Congressmen Debate Over Healthcare Bill

Rep. Charlie Rangel Says The President Cares More About The Cigarette Tax

(CBS)  After President Bush vetoed a health insurance bill that he said is fiscally irresponsible, Democrats in Congress are trying to override his veto, but, in what has become a fierce political battle, they appear to be 15 votes short.

The bill passed by Congress would fund and expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, a partnership between the federal and state governments that provides health insurance to children in families with incomes too great for Medicaid eligibility but not enough to afford private insurance.

An override requires a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate. The Senate approved the increase by a veto-proof margin, but the House fell about two dozen votes short of a two-thirds majority. The House has scheduled an override vote for Oct. 18.

"The president's position is indefensible," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said on Face The Nation. "Even the Christian right would believe that investing in our young people's health is not only the moral thing to do, but if we're looking for a productive, educated future society, we have to protect our young people."

Rangel, the Chairman of the Ways and Mean Committee, said that the President is really more concerned about the cigarette tax the Democrats proposed to help pay for the child healthcare program.

"But we had to choose between the cigarette tax and protecting 10 million children and giving them health care," Rangel told Bob Schieffer. "These are not the poorest of the poor, but they're hard-working people who don't have health insurance."

But chairman of the House Republican Conference Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida said the blame for holding up health insurance for children lays with the Democrats.

After his veto, President Bush immediately signaled a willingness to compromise on a new bill, but congressional Democrats stood firm.

"It is the Democrats in the House, under Charlie Rangel's leadership, who have delayed the vote on this by two weeks," he said. "We could solve this problem easily in less than two weeks if he would just sit down and work with us."

Putnam said Democrats have attached so many other things to the SCHIP bill that money would be diverted away from poor children.

"The administration and the Republicans in Congress believe that we should have a 90 or 95 percent enrollment rate of those kids who are already eligible to receive this very important program before you divert that money into other things, which is what the Democratic bill does," he said.

Now it's up to Rangel to try to persuade Republicans to come over to his side on this issue. Rangel said that the Democrats already conceded to the Republicans by allocating $35 billion rather than the $50 billion they wanted for the bill and if they allow the president to get what he wants; 1 million children will go uninsured.

"The truth of the matter is that this program is for working families with kids that are uninsured," Rangel said.

In a warning to Democratic leaders who have pledged to stick with their $35 billion increase, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said Mr. Bush would not waver despite attempts to override his veto last week.

Leavitt told the Associated Press that the Democratic-controlled Congress, not the Republican administration, would pay the political price if SCHIP stalls due to gridlock.

[dem0publican]

OK! So here it is.

Why should we give every kid health care? Think of it this way. If they''re sick enough to need to go to the hospital THAT bad at a young age, weed them out of the gene pool! Survival of the fittest. In the long run, it''ll benefit mankind. :) lolocopter.

It''s all in making a profit; president claims that adults would be helped in the long run of it. I believe there should be healthcare for all Americans, not just the needy. If you can spend billions on food and clothing and support for almost every nation "your generosity" should be as equally stable here for the citizens of this country. Instead, we are paying taxes and more taxes..even taxed for our hard labor and yet we get peanuts in return. High priced medicine, doctors are precribing what the drug companies allow, medicaid fraud, HMO fraud, Insurance fraud. If it were free and every paid a little there may be less fraud. Because we''d eliminate the middle man and the drug companies would be sold the short end of the stick. These drug companies pay huge bonus also for doctors who precribe certain medications and for denying you the healthcare you need for certain ailments, surgeries, and life saving solutions that you may need in order to survive. They are deciding whether you live or die. We need a drastic change in healthcare.

[darwinian1]

Wouldn''t leaving children without any healthcare allow the weaker ones to perish, making children (as a group) stronger in the long run? Let''s solve the problem with a human resource management approach.

[freedthinker]

"...and while leaders try to do right, politicians only use the fight as a path to power." %u2013Unknown

As loath as the Republicans might be to admit it, the debate over children%u2019s health care isn''t about what is fiscally right for this country or what''s right for this country right now. It''s about what is best for the future of our children. We have to do what is right based on our children''s futures, not based on our emotions or feelings or our desires to appear "politically compassionate."

I fail to see how perpetuating the growth of socialized, government-controlled healthcare invests in the lives of our children. The more expensive "social programs" we institute now, the more our children will have to pay for later on. If we are really concerned about the uninsured children in the United States, we need to work to dissolve high-dollar insurance monopolies that pretend to be "tolerant" and "proactive" in supporting bills like this when they know the money is coming right out of the middle-class pockets and into their ever-hungry coffers.

America has had enough political jockeying and attempts to gain power by making the other side look bad in the phony name of "compassion". Why should we let the %u201Cfree-thinkers%u201D and the %u201Cprogressive%u201D %u2013 power-hungry politicians and money-grubbing big businesses %u2013 rob our children of their future? Emotional appeals are nice, but that is not what is right for our children and our country.

