Battle Over Kids' Health Bill Continues

Democratic Leaders Gathering Votes To Override Veto On SCHIP Funding

(AP)  House Democratic leaders said Sunday they were working to gather votes to override a veto on a popular children's health program, but pledged to find a way to cover millions without insurance should their effort fail.

At the same time, the White House sought to chide the Democratic-controlled Congress as the obstructionists in reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It said Democrats were the ones who had shown unwillingness to compromise.

Deputy press secretary Tony Fratto quoted President Bush as saying he is "willing to work with members of both parties from both houses" on the issue.

In talk show interviews, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer did not dispute claims by Republican leaders that the GOP will have enough votes to sustain Bush's veto when the House holds its override vote on Thursday.

Pelosi and Hoyer promised to pass another bipartisan bill if needed.

"Isn't that sad for America's children?" said Pelosi, D-Calif., when asked about the GOP's assurances the override vote will fail. "It doesn't mean we aren't working hard throughout the country: governors, mayors, people who deal with children on a regular basis.

"We'll try very hard to override it. But one thing's for sure: We won't rest until those 10 million children have health care," she said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

Hoyer, D-Md., declined to predict Thursday's vote.

"This is a defining moment for the Republican Party, in my opinion," Hoyer said, before adding later: The program is "not going to die. We're going to go back and we're going to pass another bill."

House Democrats scheduled the vote after Bush earlier this month vetoed legislation that would increase spending for the SCHIP by $35 billion over five years. Bush has called for a $5 billion increase.

An override requires a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate. The Senate approved the increase by a veto-proof margin, but the earlier House vote fell about two dozen votes short.

The program provides health insurance to children in families with incomes too great for Medicaid eligibility but not enough to afford private insurance. Bush has said the bill is too costly. The president now says he might be willing to provide more than $5 billion originally offered but that the current proposal shifts too much insurance burden onto the government rather than private providers.

On Sunday, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he hopes that Democrats will agree to negotiate once the veto is sustained so that the children's insurance program can be reauthorized.

"We will have the votes to sustain the president's veto," Boehner said. "And I think the differences are resolvable, but we're standing on our principle that poor kids ought to come first."

"Most people don't want government-run health insurance," he added. "Republicans are working on a plan that will provide access to all Americans to high-quality health insurance, make sure that we increase the quality of health insurance that we have in America."

Last week, Pelosi said Democrats were making some progress and hoped to "peel off about 14 votes" to override the veto. Republicans such as Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, who sided with Democrats on the vetoed bill, also were working to sway wavering House GOP lawmakers.

On Sunday, Pelosi did not comment on the predicted vote tally.

"We'll take one step at a time. And, again, we'll maintain our bipartisanship and our fiscal soundness," she said. "And we'll talk to the president at the right time, when he makes an overture to do so, but not an overture that says, 'This is the only thing I'm going to sign."'

Fratto said it was untrue that Bush had never sought compromise in the vetoed legislation, contending that Democrats had shut out administration officials in the original negotiations. House Democrats have countered that they had already compromised enough because they wanted $50 billion for the program but dropped it down to $35 billion to appease Senate Republicans.

"It is encouraging that Speaker Pelosi has expressed a willingness to find common ground," Fratto said Sunday.

Pelosi spoke on ABC's "This Week," and Hoyer and Boehner appeared on "Fox News Sunday."

[jerr11]

Bush''s got it right!

We''ve got a trillion dollar war in Iraq.

Where are we going to find the money to fund this war if we spend on silly health programs for poor kids!

[likeitis5050]

Pelosi is crazy! Bush said from the start he would extend but not expand the bill based on what they had riding on it....a family making $80,000 would qualify for the healthcare under the Democrat''s bill. A family with children up to and including 25 years of age would be allowed to sign up under the Democrat''s bill. All children, no distinction between legal and illegal so long as they had that social security number that no one would be checking to see if it was valid, would be qualified under the Democrat''s bill. And to get what they want for these ''poor children who do not quite make it for medicaid'' they plan to tax the the working poor to get the funding to pay the $35 billon. Bush simply said it was not going to pass under their conditions. Now Pelosi is determined to turn it into ''do it or live with the fact you don''t care about children'' slander. How is she behaving any differently than Bush with his ''either with me or you are Anti-American'' slur against anyone who didn''t agree with him? The Democrats are determined to begin the great government give-away even before Bush is out of office. She needs to have a sock stuffed in her mouth....she and Hillary both. Sickening examples of political representation.

