Congress OKs Expansion Of Kids' Insurance

Lawmakers Add 4 Million Children To Health Program; President Bush Vows Veto

(AP)  Congress approved legislation Thursday adding 4 million children to a popular health care program, setting up a veto fight that President Bush probably will win but handing Democrats a campaign issue for next year's elections.

Eighteen Republicans in the Senate lined up with Democrats in voting 67-29 to increase spending on the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, from about $5 billion to $12 billion annually for the next five years.

The vote was enough to override a promised Bush veto. But supporters in the House, which passed the bill Tuesday, are about two dozen votes shy of an override. Both chambers would have to muster two-thirds majorities to win a veto showdown.

Overall, spending for SCHIP would increase to $60 billion over five years in the unlikely prospect the bill becomes law - double what President Bush recommended.

Analysts projected the legislation would allow about 4 million of the estimated 9 million uninsured children in the United States to gain coverage.

Bush and most GOP lawmakers say the spending increase is too large and would expand the program beyond its original intent. That intent was to help families with incomes too large to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.

In statement after the Senate vote, the White House said Bush “will veto this bill because it directs scarce funding to higher incomes at the expense of poor families.”

Opponents of the measure said they support SCHIP, which was enacted a decade ago, and want to renew it before it is set to expire on Saturday. However, they said they could not go along with such a large spending increase.

Republicans braced for criticism that they were being insensitive to low-income children who are uninsured through no fault of their own. They said the legislation was an effort to score political points and another step toward universal health care paid for by the government.

“Democrats are counting down the hours so they can tee up the election ads saying Republicans don't like kids,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “Meanwhile, they're using SCHIP as a Trojan horse to sneak government-run health care into the states.”

Democrats said there was strong public support for expanding the children's health care program. They portrayed the president as isolated in his view that the legislation would be a mistake.

“With each passing day, he reveals ever more clearly that the values of his administration are out of touch with those of average Americans,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

Some Republicans joined in that criticism. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said complaints about the bill bordered on hysteria, particularly complaints that the bill would expand government-subsidized coverage to families of four with incomes of up to $83,000.

“This is not a government takeover of health care. This is not socialized or nationalized medicine or anything like that,” Grassley said. “This is not bringing the Canadian health care system to America.”

The additional spending would be paid for through a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes.

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said the tax could end up lowering future health care costs if it reduces smoking rates.

“Discourage smoking and you connect the habit with all the public health care costs that it imposes,” he said.

But Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., said the tax increase could lead to a drop in revenue to states that also rely on tobacco taxes.

Opponents also say they worry that expanding the program too much would lead to many families dropping private coverage. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that about 2 million children who otherwise would have private insurance would join SCHIP.

Anticipating a veto, Congress will continue funding SCHIP at its current level until mid-November as part of another bill keeping federal agencies in operating funds beyond Sept. 30.

The bill is HR 976.

[aaabee-2009]

VETO.

V.E.T.O.

Bush bringing his pen down on America.

[lorinkundert]

No Congress did not pass anything, only the Senate did.

[ontheleft]

I love the line about "scarce funding". They seem to have no problem spending half a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq with billions more on the way. Well, billions more were supposed to be on their way until a gay rights agenda was attached to the latest bill. We can''t fight a Christian war in Iraq with some gay rights strings attached now can we?

[myidoncbs]

"Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said complaints about the bill bordered on hysteria..."

"This is not a government takeover of health care. This is not socialized or nationalized medicine or anything like that," Grassley said.

IN OTHER WORDS, Bush (who has made all these claims) is an eff-ing LIAR!

Too bad that this ONE, TERRIBLY IMPERFECT, MAN has the veto power. If he vetoes the bill now after some of the GOP have also approved the bill, it proves he hates kids just as much as he hates the soldiers that he''s gotten killed, just as much as he hates hard-working Americans whose jobs he has outsourced, just as much as he hates the Constitution that he has trampled all over, just as much as he hates all those gullible Christians who voted for him, just as much as he hates America.

When I think of Bush, I am reminded of Al Pacino''s character in "The D3vil''s Advocate".