[DrColes]

Kids have health care. The needy already have health care. The U.S. is not a socialist state. The government caused the problem with health care in America by over socializing medicine to the extent it is not completive, and we want to exacerbate the problem? U.S. Capitalism refers to an economic system in which the means of production are all owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money (see finance and credit). See http://www.InteliOrg.com/

[acxeptddty]

Any idiot knows health care is unnecessarily expensive, even for folks who have insurance. Every single year, coverage is peeled back and premiums increase. We pay more for less.

Even for a middle-income family that can somehow "budget" for the gouging ways of big private insurance, a single, unexpected illness or injury can be financially devastating; private insurance won''t cover the bill.

Bottom line -- unfettered capitalism will not cure everything, and health care is one of those things. Either we accept this and let little ones be sick, as callous Republicans would prefer, or we fix it.

As a society, we need to make value choices based on something besides the myopic, compulsive, Republican greed that preoccupies roughly half the population.

Fact is, when it comes to money, Republicans'' motto is "It''s all about me -- keep your *** hands off my stuff." This philosophy, so utterly hypocritical, flies in the face of the so-called "values" of the Christian right and, indeed, the very teachings of Christ Himself.

These are kids, for goodness sake.

Mark my words -- left to the avaricious wiles of big insurance, very soon the United States will have a well-defined, two-tier health care system -- one for the rich, and none for the rest. I suppose to New Dickensonian Republicans this is all well and good. Thank God we''re not all Republicans.

[DrColes]

Kids have health care. The needy already have health care. The U.S. is not a socialist state. The government caused the problem with health care in America by over socializing medicine to the extent it is not completive, and we want to exacerbate the problem? U.S. Capitalism refers to an economic system in which the means of production are all owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money (see finance and credit). See http://www.InteliOrg.com/

[deb-z]

I do not agree with the writer of the comment "NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH", this is in reference to people can pay for their own health care! We already do have a social health care system with tons of perks and dental coverage with medication programs all included!!!...that is if you are working for the government, the state, the towns & cities, a senior
on retirement from a plan just mentioned, many people that hold public offices, public assistance individuals be it welfare, etc...etc...etc...Who pays for health care the middle person like myself with a disabled adult child I pay over $1,700 per month in health care and it is forever rising...I feel if we can pay with our taxes for all the above give away health plans we all should have this benefit. After all I pay for everyone else...
I also work in health care so I know all of the games that are played in the health care industry. It will save money to go national where government is in control and not the insurance and drug lobbies!!!
HEALTH CARE SHOULD BE FOR EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY BY THE GOVERNMENT LIKE OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES!!!
BUT THEN WE KNOW HOW AMERICANS ARE HARD TO TEACH...WE COULD NOT EVEN LEARN THE METRIC SYSTEM LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD!!!
AND WE KNOW OUR PRIORITIES ARE OFF SKEWED WHEN WE
PREFER TO VOTE IN MORE WEAPONS AND LESS CARE FOR CHILDREN!!!

[sdrdk5]

Here we go - this would be the start for socialized medicine for Hillarycare which the majority of the country does not want. British and Canadians have said it is the worst thing to happen to them. The children in this group have parents that work full time. A lot of parents have not signed up for the company insurance as they figure they can get it almost free through the government. The government is not there just to give these handouts. It has also been said the illegals will benefit by ''free'' insurance also. Well they all get it now as they go to the emergency rooms. I for one cannot afford to keep contributing to these irresponsible programs the dems keep coming up with. They want complete control over our lives. I raised my five children without any government help and as my kids tell me now "we were poor but did not know it". We managed to keep food on the table and clothes on their backs. It is a matter of priorities also. We chose to be responsible for our children and even when it was rough going on the farm we managed to provide. It is time for everyone to be responsible for themselves and their families. I do realize there are some through no fault of their own do come across harder times but that is few and far between. Most people with full time jobs can get the health insurance. Sure you have to pay part of the premium but there is no such thing as a ''free lunch''.

[zakweinberg]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21180352/ (Bush called for a 5 billion increase, rather than 35 billion over 5 years.)

[zakweinberg]

5 billion? Is that all Mr. President? I think we should invest less money in hapless wars, and more money in our children, our future. This is not a free government handout. This is not catering to the lazy. This is providing healthcare for hardworking American citizens. Some would say, quoting Mr. Bush, this is %u201Cfiscally irresponsible.%u201D I think, a better definition of irresponsible is democracy under martial law %u2013 Iraq for example. Do you remember hurricane Katrina? You may have forgotten, but while you were on vacation, you ignored warnings of a natural disaster capable of catastrophic consequences. The local government will take care of it. The state government will figure it out. Someone else will take care of it. Irresponsible.

In my opinion, give the kid%u2019s their healthcare %u2013 sir.

[mddwolf]

Bush''s support for privatized health care is merely a hand-out to insurance companies which are reaping billions as they stand between the doctor and the patients. My doctors for years have said they want the insurance industry out of the way. These for-profit outfits are now making medical decisions which hamstring doctors. They add to the ever rising cost of medical care. I would rather have my premiums go directly to a Medicare-like Single Payer plan, let the doctors practice medicine, and relegate the insurance companies to the auto market where they would do less harm.