[scottyusa]

Everyone should have health care even if we have to socialize it like England and Canada. Right now what we have is skyrocketing costs and insurance rates with no end in sight. Maybe Bush would compromise if the funding structure was changed. As a smoker I am insulted that this would be funded entirely by smokers. That is discrimination. Everyone should be chipping in for this not just one group of people.

[walt1944-2009]

The Great Emperor Bush II has claimed that it is the Democrats that are responsible for not working with him on the SCHIPs bill. Of course, the fact that it was the emperor who refused to sign the bill in the first place appears not to have any bearing on the issue.

The Emperor says he wishes to work with everyone on a compromise on the matter. Naturally, when the emperor says "compromise" he really means a "compromise ON HIS TERMS". Otherwise, how could the Emperor call himself the "Great Decider" when he cannot decide what he wants people to do and think?

Naturally, the emperor is delighted that his loyal followers, the neocon Congressional Republicans, will uphold his veto irregardless of how many of those same Republicans will probably lose their seats in the 2008 election (provided one is held) because of this issue. The Emperor, however, does not care what happens to his followers nor the party he supposedly belongs to; he cares only that they do his bidding, dare not think for themselves or of the people who elected them, and will continue to have "blind faith" in their "fearless leader"!!

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!

[rowdytexan2]

likeitis5050

"And to get what they want for these ''''poor children who do not quite make it for medicaid'''' they plan to tax the the working poor to get the funding to pay the $35 billon."

The original plan was to change the laws so the much more affluent would have to pay more taxes and fund this bill. But of course that went over like a lead balloon...so the next fashionable thing to do is tax the smokers.

Mind you...it has never been proven that smoking actually kills you...it merely contributes to bad health...like drinking does, and over eating or living off greasy food.

What say we put about a $5 tax on a bottle of liquor, and an extra $1.00 tax on a bottle of beer. Combine that with our cigarette tax, and we should be able to provide health care for every child in America!!! Let''s do THAT! I''ll even smoke more so I can pay more tax if I know that money is going straight to a child''s health costs. (Like that money is going to get to one child...)

Then after that, let''s tax hamburgers, and anything cooked in oil, bakeries, potato chips...and TACO STANDS!!! omg, what a great source of revenue! Better yet, let''s run everybody through a public scale and if they''re more than 10 lbs overweight, let''s tax ''em $5 a lb.

I think we could even shore up Social Security with that kinda money. Boy howdy, I think I''m onto something here.

[rowdytexan2]

I agree ScottyUSA...

There are children suffering because people will hesitate to take them to the doctor when they have a high fever which might just be a cold...but then again might be a rare form of minengitis where every minute counts, or a strain of viral pneumonia. Or where a severe tummy ache might be appendicitus that could be caught early.

Why are we worrying that people would leave private insurance companies whose job it is to provide LESS health care so shareholders can make more money. I prefer NOT to have some accountant making decisions about my health care.

It should be available to anyone who walks in the door and says, I''m sick, I need help.

[myidoncbs]

"the White House sought to chide the Democratic-controlled Congress as the obstructionists"

Let''s see:

* the Democrats PASSED a bill to reauthorize childrens'' health insurance (SCHIP)
* and Bush VETOED the bill that would have reauthorized childrens'' health insurance

BY ANY DEFINITION OF THE WORD, Bush is the OBSTRUCTIONIST here, not the Democrats!

