Congress Set for Veto Fight on Child Health Care

[LadyMod at scam.com]

What the hell is so wrong about assuring that there is adequate healthcare for every child in America? If you have healthy children, chances are when they grow up you'll have healthier adults. And you wouldn't have all these mothers on Welfare abusing the system by taking little Johnny with the sniffles to the emergency room in an ambulance no less. (Yes, it happens, a lot.) Dont the rich, who got all the tax cuts, want a healthy workforce?

Congress Set for Veto Fight on Child Health Care
By ROBERT PEAR and CARL HULSE
Published: September 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 — President Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress prepared Monday for a showdown over the future of health insurance for more than 10 million children.

Supporters of the legislation, which has broad bipartisan support, mobilized lobbyists — 400 from the American Cancer Society alone — and began advertising to win the votes needed to override a veto threatened by Mr. Bush. The president says the measure, which would renew and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, costs too much and would be “an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American.”

The bill would cover four million children, in addition to the 6.6 million already enrolled. The overwhelming majority of those on the rolls are in low-income families. The House plans to vote on the measure as early as Tuesday, and the Senate is expected to pass the legislation a day or two later.

Federal health officials urged states to draft contingency plans in case tens of thousands of children lose coverage because of the impasse when the program expires Sept. 30. As one option, the officials said that states might consider shifting some children onto Medicaid.

Mr. Bush dispatched Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, to “work with states on ways to mitigate the damage that would result if Congress allows this program to lapse.”

Administration officials said they were concerned that the White House was being hurt by televised news reports that portrayed the fight as a struggle between Mr. Bush and poor children, rather than as a philosophical debate over the role of government in health care.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Congressional Research Service estimate that a dozen states will run out of money next month if the program, known as Schip, is not extended. The two agencies said the states were Alaska, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

Problems in Iowa could draw national attention because presidential candidates of both parties often visit the state, and Democrats are continually talking about health care and the uninsured as a major issue in next year’s race.

Gov. Chet Culver of Iowa said: “Without a new infusion of federal dollars by the deadline, Iowa will not have sufficient federal matching dollars to pay October premiums for our children who rely on Schip for health care.”

Dr. Rhonda M. Medows, commissioner of the Georgia Department of Community Health, said that up to 273,000 children in the state would “sustain a tragic loss of health care coverage” if the federal government did not renew or temporarily extend the program.

The House and the Senate passed different versions of the legislation in early August. The compromise worked out by negotiators would renew the child health program for five years, with a total of $60 billion, which is $35 billion more than the current level of spending. The additional cost would be financed by increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes by 61 cents, to $1 a pack.

Supporters of the compromise said they were confident they had the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto in the Senate, which passed a similar bill by a vote of 68 to 31 on Aug. 2.

It was uncertain how many House Republicans might back the compromise, though at least 16 last week signed a letter expressing support for the Senate approach.

The measure has been stripped of Medicare changes that were opposed by Republicans, but carries a price tag that makes some lawmakers nervous. “This is still awfully expensive,” said Representative Judy Biggert, Republican of Illinois, who added that she would probably vote for the legislation.

Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican seeking re-election, said the president would be “making a terrible mistake” if he vetoed the bill. She urged him to reconsider his veto threat.

But the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said, “I intend to support the president, to keep this bill targeted at young people it was meant to serve in the beginning.”

A liberal group supporting the legislation was scheduled to begin running a television advertisement that said Mr. McConnell had “sided with the big insurance companies” by voting against an earlier version of the legislation.

On Monday, a wide range of groups endorsed the compromise bill, saying it should be passed by Congress and signed by Mr. Bush. The groups included the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans and the Healthcare Leadership Council, representing insurers, hospitals, pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies.

Daniel E. Smith, vice president of the American Cancer Society, said: “The choice is simple: Are you for kids? Are you for tobacco companies? Mr. President and Congress, we hope you side with the kids.”

Mr. Bush said last week that the compromise bill would cover children in four-person families with incomes exceeding $80,000 a year, which is about four times the poverty level.

But Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican and co-author of the bill, said that under the compromise, a state could set its income limit at $80,000 only if the secretary of health and human services gave approval. New York is the only state that has proposed such a high limit, and the Bush administration denied its request on Sept. 7.

Representative Joe L. Barton of Texas, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said that Democrats were more interested in politics than in the details of the program.