[incog-nito]

Bush just asked for another $195 billion for Iraq, but says we can''t afford $12 billion for kids'' healthcare? This guy is really something else.

[pwrslm]

The Democrats biggest problem, Tax and Spend.

This bill is tied to "ANOTHER" tax increase.

The Democrats like to tax americans.

But this bill will not pass, it will be Vetoed because Bush will not allow it.

Its not about childrens health insurance.

CBS is lying by omitting the whole truth.

[pwrslm]

The renewal of the State Children''s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, is considered by many to be the most important health legislation that Congress will take up this year.

"Members of Congress have decided, however, to expand the program to include, in some cases, up to families earning $80,000 a year %u2014 which would cause people to drop their private insurance in order to be involved with a government insurance plan," Bush said in a speech in suburban Maryland.

"If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the SCHIP program %u2014 which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people %u2014 I''ll veto the bill," he said.

[pwrslm]

80k per year, and you qualify for free health care?

!!!!

WAKE UP PEOPLE

!!!!

ITS THE COVER STORY FOR ANOTHER TAX INCREASE THAT IS BURIED IN THE BILL

what they dont tell you will hurt you!!

Omission is a lie when its done to decieve you, and both the DNC and CBS are guilty.

[s1ckd09]

Thank God we have a president that doesn''t let garbage like this pass just for re-election. This is a bad, bad idea, although the $12B compromise is much better than the original $50B. The program itself is a good idea, but we can''t keep expanding it. It needs to stay with it''s intended purpose and that is to help kids. This bill starts to let adults benefit from this program, and that is NOT what it is for.
You people who think this expansion is a good idea have not looked at the bill. You just see Bush is opposed to it, so it MUST be a good because he is so eeeeeevil.

[jumkey]

Bush only vetoes bills that are good for the middle class or because his ego is challenged. He''s an idiot - ignore him.

We need single payer, SOCIALIZED medicine in this country - just like every other first world country. Every dollar that goes into an insurance company pocket is a dollar not spend on American health.

That''s a simple fact.

The Republicans and some Democrats tell you your government can''t work for you because they''re paid by corporations to tell you that. Then they go about making sure government fails. Wake up America.

[homespunlady]

I do find it IRONIC that one of the BIGGEST reasons businesses in the US give for OUTSOURCING JOBS is that OTHER COUNTRIES don''t BURDEN the companies with HEALTH-CARE COSTS because OTHER COUNTRIES nearly ALL have some form of National Health-care.

YET, the NEOCONS don''t GET IT.
This nation has LOST a big part of it''s competitiveness because the INSURANCE LOBBY has pull in Washington. At least until the PEOPLE get fed up and LEARN the KATRINA LESSON.
How many paid THOUSANDS in premiums and in their time of need got NOTHING because of some unmentioned "loophole" that let those "protection rackets" off the hook?
Soon enough, they won''t pay because the premiums and EXEMPTIONS won''t make it worth it.
There''s a growing number that already know that and take their chance or "self insure".

[jumkey]

Look at all the insurance company trolls who have shown up here to keep America unhealthy and pick your pockets....they smell the money.

pwrslm - "You don''t deserve healthcare!"
s1ckd09 - "More money for business! To hell with your children!"

Follow the money folks. It''s your government. Make it work for you.

[homespunlady]

pwrslm
Worried your CIGARETTES might cost more?

[jumkey]

Medical care is a human right.

[rowdytexan2]

Get real! In the 40 something years I have been an adult I have never seen taxes GO DOWN! It didn''t matter if there was a republican or a democrat in the White House, or a republican or democratic majority over at the capitol. You taxes WILL GO UP! Politicians have played the tax game for years. They may pretend to give you a break in a political game to get re-elected, but then you turn around and you''re being taxed more somewhere else! It''s GAME!

What matters is the way we decide how those taxes are spent! Spend it on insurance for the American people who work and pay the taxes, i.e. some of the middle class AND their children seems a better deal to me than sending it over to the Middle East to be spent defending a people who are at this moment very well armed and lobbing bombs and bullets on our young soldiers.

