should ask his employer how much it costs per person for health insurance, and add how much is co-payed, etc. I'll bet the number would stun you. Single-payer health insurance will probably take less when added to taxes. LESS.
By the way, call it 'socialized medicine', i don't care. So many of those labels have been corrupted and redefined, it doesn't matter.
Also, mbcsmith, you gotta learn to read. You should apologize to everybody.
Posted by mbcsmith
Here is just one example of mbcsmith and his neocron ways.
He would probably deny his own mom health care.
RandalDS was right about smith.
"don't understand the spirit of the Constitution or the Bible."
All he cares about is money and himself.
And his rebuttel will prove beyond a dought, his true self. Sad.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 09:51 AM : Aug 03, 2007
So you believe that every American is entitled to free health care, including George Soros?
As has been pointed out, Randal's statement doesn't claim a Constitutional right. However, I would argue that without health it would be difficult for anyone to have the right to life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The prblem with conservatives is that they don't understand the spirit of the Constitution or the Bible.
Nothing there says Constitution.
Posted by likeitis5050 at 09:41 AM : Aug 03, 2007
What is your justification/support for that claim?
Health care IS a basic human right and not a privilege
Nothing there says Constitution.
Posted by RandalDS at 11:52 PM : Aug 02, 2007
Please point to the specific article of the Constitution that makes health care a RIGHT.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 33 Comments