“The majority is passing a bill they know will be vetoed in hopes of making the president look as if he’s against health care for children,” Mr. Barton said.

[kres24GT]

Time for the taxpayers to stop footing the bill for people who are having kids that they can't afford. My wife and I are waiting until it is fiscally responsible to have children, why should our tax dollars pay for those who don't make the same choice?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Time for the taxpayers to stop footing the bill for people who are having kids that they can't afford. My wife and I are waiting until it is fiscally responsible to have children, why should our tax dollars pay for those who don't make the same choice?

Oh I don't know. I waited until I was 22 and married 4 years. Would have waited longer if I was not told by the doctors I could never get pregnant. But in 30 years I only experienced one time when it was truly "fiscally" right for us to have a baby. Luckily it lasted until after the child was born (especially since it was failed birthcontrol that resulted in the pregnancy and not my negligence). My point here is, if you wait, you might never experience a fiscally proper moment and you really shouldn't judge so narrowly.

Our tax dollars pay for wars. I would much rather they paid for healthy children, no matter if they had irresponsible mothers and dads or not. Think of it this way. Your healthy children will be exposed to those illegitimate kids, wouldn't you rather they were healthy instead of sickly given those circumstances?

LM

[kres24GT]

Oh I don't know. I waited until I was 22 and married 4 years. Would have waited longer if I was not told by the doctors I could never get pregnant. But in 30 years I only experienced one time when it was truly "fiscally" right for us to have a baby. Luckily it lasted until after the child was born (especially since it was failed birthcontrol that resulted in the pregnancy and not my negligence). My point here is, if you wait, you might never experience a fiscally proper moment and you really shouldn't judge so narrowly.

Our tax dollars pay for wars. I would much rather they paid for healthy children, no matter if they had irresponsible mothers and dads or not. Think of it this way. Your healthy children will be exposed to those illegitimate kids, wouldn't you rather they were healthy instead of sickly given those circumstances?

LM

No, I'd rather not pay for them and have their be a consequence to having children you cannot afford. This would deter people from cranking out crotch fruit left and right. Many poor people have more kids just to increase their government aid.

Time to stop footing the bill for all these poor people. They are breeding out of control and its increasing crime and government dependence. If we have to let some of these people die off so be it.



If you can come up with an individual and privatization plan for the military, I'd love to hear it. I am all for lesser government, especially with people like Bush wasting our tax dollars via the military. Healthcare is simple, everyone pay for their own. If you can't afford it for you kids, don't have kids.

[Moby]

Time for the taxpayers to stop footing the bill for people who are having kids that they can't afford. My wife and I are waiting until it is fiscally responsible to have children, why should our tax dollars pay for those who don't make the same choice?
That would mean that we'd have about 30% less children born in America then we do now. Our birth rate is already way down then it was s generation ago.

Now we want to close our borders.

Less children being born. No one coming in from other countries. Sooner or later our population will start to dwindle because we're getting older.

I'm not a big fan of government control and that's the main reason why I'm against Dubya's administration. However, society does benefit from growth in populations instead of declines. Society does need to encourage population growth to continue to reap the benefits.

Why not just become a band of small families with no taxes, no roads, no infrastructure, no education and no health care? Just leave everyone to fend for themselves.

[kres24GT]

That would mean that we'd have about 30% less children born in America then we do now. Our birth rate is already way down then it was s generation ago.

Now we want to close our borders.

Less children being born. No one coming in from other countries. Sooner or later our population will start to dwindle because we're getting older.

I'm not a big fan of government control and that's the main reason why I'm against Dubya's administration. However, society does benefit from growth in populations instead of declines. Society does need to encourage population growth to continue to reap the benefits.

Why not just become a band of small families with no taxes, no roads, no infrastructure, no education and no health care? Just leave everyone to fend for themselves.


Encourage population growth, just stop encouraging only poor people on government assistance to breed. Right now the poor and stupid are breeding at a much higher rate than the upper and middle classes and as responsible Americans have to pay more and more taxes to support, the less children they have.

[Moby]

This is an interesting bill and the type of thing that we haven't seen in more then 6 years. It's a bill that wouldn't cost me a penny. Not a dime of my money. Not a dime of my daughter's money. No interest payments and debt to be handed off to our children.

It's totally funded by those that choose to smoke, which are raising health care costs in general. It helps support children in need.

