Bush to Veto Bill Expanding Children's Health Coverage

[ReillyT]

NYT

WASHINGTON, July 14 — The White House said on Saturday that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee.

The vow puts Mr. Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular program to cover some of the nation’s eight million uninsured children.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/washington/15child.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
--------------------------


The article states that the program would be funded by a tax increase on tobacco products, and two reasons why Bush may veto the bill:

1) It may cause some non-poor children to drop private coverage in favor of the government plan;

2) the bill does not contain some tax changes regarding health insurance that would make it more affordable.

This seems like one of those situations where Bush should compromise. His party no longer controls the congress, so it seems a little ballsy to veto a bill with some measure of bi-partisan support for these reasons.

Besides, it would be a much needed win for him to be able to sign a bill expanding children's health coverage.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

he was willing to fund it, but not as much as the democrats want it.

We need to cut government entitlements, not expand them.

Children are not owed health care, its the parents responsibility not the governments to take care of that.

 

[ReillyT]

he was willing to fund it, but not as much as the democrats want it.

We need to cut government entitlements, not expand them.

Children are not owed health care, its the parents responsibility not the governments to take care of that.

Nobody is owed health care unless we decide otherwise.

Children differ from adults in that there health care options are completely out of their hands. They cannot buy insurance, and if there parents are unable or unwilling to provide insurance for them, they risk missing the routine care that can identify and treat health issues early on. Not all entitlements are bad, and not all entitlements are created equally. I think I am okay with health insurance for children.

 

[mattskramer]

he was willing to fund it, but not as much as the democrats want it.

We need to cut government entitlements, not expand them.

Children are not owed health care, its the parents responsibility not the governments to take care of that.

Yes, and if parents fall onto hard times, then it is their own fault and the child suffers for it. If they have jobs that do not pay health care or pay them enough for them to afford private health insurance, then it is also their faults. If they fall through the cracks, our reply is to be: Too bad. Good-bye.

Does the paragraph above conform to your position?

 

[mattskramer]

Nobody is owed health care unless we decide otherwise.

Children differ from adults in that there health care options are completely out of their hands. They cannot buy insurance, and if there parents are unable or unwilling to provide insurance for them, they risk missing the routine care that can identify and treat health issues early on. Not all entitlements are bad, and not all entitlements are created equally. I think I am okay with health insurance for children.

I doubt that I could have said it better, myself.

 

[ReillyT]

I doubt that I could have said it better, myself.

Why, thank you very much.

 

[DeadCanDance]

he was willing to fund it, but not as much as the democrats want it.

We need to cut government entitlements, not expand them.

Children are not owed health care, its the parents responsibility not the governments to take care of that.

This was a completely bipartisan bill, with many republicans supporting it. Even Republican governors want to expand CHIP.

"The vow puts Mr. Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular program to cover some of the nation’s eight million uninsured children."

If Bush can find ten billion dollars a month to spend in Iraq, he can damn well find money for american children who don't have health insurance.

You wouldn't happen to be one of the last remaining 28 percenter dead-enders, who still defend Bush, would you?

 

[Gunny]

NYT

WASHINGTON, July 14 — The White House said on Saturday that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee.

The vow puts Mr. Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular program to cover some of the nation’s eight million uninsured children.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/washington/15child.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
--------------------------


The article states that the program would be funded by a tax increase on tobacco products, and two reasons why Bush may veto the bill:

1) It may cause some non-poor children to drop private coverage in favor of the government plan;

2) the bill does not contain some tax changes regarding health insurance that would make it more affordable.

This seems like one of those situations where Bush should compromise. His party no longer controls the congress, so it seems a little ballsy to veto a bill with some measure of bi-partisan support for these reasons.

Besides, it would be a much needed win for him to be able to sign a bill expanding children's health coverage.

Is it the Bill itself the President objects to? Or is there some unmentioned pork attached to it?

 

[Gunny]

This was a completely bipartisan bill, with many republicans supporting it. Even Republican governors want to expand CHIP.



If Bush can find ten billion dollars a month to spend in Iraq, he can damn well find money for american children who don't have health insurance.

You wouldn't happen to be one of the last remaining 28 percenter dead-enders, who still defend Bush, would you?

You're not just another shirll voicebox full of unsubstantiated allegations and or presenting opinions as fact, are you?

If your "28%" number is accurate, then the two-thirds required to override a Presidential veto is in the bag, isn't it?

So what's the problem?

 

[ReillyT]

Is it the Bill itself the President objects to? Or is there some unmentioned pork attached to it?

The only information that I have about this comes from the article. It didn't mention pork, but did mention the two reasons in the original post as the basis for his opposition to the bill.