Some of those arms bought with YOUR TAX DOLLARS! Why don''t we pull out of that *** over there and let some other misguided bustward fund their arms and let them shoot at each other?

[s1ckd09]

homespunlady,

A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6293

"For many years advocates of government-run health care pointed to Europe as an ideal, noting that America was the "only industrialized country without a national health care system." Now, however, the European welfare states are slashing benefits in the face of rising health care costs."

"A recent front-page story in the New York Times detailed the European cutbacks. According to the article, Britain, France and Germany are all being forced to limit access to care. Rationing, already extensive, is increasing."

"The Europeans have run into a very simple economic rule. If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it. Think of it this way: if food were free, would you eat hamburger or steak? At the same time, health care is a finite good. There are only so many doctors, so many hospital beds and so much technology. If people overconsume those resources, it drives up the cost of health care."

[s1ckd09]

Medical care is a human right.

Posted by jumkey at 11:50 PM : Sep 27, 2007


Even if that were true, which most definitely is not, you still wouldn''t have a right to "free" medical care.

[s1ckd09]

Worried your CIGARETTES might cost more?

Posted by homespunlady at 11:45 PM : Sep 27, 2007

Actually, cigarettes would cost a lot more, which might encourage more people to stop smoking, which would decrease the funding, which would lead to even more taxes elsewhere.

[kansas1946]

The vote was enough to override a promised Bush veto. But supporters in the House, which passed the bill Tuesday, are about two dozen votes shy of an override. Both chambers would have to muster two-thirds majorities to win a veto showdown
**************************
I suggest everyone contact their congressional representative, find out how they are going to vote, and if they are voting against this that they smell to high heaven and won''t be receiving your vote next election. That Bush would veto this is deplorable, but I don''t expect anything different from him. He is deplorable. The house needs to get off their a** and vote so they can override a veto.

[s1ckd09]

I wonder why more people don''t hear of this?

http://www.rangelmd.com/2005/06/failing-socialized-health-insurance.html

[s1ckd09]

I suggest everyone contact their congressional representative, find out how they are going to vote, and if they are voting against this that they smell to high heaven and won''''t be receiving your vote next election. That Bush would veto this is deplorable, but I don''''t expect anything different from him. He is deplorable. The house needs to get off their a** and vote so they can override a veto.

Posted by kansas1946 at 12:17 AM : Sep 28, 2007

Why is this deplorable? Do you really think that 25 year olds should be covered under SCHIP as a child?

[s1ckd09]

# -Increases the tax on cigars from $1.828 per thousand to $50.00 per thousand for cigars weighing less than 3 pounds per thousand, and increases the tax from 20.719 percent of the retail price to 53.13 percent of the retail price for cigars weighing more than three pounds per thousand, with a cap of $3.00 per cigar [Title VII (Sec. 701 [a])].
# -Increases the tax from $19.50 per thousand to $50.00 per thousand for cigarettes weighing less than 3 pounds per thousand, and increases the tax from $40.95 per thousand to $104.9999 per thousand for cigarettes weighing more than 3 pounds per thousand [Title VII (Sec. 701 [b])].
# -Increases the taxes on cigarette paper from $0.122 to $0.313 per fifty papers and on cigarette tubes from $0.244 to $0.626 per fifty tubes [Title VII (Sec. 701 [c-d])].
# -Increases the taxes on snuff from $0.585 to $1.50 per pound and on chewing tobacco from $0.195 to $0.50 per pound [Title VII (Sec. 701 [e])].
# -Increases the taxes on pipe tobacco from $1.0969 to $2.8126 per pound and on roll-your-own-tobacco from $1.0969 to $8.8889 per pound [Title VII (Sec. 701 [f-g])].

[socrates392]

I wonder why more people don''''t hear of this?

http://www.rangelmd.com/2005/06
/failing-socialized-health-insurance.htm
l

Posted by s1ckd09 at 12:25 AM : Sep 28, 2007

I wonder if you''re a smoker? You must be to oppose this bill . . .