So they entire cost thing is not a valid arguement unless you want to keep the cost of smoking low. It's not funded by tax payers.

Only 3 things have doubled in price since Dubya took office (accept gold but that's only because he's destroyed the dollar). Oil, health care and some desert property.

People need some help in meeting health care costs and this will help those that need it the most.

[Moby]

Encourage population growth, just stop encouraging only poor people on government assistance to breed. Right now the poor and stupid are breeding at a much higher rate than the upper and middle classes and as responsible Americans have to pay more and more taxes to support, the less children they have.
You did read the bill or at least the information about the bill didn't you?

TAX PAYERS AREN'T PAYING FOR THIS!

[kres24GT]

You did read the bill or at least the information about the bill didn't you?

TAX PAYERS AREN'T PAYING FOR THIS!


Yes I did. Don't see how the tax payers aren't paying for it.

[Marlboro]

That would mean that we'd have about 30% less children born in America then we do now. Our birth rate is already way down then it was s generation ago.

Now we want to close our borders.

Less children being born. No one coming in from other countries. Sooner or later our population will start to dwindle because we're getting older.

I'm not a big fan of government control and that's the main reason why I'm against Dubya's administration. However, society does benefit from growth in populations instead of declines. Society does need to encourage population growth to continue to reap the benefits.

Why not just become a band of small families with no taxes, no roads, no infrastructure, no education and no health care? Just leave everyone to fend for themselves.


And the enviroment suffers... simple the planet cannot support the numbers...No one is saying stop having babies...just plan to afford them and not have over 2 would be a good start.

[Moby]

Yes I did. Don't see how the tax payers aren't paying for it.
OK, so you're a smoker and you will have to pay a higher consumption tax. I'm not a smoker so absolutely none of my tax dollars will be used for this so I like it.

Remember, this isn't the borrow money now and let someone else worry about later Congress any more.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

No, I'd rather not pay for them and have their be a consequence to having children you cannot afford. This would deter people from cranking out crotch fruit left and right. Many poor people have more kids just to increase their government aid.

Your argument is illogical. If it didn't stop them before, why would it stop them after? It's not the child health benefits or lack thereof that stops people from having sex or giving birth to children.

Time to stop footing the bill for all these poor people. They are breeding out of control and its increasing crime and government dependence. If we have to let some of these people die off so be it.

Again, your thinking is illogical. For one thing there is no premise to base upon that any particular class of people are breeding out of control. If you have found stats to back that up, I would sure like to see them.

Furthermore, ones earning capability is not dependent on government nor is crime an indicator of one's earning capacity.

Maybe we should make schooling beyond the 12th grade free for everyone, trade schools free for everyone and then more poor folks, not to mention middle class individuals who neither get the grants nor can afford the bill, will be able to increase their earning capabilities because they have the needed education to do so?

Free schooling beyond high school and free health care for everyone under the age of 18 and we won't have so many of these "poor" folks breeding like bunnies and costing the taxpayers so much. :rolleyes:

If you can come up with an individual and privatization plan for the military, I'd love to hear it. I am all for lesser government, especially with people like Bush wasting our tax dollars via the military. Healthcare is simple, everyone pay for their own. If you can't afford it for you kids, don't have kids.

Well, a lot of soldiers are those "poor" folks who are breeding out of control and we are already paying for them and their health care.

LM

[disrupter]

I don't know that there is any good clinical data that gives us much clue about the nature of people's childhoods & their outcomes/lives as adults.

Anecdotally many of the most notable people/personalities of history had rough, debatable & even bad childhoods. also keep in mind Bush is the product of a life of privilege.

Intellectually i haven't found any good foundation for any position.

Emotionally, bending to my upbringing i would say it is fiscally more responsible to take care of children's health than to waste it creating terrorists in Iraq. Doing constructive, beneficial things is better than doing destructive things.

Since we live deep in the abyss of time & space relative comparisons are probably all we have to go on. & politicians & the public do have an addictive need to do some kind of 'feel good' actions.

I suppose i should be pleased that the congress will override Bush on something, but there are so many things that are IMO more morally, ethically, rationally & logically more important i am not thrilled. perhaps this is a beginning portend, but i for one am not holding my breath.

Maybe starting with the easier things, strength will be gained to do the harder things?

I think it is even money we are doomed as a species.
Do they have any Vegas odds on that . . . ?