I feel that Bush must acknowledge that with a democratic legislature, the legislation won't look exactly the way he might desire, but if he is in favor of expanding CHIPs (which he says he is), his concerns are not worth the veto. It seems like a reasonably important bill. He should sign it, declare that this is representative of his desire for bipartisanship, and grab part of the victory for himself. It is an important issue, and everyone can claim a win. As a bonus for the average citizen, our government will have actually accomplished something for once.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, we must cut the Budget, well except THIS item... and the next one you like and the next... RIGHT?

His opposition is NOT to the original bill, he does not ( rightly) want to expand the program so that people that already can and do have policies can now cancel them and get the Government to pay for it.

Is there ANY social service bill that liberals would ever oppose for ANY reason? The refrain about how we should protect the children ignores the fact that this bill EXPANDS the already existing protection to include people already ABLE to pay for coverage.

 

[ReillyT]

Yes, we must cut the Budget, well except THIS item... and the next one you like and the next... RIGHT?

His opposition is NOT to the original bill, he does not ( rightly) want to expand the program so that people that already can and do have policies can now cancel them and get the Government to pay for it.

Is there ANY social service bill that liberals would ever oppose for ANY reason? The refrain about how we should protect the children ignores the fact that this bill EXPANDS the already existing protection to include people already ABLE to pay for coverage.

It is true that this is part of his opposition to the bill. However, while some families currently just above the CHIPs line do have private insurance, many surely do not. It would be hard to separate one class of children from the other class, and if you believe that health care for children is very important, you have to deal with the inefficiency.

On another note, I have never seen a government program for the poor (or relatively poor) that provided health care that was better than that provided by most private insurers. It is usually pretty bare bones stuff, with plenty of restrictions (many doctors don't want to provide services for the state mandated fees). I wonder how many people who already had health care for their children through their employers would actually switch to a State-managed, federally funded program. I don't know. I just question.

 

[red states rule]

"It's clear that it will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage — purchased either through their employer or with their own resources — to go on the government-subsidized program," Fratto said. "Tax increases are neither necessary nor advisable to appropriately fund SCHIP."

I would suggest many of these people get rid of their cell phones, cable TV, and take care of their kids health care.

Then again, if this program works like most liberal programs the costs would probably triple within a few years, eventually costing 700% higher than anticipated, just like social security.

 

[Bullypulpit]

he was willing to fund it, but not as much as the democrats want it.

We need to cut government entitlements, not expand them.

Children are not owed health care, its the parents responsibility not the governments to take care of that.

Given that the majority of bankruptcies are related to medical expenses, that some $350 billion in health care dollars annually goes to administrative costs, that the infant mortality rate in the US is #36 in the world, just above Croatia, that the quality of heath care in America ranks # 37, just above Slovenia and Cuba, that America is the only major industrialized country that fails to provide comprehensive single payor health care, can we not provide for our children?

<blockquote><b>34</b>Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

<b>35</b>For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

<b>36</b>Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

<b>37</b>Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

<b>38</b>When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

<b>39</b>Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

<b>40</b>And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, <b>Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.</b> Matthew 25:24-40</blockquote>

 

[red states rule]

Given that the majority of bankruptcies are related to medical expenses, that some $350 billion in health care dollars annually goes to administrative costs, that the infant mortality rate in the US is #36 in the world, just above Croatia, that the quality of heath care in America ranks # 37, just above Slovenia and Cuba, that America is the only major industrialized country that fails to provide comprehensive single payor health care, can we not provide for our children?

<blockquote><b>34</b>Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

<b>35</b>For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

<b>36</b>Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

<b>37</b>Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

<b>38</b>When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

<b>39</b>Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

<b>40</b>And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, <b>Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.</b> Matthew 25:24-40</blockquote>

Given the amount of money already being spent on this government handout program - why do libs want more?

Why should I pay for someone elses kid's health xare?

This will only breed more dependence on the government - which is exactly what Dems want

 

[Waterrescuedude]

Yes why the hell should I have to pay for someone else kids. I agree with that. And isnt this on the bill that says that even some people that make up to 80,000 a year would be eligible for this program???

 

[red states rule]

Yes why the hell should I have to pay for someone else kids. I agree with that. And isnt this on the bill that says that even some people that make up to 80,000 a year would be eligible for this program???

and not one lib has answered the question

 

[Larkinn]

Yes why the hell should I have to pay for someone else kids. I agree with that. And isnt this on the bill that says that even some people that make up to 80,000 a year would be eligible for this program???

Because they should not be condemned to death for the sins of their parents. Boo fucking hoo, you have to pay a little to save a childs life. Let me play the smallest violin in the world for you.

 

[red states rule]

Because they should not be condemned to death for the sins of their parents. Boo fucking hoo, you have to pay a little to save a childs life. Let me play the smallest violin in the world for you.

The government is spending record amounts of social programs - there is not a crisis as libs would have you believe

and if you can't feed them - don't breed them