To the re-tards who like to quote high-sounding figures, trying to make it look like this bill would give insurance to wealthy people who could afford it: You are LYING, and you should know better. The cost of living, including the cost of insurance, varies dramatically throughout the country. For example, a house I bought here in the midwest for $50,000 would have cost me 1/2 MILLION dollars in many parts of California! See? A fixed amount of money does NOT mean the same thing everywhere. A family making $80,000 is upper middle class here, but at or below poverty level there! So, re-tards, wise up, or ****!

[myidoncbs]

RowdyTexan2, who is typical of the COMPLETE RE-TARDS that support Bush, said, "it has never been proven that smoking actually kills you".

Uh, Hello? Can you REALLY be THAT stu-pid? Have you ever heard of emphysema or lung cancer? Smoking causes BOTH diseases, and both will kill you. Of the two, emphysema is actually the worse one to get. I''ve seen relatives suffer over a period of many years as it gets harder and harder and harder to breathe, slowly, painfully, excruciatingly suffocating to death. When death finally comes, it is a huge blessing! Perhaps some day you''ll find out for yourself. You''re just the kind of fo-ol that the cigarette companies are looking for!

[homespunlady]

Hmm... It''s interesting hearing all the EXAGGERATED EXCUSES justifying DISCRIMINATION in providing health-care for the kids of the WORKING POOR American peasants that cannot afford outrageous PROTECTION RACKET level insurance premiums that probably won''t pay for care anyway when it''s needed.

The wealthy have excellent health-care opportunities and the extremely poor garner the token sympathies and money of people that want to assuage their guilty feelings for being "privileged" but the "working poor" are fair game apparently so the wealthy can justify feeling superior, point fingers and pull out that old "work harder like I did" BS.

So many Businesses use the EXCUSE that providing such coverage is COST PROHIBITIVE and for some - they are RIGHT.
Since nearly EVERY OTHER non 3rd world country HAS some form of basic health-care FOR ALL their citizens it IS a bit unfair in INTERNATIONAL competition situations.

The question then is what are the REAL costs WITHOUT such a program.

What are the REAL costs of LITTLE TO NO health-care for not only those children but their parents as well?

What will the costs be if LACK of BASIC health-care contributes to PANDEMIC illnesses that spread historically among the working poor FIRST and then to ALL levels of society?

What POTENTIAL is lost? Will it result in Fewer leaders, loss of international competitiveness, less diversity or a loss in the gene pool that we humans cannot afford? Those costs are NOT being counted.

[rowdytexan2]

MyIDonCBS ---

I know peopole that NEVER smoked that have lung cancer...I just had three friends have a lung taken out that don''t even live with anybody that smoked.

My friends mother died with emphysema that had NEVER smoked....

I said it has never been PROVEN that smoking will kill you, you idiot. And it hasn''t! Go read up!!!!!

I had an aunt who smoked from the time she was twelve until she died at the age of 98 in her sleep....

It has only been PROVEN that smoking CONTRIBUTES to bad health IF YOU SMOKE EXCESSIVELY!!!

And if you had READ my post, which you obviously didn''t...well, enuff said...RE-****....

[standlee5]

"The program provides health insurance to children in families with incomes too great for Medicaid eligibility but not enough to afford private insurance."

Define "afford". By what measurement would they use. Do they measure what year car people drive or how big their TVs are. Do they anaylyze spending habits or mortgagte payment comparisons. Wouldn''t it be in all of our best interest to not "afford" to pay for our own insurance and let the govt. provide it.

[standlee5]

Instead of coming up with a huge expansion of a program meant for the poor. Why don''t we analyze why it is that middle class can''t pay for their own stuff anymore. If we were making upwards of 80K, paying for a health insurance premium wouldn''t be a big deal. The middle class income is contracting and that''s what we need to address.

[usayesterday]

If we were making upwards of 80K, paying for a health insurance premium wouldn''''t be a big deal. The middle class income is contracting and that''''s what we need to address.

Posted by standlee5 at 01:59 AM : Oct 15, 2007
..............