[kres24GT]

OK, so you're a smoker and you will have to pay a higher consumption tax. I'm not a smoker so absolutely none of my tax dollars will be used for this so I like it.

Remember, this isn't the borrow money now and let someone else worry about later Congress any more.


1. Not a smoker, but smokers are taxpayers.
2. This will not be totally covered by a smoking tax. Government programs always go way over their projected cost, where does that money come from?
3. Government agencies run by your tax dollars will be involved int his, their costs will increase.
4. Your comment that it doesn't tax you, so you like it, is a sad mentality.

[kres24GT]

I don't know that there is any good clinical data that gives us much clue about the nature of people's childhoods & their outcomes/lives as adults.

Anecdotally many of the most notable people/personalities of history had rough, debatable & even bad childhoods. also keep in mind Bush is the product of a life of privilege.

Intellectually i haven't found any good foundation for any position.

Emotionally, bending to my upbringing i would say it is fiscally more responsible to take care of children's health than to waste it creating terrorists in Iraq. Doing constructive, beneficial things is better than doing destructive things.

Since we live deep in the abyss of time & space relative comparisons are probably all we have to go on. & politicians & the public do have an addictive need to do some kind of 'feel good' actions.

I suppose i should be pleased that the congress will override Bush on something, but there are so many things that are IMO more morally, ethically, rationally & logically more important i am not thrilled. perhaps this is a beginning portend, but i for one am not holding my breath.

Maybe starting with the easier things, strength will be gained to do the harder things?

I think it is even money we are doomed as a species.
Do they have any Vegas odds on that . . . ?

You don't justify one wrong with another. Money being spent in Iraq is irrelevant to the discussion.

[kres24GT]

Your argument is illogical. If it didn't stop them before, why would it stop them after? It's not the child health benefits or lack thereof that stops people from having sex or giving birth to children.



Again, your thinking is illogical. For one thing there is no premise to base upon that any particular class of people are breeding out of control. If you have found stats to back that up, I would sure like to see them.

Furthermore, ones earning capability is not dependent on government nor is crime an indicator of one's earning capacity.

Maybe we should make schooling beyond the 12th grade free for everyone, trade schools free for everyone and then more poor folks, not to mention middle class individuals who neither get the grants nor can afford the bill, will be able to increase their earning capabilities because they have the needed education to do so?

Free schooling beyond high school and free health care for everyone under the age of 18 and we won't have so many of these "poor" folks breeding like bunnies and costing the taxpayers so much. :rolleyes:



Well, a lot of soldiers are those "poor" folks who are breeding out of control and we are already paying for them and their health care.

LM



Everything you say here is nonsense. Anyway when your tax rate is 70-80% you will feel differently. And that will soon be the case. The rich have enough power to and money to keep their taxes low. They can move their money other places, they can buy politcians, etc. It's us middle class people who are going to have to pay for this never ending increase in government dependent programs.

The poor are breeding out of control and the middle class is having less and less children. Less people to support more people doesn't work.

Also you make a good point, anyone of able body and mind can get healthcare of themselves and their children, by joining the military. It makes programs like this one totally unnecessary.

[Moby]

4. Your comment that it doesn't tax you, so you like it, is a sad mentality.
Are you so mentally week that you have put words in people's mouths?

Where did I say that?

I like it. I think that we should provide health care for children. I simply stated that your argument that it will cost tax payers money was wrong because most tax payers won't pay for it.

You are capable of making some good points so why stoop to misquoting people? Are you applying for a job with Rupert Murdoch?

[kres24GT]

Are you so mentally week that you have put words in people's mouths?

Where did I say that?

I like it. I think that we should provide health care for children. I simply stated that your argument that it will cost tax payers money was wrong because most tax payers won't pay for it.

You are capable of making some good points so why stoop to misquoting people? Are you applying for a job with Rupert Murdoch?


Your exact words were "I'm not a smoker so absolutely none of my tax dollars will be used for this so I like it.".

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=12670&postcount=11

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Everything you say here is nonsense. Anyway when your tax rate is 70-80% you will feel differently. And that will soon be the case. The rich have enough power to and money to keep their taxes low. They can move their money other places, they can buy politcians, etc. It's us middle class people who are going to have to pay for this never ending increase in government dependent programs.

The poor are breeding out of control and the middle class is having less and less children. Less people to support more people doesn't work.