[s1ckd09]

Since tobacco is the great evil that everyone couldn''t care less about the increased taxes on, (unless you''re a smoker, and then, well... who cares?) nobody will say much about this. But a 2700% tax increase is ridiculous. It is enough to get people to cut back on their tobacco use, which would mean that the funding for the program gets cut. And THEN guess who they''ll come after for more taxes?

[s1ckd09]

I wonder if you''''re a smoker? You must be to oppose this bill . . .

Posted by socrates392 at 12:35 AM : Sep 28, 2007

I am definitely not a smoker, but I do enjoy cigars occasionally. But I am definitely against this bill. This program should NOT be expanded. Funded? Yes. Expanded? No. And anyone who thinks that being opposed to this bill means that you "hate" children is just stupid.

[s1ckd09]

My point is that this expansion is being funded by the very people that are being told to change there habits. Why not a 2700% tax increase on fast food? Do you really think that won''t happen? Besides, young kids'' health problems aren''t being caused by their smoking habits, but how many are obese because of fast food? When the tobacco funding dries up, guess what they''ll use next as the great big evil to fund these things?

[s1ckd09]

Hey Kansas1946, did you call your Congressman and ask why this amendment didn''t go through?

"To prohibit a State from using SCHIP funds to provide coverage for nonpregnant adults until the State first demonstrates that it has adequately covered targeted low-income children who reside in the State.
Proposed: Jul 31, 2007. Rejected: Aug 2, 2007."

That is all you need to see to know that this bill isn''t about the "kids". It was rejected because it REQUIRES kids to be covered first! This is a sham!

[homespunlady]

Posted by s1ckd09 at 12:01 AM : Sep 28, 2007

Read up on Cato.org They "appear" to be a very Libertarian lobbying group.

I have NO love for cigarettes OR cigars but hey while we''re at it and you''re advocating Libertarian ideas how about LEGALIZING Marijuana and TAXING the heck out of that!

I suspect the usage would be low since you claim the TOBACCO ADDICTS would simply quit and I''d expect no less from marijuana smokers. They can even sit outside or wherever and freeze too.

I NEVER smoked but had to suffer in poorly ventilated smoke filled rooms breathing HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED, CHEAP cigarettes (even when pregnant back then) that the REST of my fellow military member partook of.

The result is that my lungs are pretty bad and they blame ME since SECOND-HAND smoke still damages like tobacco use.

As for the health-care issue I simply pointed out that the CORPORATIONS that are busily taking advantage of the current "pro-business" regime should be the LAST to gripe against this. It would SAVE them BENEFIT COSTS.

As far as "lower quality" health care in Europe - the poor are probably grateful just to have some which their US counterparts often DON''T have and the wealthy there seem to actually have a social conscience which their US counterparts ALSO often lack.

[rowdytexan2]

s1ckd09

OK, so say we don''t pass this bill. Where would you like to see this money go? If they don''t spend it on health care programs for middle class Americans...which other pocket would you like to see it land in?

So, say some hard working adults get some insurance coverage? Maybe a 25 year old living at home with parents struggling to put them thru school got some insurance? So what if ANY individual benefits from this pool of "insurance money". Why is that such a terrible thing?

[figuy30]

Everytime I think it would be humanly impossible for our government to put more burden on the taxpayer I find we still have men in office with no concern for the people who elected them. Don''t we already have enough people on welfare programs? Don''t we still give earned income tax credits to people who don''t even pay taxes? Elderly homeowners are still forced to pay school taxes even though they have no children in school and they can''t even afford health insurance for themselves. Where is the fairness in our tax system? And, where will it end? With our elected officials who have our best interests at heart?

[rowdytexan2]

I don''t see why any of this money should be going to some HMO insurance company to provide health care for Americans. Create some National Health Clinics and put the money directly in their hands to cover anybody that walks in the door making less than a certain amount of money, and feeding kids. Then if they have to go to hospital, send them, and pay the bill.