But health care premiums are a big deal, especially for a family. As you add people onto a health insurance policy, the premiums increase exponentially. And what SOOO MANY people do not realize is that an $80k annual salary ain''t diddly squat in larger, more expensive regions like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, New York City, Washington DC and so on.

I''ve seen too many arguments against the bi-partisan SCHIP bill, and it comes from people who have no empathy or understanding for other people''s situations whatsoever.

(Though I''m not aiming this directly at you standlee5). There is clearly some arrogance, selfishness, and ignorance that causes people to be against this program and its currently proposed expansion.

[drinuk]

George Strangelove Bush will press the button on this and his hidden agenda is support for Big Pharma and the insurance moguls. Oh! Boy, Ron Paul is going to have a real mess to clean up next year.

Lets hope we can get him out of the oval office before he presses the button on Iran or encourages his Jewish friends to do it.

[barbaraf4]

If we fail to provide some form of healthcare for the children of the United States, then we will continue to subsidize their healthcare in the emergency rooms across the country. Emergency rooms have become 24/7 walk-in clinics for any family with a sick child.

The problem with taxing me, and other retirees like me, to pay anyone else''s healthcare, is that I have enough trouble paying for my own healthcare. When my husband retired from IBM, we were promised healthcare for life. Well, we still have IBM healthcare, except now we pay for it. Every year the premiums go up and the service goes down. IBM wants all the retirees to die off and then they won''t have to deal with them any more.

[mcvet]

Instead of coming up with a huge expansion of a program meant for the poor. Why don''''t we analyze why it is that middle class can''''t pay for their own stuff anymore. If we were making upwards of 80K, paying for a health insurance premium wouldn''''t be a big deal. The middle class income is contracting and that''''s what we need to address.

Posted by standlee5 at 01:59 AM : Oct 15, 2007
+ report abuse

The program was never meant for the POOR Sparky, those people are covered by Medicaid. The plan was to cover people working above the poverty line but not more that a certain percentage above that line BECAUSE greedy employers have, since the distruction of labor unions, taken those coverages away or have forced working folks who can hardly make ends meet to pay high prices for that coverage. IF you fascist have a cure for that lets hear it because YOU created the problem by trashing all the unions. Sieg Heil Bush!!

[mcvet]

The Democrats are determined to begin the great government give-away even before Bush is out of office. She needs to have a sock stuffed in her mouth....she and Hillary both. Sickening examples of political representation.


Posted by likeitis5050 at 07:12 PM : Oct 14, 2007
+

The Reich just dumps the Kool Aid out and you freaks just lap it up don''t you??? You have NO idea what we are going through out here do you? To you it''s just you and your fuhrer against all those ugly "Liberal''s". You creeps haven''t had an orginal thought in your lives but you sure are good at trashing those who do. You spend all your time telling the rest of us what these people mean and what they are really saying... Why? Do you think we can''t hear and understand for ourselves? This program will help MILLIONS of American''s who can''t afford to pay the cost NOW heaped on them by employers or when employers are to greedy to provide coverage. That''s just the way it is!! SIEG HEIL BUSH!!

[skyk-2009]

Define "afford". By what measurement would they use. Do they measure what year car people drive or how big their TVs are. Do they anaylyze spending habits or mortgagte payment comparisons. Wouldn''''t it be in all of our best interest to not "afford" to pay for our own insurance and let the govt. provide it.


Posted by standlee5 at 01:54 AM : Oct 15, 2007
+ report abuse

If you have to ask that question you have NO knowledge of what people face out here every day. We can spend HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars in a stupid war in Iraq but can not afford to provide health care for kids? We all know what has happened to the Middle Class under the "trickle down" economics, that money didn''t "trickle" down to them at all. Now we find all their jobs shipped to other countries and they are forced to work jobs paying far less and providing no or little in the way of benefits. Time we faced those facts and helped out the working guy for a change. The fat cats have enjoyed so much so quickly that we now find the gap so wide it''s as bad as it was before the great depression.

[adventurepa]

"the White House sought to chide the Democratic-controlled Congress as the obstructionists.
It said Democrats were the ones who had shown unwillingness to compromise.
Democrats wanted $50 billion for the program but dropped it down to $35 billion to appease Senate Republicans."