Also you make a good point, anyone of able body and mind can get healthcare of themselves and their children, by joining the military. It makes programs like this one totally unnecessary.

The rich already pay 70% of the taxes in America. The Middle class only gets screwed when the tax loopholes only apply to the rich and the free assistance is only given to the poor. But in proportion, there are more of the middle class than either of the other segments in society.

What I propose is lowering the tax cuts to apply to those who make under 100K a year and not just those who make above that income AND give free basic healthcare and dental to all children under 18 irregardless of income and leave the option to have private insurance for anything beyond that such as hospitalizations, trauma, etc.

Lady Mod

[kres24GT]

The rich already pay 70% of the taxes in America. The Middle class only gets screwed when the tax loopholes only apply to the rich and the free assistance is only given to the poor. But in proportion, there are more of the middle class than either of the other segments in society.

What I propose is lowering the tax cuts to apply to those who make under 100K a year and not just those who make above that income AND give free basic healthcare and dental to all children under 18 irregardless of income and leave the option to have private insurance for anything beyond that such as hospitalizations, trauma, etc.

Lady Mod

1. Nowhere does the constitution give the federal government this power.
2. Play delusional if you want on the taxes, but as these programs continue to cost more and keep being added, you and I will pay. Tax the rich isn't as simple a solution as people who like big government make it out to be.
3. Enabling people who cannot afford to have children to have them is just plain stupid.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

1. Nowhere does the constitution give the federal government this power.
2. Play delusional if you want on the taxes, but as these programs continue to cost more and keep being added, you and I will pay. Tax the rich isn't as simple a solution as people who like big government make it out to be.
3. Enabling people who cannot afford to have children to have them is just plain stupid.

The people give the government the power.

I'm not playing delusional on taxes. I didn't say to tax the rich.

Giving health care does not enable people to have children. They aren't going to sterilize Americans and prevent them from having children. You may volunteer though if you like since you admit you can't afford any. That way you won't have any accidents outside of your fiscal responsibility.

Sick people only make the Drug companies rich, close hospitals who can not afford to take care of them when they show up in the emergency rooms and end up costing all of us a lot more than it would just to keep them healthy in the first place.

.

[kres24GT]

1. So the constitution is pointless. You must be a Bush fan.
2. So you admit we will be paying very high tax rates to cover this never ending line of programs designed to increase dependence on the politcians?
3. Footing the bill for people to have kids they can't afford absolutely is enabling them. It's a simple definition. Someone who cannot afford healthcare for their kids should not have kids. They have them anyway and you foot the bill.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

1. So the constitution is pointless. You must be a Bush fan.
2. So you admit we will be paying very high tax rates to cover this never ending line of programs designed to increase dependence on the politcians?
3. Footing the bill for people to have kids they can't afford absolutely is enabling them. It's a simple definition. Someone who cannot afford healthcare for their kids should not have kids. They have them anyway and you foot the bill.

LOL, I've been called a lot of things but never a bush fan. What an insult.

Our tax rates are among the lowest of any developed country.

And the legislation does NOT foot the bill for people to have more kids. People were having kids LONG before there were ever insurance companies or mandatory immunizations or making our food less nutritious and land more toxic. And well before there was ever any need for government to step in and assure that it's citizens have affordable healthcare available for their children.

Lady Mod

[kres24GT]

Again, look up the definition of the word enabling.

Just figured you were a Bush fan because he sees the constitution as irrelevant as well. Per 10th amendment this is a state power, not a federal one.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Again, look up the definition of the word enabling.

I KNOW what enable means and what an enabler is. And in the context of the topic, you are still wrong.


Just figured you were a Bush fan because he sees the constitution as irrelevant as well. Per 10th amendment this is a state power, not a federal one.

The states gave up that power decades ago. In fact the states have given up a lot of their powers decades ago.

As far as "figuring" who is what and who has the power, maybe you should review the Constitution and Bill of Rights again. The People have the power. Unfortunately most of us gave that power up to the states and federal governments many, many decades ago.

Irregardless, if we are going to be taxed for anything, I would rather see the monies going to provide healthcare for children OVER financing new wars for oil.

Lady Mod

[kres24GT]

I KNOW what enable means and what an enabler is. And in the context of the topic, you are still wrong.




The states gave up that power decades ago. In fact the states have given up a lot of their powers decades ago.