I don''t see why it should have anything to do with private insurance companies at all. Those who can can afford private insurance, more power to ya! Go for it, buy insurance from an HMO whose job it is to provide you with LESS health care and make sure there is an increase shareholder dollars. They need more trips to Europe and fur coats for their wives. Yehaw, support your local shareholder!

[larrs08]

You libs make me sick. Don''t you see we''ve got a war to pay for? If these kids want healthcare let them go out and get jobs like everyone else!

[s1ckd09]

OK, so say we don''''t pass this bill. Where would you like to see this money go? If they don''''t spend it on health care programs for middle class Americans...which other pocket would you like to see it land in?

So, say some hard working adults get some insurance coverage? Maybe a 25 year old living at home with parents struggling to put them thru school got some insurance? So what if ANY individual benefits from this pool of "insurance money". Why is that such a terrible thing?
Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 01:07 AM : Sep 28, 2007

Your post shows the problem with perception in this country. First, nobody thinks this is a terribly bad program, and almost everybody wants it to continue. The issue is the unneeded "expansion", but it is spun as being "against child care".
Second, the original purpose of this bill was to help children in families whose income was too high for Medicare but too low for other insurance. And that''s where it needs to stay.

So, I would like to see this program funded, but funded responsibly. Blame Congress for thinking that if they waited until the last minute to work on this bill, that the President would sign it no matter what because of the political fallout of not signing a bill to "help the children". Well, it didn''t work.

[larrs08]

This money should be spent in Iraq. Do you libs even know how much a smart bomb costs? Guess not. Or you wouldn''t think of wasting on these free loader children. Let them go out and get jobs if they want healthcare.

[larrs08]

You libs make me sick! Here we are borrowing money from China and Saudi Arabia to pay for Iraq and you want health care for the children of the working poor? Where are your values!! Where are your priorities!! This is why we need to get back to a Republican controlled Congress before the Dems ruin this country.

[socrates392]

Posted by Larrs08 at 01:38 AM : Sep 28, 2007

If you want to impersonate Lars successfully, you need to include way more ranting about "Nazi Terror Islam"! A little cut n paste wouldn''t hurt either! LOL! ;-)

[homespunlady]

Posted by figuy30 at 01:22 AM : Sep 28, 2007

Don''t know where you live but in THIS state my mom who''s over 65 gets ALL of her home property taxes REFUNDED for being low income elderly.

She''s on Medicare/Medicaid AND the NEW prescription drug program although she does have other "senior benefits" as well.

As for me, I pay a pretty hefty amounts to cover my SUPPOSED "FREE" military medical. There''s TRICARE PREMIUMS, DELTA PREMIUMS, a CIVILIAN eye-care program as once I retired they refused to do eye-care, COPAYS for every trip outside the system, eyeglasses which ironically are not covered - just exams. Orthodontics for my 17 year-old daughter which she tries to help pay from her part-time after school jobs since we''re just "getting by" etc, etc. etc.
After that there''s also life insurance, car insurance, house insurance, and on and on. The IRONY is NONE of that is money that''s GOVERNMENT just the same fleecing but by CORPORATIONS that PROMISE and find LOOPHOLES to NOT deliver.

The government parts seem to be working VERY WELL for mom.
The CORPORATE PROFITEERS seem to be working VERY WELL for THEMSELVES to fleece me.

[abbe91]

In statement after the Senate vote, the White House said Bush %u201Cwill veto this bill because it directs scarce funding to higher incomes at the expense of poor families.%u201D

... with a straight face ?
Better hear that than to be deaf, I guess.
Of course, this administration would never direct funding to high incomes at the expense of poor families ... high incomes ? like corporations ?

[abbe91]

"OK, so say we don''''t pass this bill. Where would you like to see this money go? If they don''''t spend it on health care programs for middle class Americans...which other pocket would you like to see it land in?

Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 01:07 AM : Sep 28, 2007"

Part of the answer is known already: subsidize ***private*** healthcare companies with taxpayer money. They are against using more taxpayer money for SCHIP but it''s OK to make a few CEO''s richer.

[abbe91]

"Opponents also say they worry that expanding the program too much would lead to many families dropping private coverage."