Just more proven spin by the bush administration.
They should not be trusted nor should the republicans running for president.

When are the Democrats going to start putting this stuff on TV in ads against the GOP and Republicans?

[mudrose-2009]

Instead of coming up with a huge expansion of a program meant for the poor. Why don''''t we analyze why it is that middle class can''''t pay for their own stuff anymore. If we were making upwards of 80K, paying for a health insurance premium wouldn''''t be a big deal. The middle class income is contracting and that''''s what we need to address.
Posted by standlee5

How refreshing to hear a voice of reason. Dimnowits, always making a mountain out of a moehill.

[gunnerv1]

$80,000.00 plus income and being 25 is a disqualfier and not a "Child", VOTE NO on this!

[sgtrds]

Bush doesn''t care about poor kids. He doesn''t care about middle-class kids either. He is an elitist pig, raised by the ice hearted elitist pig Barbara and doesn''t give a da*mn about anyone or anything outside of his "class" of people and never did. It''s why he has no problem vetoing children''s health care, because all of the children of his "class" can afford it. It''s also why he has no problem sending other peoples kids off to die in a war he started (when he was too much of a yellow-bellied gutless coward to go to Vietnam), because none of the members of his "class" are fighting in it. To Bush and scum like him the only real people are people he knows and everyone else are sub-humans to be walked upon.

[katg21]

Bush doesn''''t care about poor kids. He doesn''''t care about middle-class kids either...Posted by SgtRDS

OH Dear Lord, what a whining idiot!!! Yeah, Bush doesn''t care about our children, he''s evil!!! Did you read the bill, moron? Obviously not.

[sgtrds]

Bush is not evil or rather not any more evil then any other elitist pig who was raised to believe that everyone else is "beneath" him. Yes I have read the bill. I know that it provides more money to expand the program to cover more poor children and that it pays for itself through an increase in tobacco taxes. However the idiot in the White House objects to it because it has that terrible word taxes in it (which he only likes when he''s slashing them for the rich), that it covers more poor kids (who he doesn''t give a sh*it about in the first place), because it goes after his fellow elitist pig buddies in Big Tobacco and because he thinks it''ll lead to socialised medicine, which of course it will and that''s great! Free comprehensive heath care is a human right, right up there with free speech and freedom of religion. So is Bush evil? I suppose not. he''s just a jerk and a rich as*shole.

[kansas1946]

At the same time, the White House sought to chide the Democratic-controlled Congress as the obstructionists in reauthorizing the State Children''s Health Insurance Program. It said Democrats were the ones who had shown unwillingness to compromise.
***********************************************

Oh, yes, this is all the Democrats fault. A bi-partisan bill passes the senate with a large majority of support from both sides of the isle, Republicans are furious he vetoed it, but of course, Bush is well versed in "Rove Speak."

Just lie, lie, lie, and blame anything on the Democrats. He is pitiful, ignorant, short sighted, but now, almost everyone, including most Republicans, know it.

[kansas1946]

Yes, Bush is evil, of that I have no doubt.

[changeizcmon]

I cannot understand how people can be against our children receiving healthcare. It''s tough out there for families. The cost of everything from food to electric has risen much over the years, but wages have not. Yet, I believe we have the money without having to increase taxes to provide this coverage. The government just needs to quit squandering away what tax money they already have. Example: the millions of dollars that the senator from Alaska obtained for his state, so they can do research on how to make Salmon babyfood??? Sounds like a hot item that will make money??? Check out the news story in the Feb 07 Readers Digest regarding the wasteful spending of the Pentagon and other government agencies. All that money could have paid for quite a few children to be covered. Just think how many kids could have coverage, if we had could use the money (contributions) that the candidates received!!!

[sgtrds]

I cannot understand how people can be against our children receiving healthcare.

Posted by Changeizcmon at 12:13 AM : Oct 16, 2007

Simple. He does not care. Not even a little.