As far as "figuring" who is what and who has the power, maybe you should review the Constitution and Bill of Rights again. The People have the power. Unfortunately most of us gave that power up to the states and federal governments many, many decades ago.

Irregardless, if we are going to be taxed for anything, I would rather see the monies going to provide healthcare for children OVER financing new wars for oil.

Lady Mod

I'd rather that money go back to the people who earned it instead of being used to buy votes for politcians.

States are not permitted to give up rights via the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to be amended. The real answer here is we ignore the Constitution and have from some time.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I'd rather that money go back to the people who earned it instead of being used to buy votes for politcians.

Well it won't. So if it's not going to then healthcare is a much better alternative to war.


States are not permitted to give up rights via the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to be amended. The real answer here is we ignore the Constitution and have from some time.

LOL, just because they aren't permitted to does not mean they don't or haven't. Going along with the status quo is just as effective as formally doing so.

[kres24GT]

Well it won't. So if it's not going to then healthcare is a much better alternative to war.




LOL, just because they aren't permitted to does not mean they don't or haven't. Going along with the status quo is just as effective as formally doing so.


So when Bush violates the constitution are you OK with it?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

So when Bush violates the constitution are you OK with it?

Hell no! I write senators, post dissent and anything else I can do to make my feelings known.

What does healthcare have to do with the constitution? Bush wants to privitize everything. OK, so maybe he should consider privitizing the wars and stop expecting the average citizen to pay for it both monetarily and with their lives.

Lady Mod

[kres24GT]

Hell no! I write senators, post dissent and anything else I can do to make my feelings known.

What does healthcare have to do with the constitution? Bush wants to privitize everything. OK, so maybe he should consider privitizing the wars and stop expecting the average citizen to pay for it both monetarily and with their lives.

Lady Mod


So when Bush violates the Constitution, it's not good, but if someone you agree with wants to its ok. That makes sense.

The federal government has no authority per the Constitution to provide money for healthcare to its citizens. Therefore this a power delegated to the states. Read the 10th amendment, you know Bill of Rights.

[Stophammering]

I got these in my inbox this week, both are videos commenting on the healthcare funding that president Bush cut despite congress and the country being in favor of its continuance: This one (http://gloob.tv/life/kids_dont_know_bush_hates_them?article=1976) is from Families USA and this one (http://gloob.tv/tv/daily_show_bush_s_evil_veto?article=1976) The Daily Show. Any more news on this? I'm not sure what to think, really, Bush is so inconsistent in his pretense at conservatism.

[Cat slave]

1. So the constitution is pointless. You must be a Bush fan.
2. So you admit we will be paying very high tax rates to cover this never ending line of programs designed to increase dependence on the politcians?
3. Footing the bill for people to have kids they can't afford absolutely is enabling them. It's a simple definition. Someone who cannot afford healthcare for their kids should not have kids. They have them anyway and you foot the bill.

Children can access health care. If they cannot then it is the fault of the
parents if they havent learned to work the system. There is a wealth of
services available! No family of 4 with an income of 83K should be able to
take their offspring off their private plan and put them on our backs. Were
getting more than enough of that crap with the illegals. They dont have
any trouble getting what they need.

[Cat slave]

I KNOW what enable means and what an enabler is. And in the context of the topic, you are still wrong.




The states gave up that power decades ago. In fact the states have given up a lot of their powers decades ago.

As far as "figuring" who is what and who has the power, maybe you should review the Constitution and Bill of Rights again. The People have the power. Unfortunately most of us gave that power up to the states and federal governments many, many decades ago.

Irregardless, if we are going to be taxed for anything, I would rather see the monies going to provide healthcare for children OVER financing new wars for oil.

Lady Mod

"The people" now encompass not just the voters as intended but the special
interest groups, lobbyists, all the elected politicians who troll for pork
so they can fool the voters back home and get back in power, and all
the corporations who export American jobs and buy the politicians one
way or another.:banghead:

[Leeguana]

Children can access health care. If they cannot then it is the fault of the
parents if they havent learned to work the system. There is a wealth of
services available! No family of 4 with an income of 83K should be able to
take their offspring off their private plan and put them on our backs. Were
getting more than enough of that crap with the illegals. They dont have
any trouble getting what they need.
"The president said Congress was trying to "federalize health care," even though the program in question is run by the states. The president said that "I don't want the federal government making decisions for doctors and customers," even though the vetoed bill authorizes no such decisions -- the program enrolls children in private, I repeat, private, health insurance plans.