There we are ...

[s1ckd09]

Posted by homespunlady at 01:44 AM : Sep 28, 2007

You seem to have a perspective problem. First, and I''m not trying to be a smart-a$$, I really don''t know... isn''t your military medical plan government run?
Second, life insurance, car insurance, and house insurance aren''t covered by your mom''s medicaid and medicare either is it?
Third, if you are concerned about loopholes, what do you think the government does? Medicare and Medicaid don''t cover "everything" and that coverage can change at anytime.

[s1ckd09]

Of course, this administration would never direct funding to high incomes at the expense of poor families ... high incomes ? like corporations ?

Posted by abbe91 at 07:13 AM : Sep 28, 2007

So explain why Congress voted down amendment to this bill that would have required the targeted poor children to be covered first before the "adults" could be covered.

You''ve fallen for the rhetoric that "this is for the poor families" and that Bush most hate the poor if he opposes it. The FACTS are written in the bill, if you''ll read them. This expansion shifts focus away from the children who most this program was originally intended for.

[abbe91]

"So explain why Congress voted down amendment to this bill that would have required the targeted poor children to be covered first before the "adults" could be covered."
Posted by s1ckd09 at 08:53 AM : Sep 28, 2007

I don''t have to explain it (besides, what you post is totally unrelated to my comment).
I disagree with it, like I disagree that taxpayer dollars could be used to subsidize PRIVATE companies and I think that the original version should have been kept. Do you think private companies should receive taxpayer money ?

[s1ckd09]

"Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said the tax could end up lowering future health care costs if it reduces smoking rates.

%u201CDiscourage smoking and you connect the habit with all the public health care costs that it imposes,%u201D he said."



Hmmm... So how does reducing smoking rates affect SCHIP coverage? The association between smokers and the kids that this bill exists for doesn''t exist, unless there''s some 5 year olds out there with a two pack a day habit. If you reduce the smoking rates, you reduce funding, since almost ALL this money is coming from tobacco taxes. But the number of beneficiaries of this program won''t decrease. So how do you put less money into the system and still expect to cover just as many people? That is what is wrong with this bill!

[abbe91]

"So how do you put less money into the system and still expect to cover just as many people? That is what is wrong with this bill!
Posted by s1ckd09 at 09:02 AM : Sep 28, 2007"

That''s why funding only coming from tabacco taxes is not enough. But who''s responsible for the removal of the other source of funding ?

[larrs08]

You libs make me sick! This is money we need to be spending in Iraq! Where are your priorities?! If these kids want health care, let them go out and get jobs like everyone else. Democraps are ruining this country!

[abbe91]

Statement of Purpose: To provide sufficient funding and incentives to increase the enrollment of uninsured children.
Vote Counts: YEAs 36
NAYs 60

NAYs ---60
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

[afmca]

The Bottom Line for Bush, his neo-con allies, Republican in Congress and their family value hypocrits:

Iraq War - additional 190 Billion - YEA
Children''s Health - additional 35 Billion - NAY

Disgusting!!!

[larrs08]

REPUBLICAN LOGIC:


Total, U.S. government funded health care for all Iraqis is a very good idea. Government subsidised care for the children of American poor and working poor is a very bad idea.

Borrowing at least a trillion dollars to invade and then rebuild, stabilize, and occupy Iraq indefinitely is a very good idea. Investing in our own crumbling infrastructure is a very bad idea.



Why don''t we give Halliburton a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract to run the children''s heath care program? That''s how you get them to support this. You just have to understand how they think.

[s1ckd09]

Statement of Purpose: To provide sufficient funding and incentives to increase the enrollment of uninsured children.
Vote Counts: YEAs 36
NAYs 60

What''s your point? The amendment increased the top age of the federal guideline (I think) from 18 to 19, and repealed one of the tax cuts for people with incomes of 1,000,000 or more. Those people would end up paying $396,000 in taxes. Currently, they pay $350,000 in taxes. Anybody who thinks the rich don''t pay their fare share is sadly mistaken.