And here's my favorite: "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me." But the bill he vetoed prohibits states from using the program to aid families who make more than three times the federal poverty limit, or about $60,000 a year for a family of four. Most of the aid would go to families earning substantially less."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR2007100401921.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Smurf-Herder]

Shouldn't the whole idea be to cover the poor first, at the very least?

So why throw in crap about kids of people that make enough to already have insurance, making twice as much as I was when I could afford insurance?

[Jennifer]

This is absolutely nuts. There is S-CHIP. The President just vetoed giving S-CHIP to children of parents earning $80,000 a year and children over the age of 19.

But this is a typical attack by the left wing of the house. The president refuses to expand a program (whomever the president is at the time) and they call it a cut. It's not a cut. It's just not expanded as much as THEY want it to be.

Bush did not veto all of S-CHIP and get rid of the program. I wish he would have. But he did not.

[Leeguana]

This is absolutely nuts. There is S-CHIP. The President just vetoed giving S-CHIP to children of parents earning $80,000 a year and children over the age of 19.

But this is a typical attack by the left wing of the house. The president refuses to expand a program (whomever the president is at the time) and they call it a cut. It's not a cut. It's just not expanded as much as THEY want it to be.

Bush did not veto all of S-CHIP and get rid of the program. I wish he would have. But he did not.It's not 80k a year, it's 60k. And most of the aid would go to families earning much less. Got it now???

[Smurf-Herder]

It's not 80k a year, it's 60k. And most of the aid would go to families earning much less. Got it now???

Who exactly does this cover btw?

Supposedly there's already an existing law in place and this expands it. But who the hell is already covered?

[Leeguana]

Who exactly does this cover btw?

Supposedly there's already an existing law in place and this expands it. But who the hell is already covered?Read all about it:

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/home/schip.asp

[Leeguana]

From the above link:

Families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid may be able to qualify for SCHIP.

Families that do not currently have health insurance are likely to be eligible, even if you are working. The states have different eligibility rules, but in most states, uninsured children under the age of 19, whose families earn up to $36,200 a year (for a family of four) are eligible. For little or no cost, this insurance pays for:

1. doctor visits
2. immunizations
3. hospitalizations
4. emergency room visits

[Jennifer]

The Current S-CHIP:

Anyone under 19 years old who's family earns DOUBLE the poverty level or less is covered.



Why expand it? If you raise the poverty level, then the income level of those covered is also raised.


No, Democrats attempted an 80k a year + 25 year old expansion of the system and it was stopped. They WANTED IT TO BE STOPPED. They didn't want to expand the program! They wanted it to be vetoed so they had at least one thing to run on now that Iraq's showing successes all over the place. (Which is why all the democrats are talking good about Iraq lately.)

[Linkster]

Jennifer - what states laws are you quoting - obviously you dont know that every state has their own laws on SCHIP - you are quoting the maximum requirements set by the new law - not each states actual levels

[Smurf-Herder]

From the above link:

Families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid may be able to qualify for SCHIP.

Families that do not currently have health insurance are likely to be eligible, even if you are working. The states have different eligibility rules, but in most states, uninsured children under the age of 19, whose families earn up to $36,200 a year (for a family of four) are eligible. For little or no cost, this insurance pays for:

1. doctor visits
2. immunizations
3. hospitalizations
4. emergency room visits

Ah, so we missed it by around $7,000.

Probably more in Virginia. They're very draconian on public assistance.

[Moby]

This is absolutely nuts. There is S-CHIP. The President just vetoed giving S-CHIP to children of parents earning $80,000 a year and children over the age of 19.
Again you are wrong.

[Moby]

No family of 4 with an income of 83K should be able to
take their offspring off their private plan and put them on our backs.
Everyone knows that politicians lie but when the President says something it must be true.

There is nothing in this bill that allows a family making 83k to do shit. Please learn about the facts before commenting.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

New opinion piece.

Editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10wed2.html?th&emc=th)
Adults as Red Herrings
Published: October 10, 2007

President Bush has ramped up his assault on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program with allegations that many states have spent the program’s funds on adults while failing to enroll enough poor children. The charge is a distortion and a diversion. It should not deter Congress from overriding the president’s veto of a bill to cover millions of uninsured children.

In his radio address on Saturday, Mr. Bush complained that six states — Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, Rhode Island and New Mexico — “will spend more S-chip money on adults than they do on children” in this fiscal year. That might sound outrageous at first hearing, but there are often good child-centered reasons for covering certain categories of adults.

Surely it is sensible to enroll pregnant women, to make sure the prospective mother and her fetus get good prenatal care even before the child is born and becomes eligible. And in some cases it may even be reasonable to offer coverage to low-income parents, if only as bait to get their children enrolled.

New Jersey hardly deserves presidential criticism for what look like enlightened policies.

The state currently enrolls some 83,000 adults and 124,000 children in its S-chip program. The adults account for more than 60 percent of the program’s costs because it is a lot more expensive to cover adults than children. A small number of the adults are pregnant women. A small number are childless adults supported solely by state funds, under a program that is being phased out. The overwhelming majority are poor parents, with family incomes no higher than 133 percent of poverty — or $27,500 for a family of four.

To imply that this is an abuse of the S-chip program reflects an ideological determination to disparage public insurance no matter how much it helps poor families and their children.

Mr. Bush failed to acknowledge that all of the states that extended coverage to adults did so under waivers granted by the federal government, mostly by his own administration. In its first term, his administration actively encouraged states to use any unspent S-chip funds to cover adults.

That was back when Mr. Bush was espousing “compassionate conservatism” and the administration was looking for efficient ways to reduce the number of uninsured Americans. Now Mr. Bush calls any expansion of S-chip a step toward “government-run health care for every American.”

The president claims he wants to “put poor children first,” but so do all members of Congress who voted for the bill that he vetoed. Bizarrely, Mr. Bush also urges both parties in Congress to support a new bill that “moves adults off this children’s program.”

He is either woefully unaware or deliberately ignoring that the bill he vetoed would move far in that direction. It would end coverage for childless adults after a transition period, prohibit any additional states from enrolling parents and move parents currently enrolled in 11 states into a separate category with reduced matching funds. Even that coverage could disappear if states failed to do a good job enrolling low-income children.

The president is merely trying to inflame passions over an issue that was being resolved. Congress needs to ignore this red herring and vote to override his veto.

.

[kres24GT]

Either socialize medicine or don't, end this walking the line garbage. Decide if it's government's job to provide medical services to the people or if it's the free market's job. Cut this fascist garbage of forcing people to provide services to those who cannot pay them for it.

[Moby]

Either socialize medicine or don't, end this walking the line garbage. Decide if it's government's job to provide medical services to the people or if it's the free market's job. Cut this fascist garbage of forcing people to provide services to those who cannot pay them for it.
I tend to agree. Just do something.

The problem is that the costs are increasing at a rate that can't be sustained. They've doubled in the past 6 years and if we allow this to continue then we're going to have costs that are 4 times higher in a decade. Right now the average mortgage is about $1,400 a month. The average insurance plan is $900. In just a few more years with the current trend and insurance will be more then your mortgage payment.

Think about it.

[kres24GT]

I tend to agree. Just do something.

The problem is that the costs are increasing at a rate that can't be sustained. They've doubled in the past 6 years and if we allow this to continue then we're going to have costs that are 4 times higher in a decade. Right now the average mortgage is about $1,400 a month. The average insurance plan is $900. In just a few more years with the current trend and insurance will be more then your mortgage payment.

Think about it.


The government should not be able to force private citizens to perform services to others. If it is the government's job to ensure everyone has health coverage, then socialize health care.

I don't want that, but let's cut this middle of the road fascist crap where the government is involved so heavily in what businesses and the market is doing. It only drives up the cost.

Get in all the way or get out.

[Cat slave]

Everyone knows that politicians lie but when the President says something it must be true.

There is nothing in this bill that allows a family making 83k to do shit. Please learn about the facts before commenting.

That is a fact.

[Cat slave]

Again you are wrong.

No, shes not!

[Moby]

No, shes not!
Please, show me the section of the actual bill that make her statements accurate. I could not find them.

[Linkster]

SirMoby - thats because they arent there - the bill says nothing about the two items you said were wrong - so you are correct - more importantly - and something most people fail to realize - is that each state has their own implementing requirements of this law - and this bill just sets the upper limits - like the age limit is 19 - with some provisions allowing up to 21