SCHIP

[Cat slave]

Anyone besides me infuriated over the passing of the SCHIP legislation?
If the nut case in the WH doesnt veto it (and hey, we are due a break)
the umbrella of government funded (thats our funds) hc :banghead: will be showered upon
......the children.....always for the...children! Not low income children now,
but children up to 21 with parents making over 80K a year, and the children
of all the illegal aliens already sucking off our country etc. If this isnt vetoed
by the Grand Decider people can take their kids off private plans and upload
them to the first tier of socialized medicine in America. I guess our tax
bills will start looking like a phone book.

[Smurf-Herder]

Anyone besides me infuriated over the passing of the SCHIP legislation?
If the nut case in the WH doesnt veto it (and hey, we are due a break)
the umbrella of government funded (thats our funds) hc :banghead: will be showered upon
......the children.....always for the...children! Not low income children now,
but children up to 21 with parents making over 80K a year, and the children
of all the illegal aliens already sucking off our country etc. If this isnt vetoed
by the Grand Decider people can take their kids off private plans and upload
them to the first tier of socialized medicine in America. I guess our tax
bills will start looking like a phone book.

Yes. But I believe it will be vetoed.

Crap like this passes because congress thinks that's what the voters want, to get themselves votes. Just like the stupid attempt at Immigration Reform (lol). It's not what actually matters to them (for the most part). It's what they think will be what they need to stay in power.

The answer - TERM LIMITS!

[Linkster]

I was of the impression after actually reading the bill that got passed that all costs of this program will be paid for by raising federal taxes on tobacco products by a huge amount - it seems to also include the additional administrative costs which hadnt been done in the past - and if I were a betting man - I would guess that Bush would veto it not because of what he says about social care - but because the tobacco industry will be hurt at an amazing rate and they happen to be extremely large contributors to the republican party.

It also sounds like it doesnt matter if he vetoes it as the House seems to now have the votes to override the veto - I guess the Representatives were going to have a hard time explaining to their people back home why they didnt vote for it

[radioguy]

This will play out bad for Bush, even though he doesn't deserve for it to.

This is a bullshit bill, but because it is advertised as "Health care for children" by the democrats and the media, they are going to beat him up mercilessly when he vetos it.

[Smurf-Herder]

I was of the impression after actually reading the bill that got passed that all costs of this program will be paid for by raising federal taxes on tobacco products by a huge amount - it seems to also include the additional administrative costs which hadnt been done in the past - and if I were a betting man - I would guess that Bush would veto it not because of what he says about social care - but because the tobacco industry will be hurt at an amazing rate and they happen to be extremely large contributors to the republican party.

It also sounds like it doesnt matter if he vetoes it as the House seems to now have the votes to override the veto - I guess the Representatives were going to have a hard time explaining to their people back home why they didnt vote for it

Isn't it counter-productive to fund a bill by taxing something with the intent that that product taxed would progressively be used less.

[Linkster]

I think there is enough of a base of tobacco users that this tax will have no problem funding the bill - the overall intent was to reduce the number of youth that get addicted - and since the program only lasts for 5 years its kind of a strech to see any real reduction in their use - although it was part of the purpose

[disrupter]

I would rather the government spent money on this than enriching Bechtel, Halliburton & Blackwater.

People welfare may not be great but it is vastly better than criminal, corporate welfare.

Further to justify this corporate welfare soldiers & civilians of another country are paying the price with their lives.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good,

AND DON'T ALLOW THE IMPERFECTIONS OF THE GOOD OR EVEN MARGINAL TO RATIONALIZE PURE EVIL.

[Smurf-Herder]

I think there is enough of a base of tobacco users that this tax will have no problem funding the bill - the overall intent was to reduce the number of youth that get addicted - and since the program only lasts for 5 years its kind of a strech to see any real reduction in their use - although it was part of the purpose

All it will do is make life more expensive for regular smokers. And if kids want to smoke, they'll find a way to get that extra dollar to buy a pack. BTW, what happens after five years. Do they go after taxing fast food, because that's bad for you? Maybe they could tax overweight people, or deny them healthcare to save money for those who live a healthy lifestyle.

I wonder how just a few cuts in pork barrel earmarks could just as easily pay for it, instead.

[Linkster]

Totally agree that we could cut out a bunch of pork - but it will never happen as long as K St runs the congress

[Jennifer]

You have no idea how much pork our government needs to cut.

Social Security, Medicare, S-CHIP, TANF, and just about every other government program that does not have a direct relationship to protecting the citizens from illegal state laws or foreign governments/parties is Unconstitutional and needs to be repealed immediately and permanently.

If the US Government wants that responsibility, then they need to make it an Amendment to the Constitution.

[Linkster]

You have no idea how much pork our government needs to cut.

.

You have no idea either - as they dont have transparency in allowing citizens the ability to see all of the pork attached to bills - its done privately and not allowed to be shared with the public - although I noticed there are a few dems and reps that are introducing a bill to try to end that this week

[Americanadian]

Well, he vetoed it.


Bush vetoes child health insurance plan
President, Congress battle over $30 billion coverage difference


WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto."

"Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America. "

The White House sought little attention, with Bush casting his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage. He was discussing it later Wednesday during a budget speech in Lancaster, Pa.

Socialized medicine?
The State Children's Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.

Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families.

Democrats deny that, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

Veto override considerations
Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But this was not the case in the House, where despite sizable Republican support, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's expected veto.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out."

It took Bush six years to veto his first bill, when he blocked expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells last summer. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research.

In the case of the health insurance program, the veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads Monday attacking eight GOP House members who voted against the bill and face potentially tough re-election campaigns next year.

And Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups planned more than 200 events throughout the nation to highlight the issue.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21111931/

[Jennifer]

You have no idea either - as they dont have transparency in allowing citizens the ability to see all of the pork attached to bills - its done privately and not allowed to be shared with the public - although I noticed there are a few dems and reps that are introducing a bill to try to end that this week


Actually I have a very good idea how much. Roughly 98.8% of all national level government activities should be terminated immediately. If the states wish to adopt those programs and activities that is up to them, but the national government should cease and desist immediately all functions not explicitly given them by the US Constitution.



And yes, Pres. Bush actually figured out how to veto something. It's rather amazing, considering he's rubber stamped everything Congress has sent him this year.

Anyway, if you read the bill you'd see how ridiculous it is. Anyone earning less then $80,000 a year qualifies. (To me that's someone incredibly wealthy. As a US Soldier I earned $19,950.00 annually, less then 25% of what these people earn and would qualify for S-CHIP.) And to compound the error it extended coverage to Age 25. Since when is a 25 year old a "child?" Guess that means no one under the age of 25 can get a job since we have child labor laws in this country!

[Linkster]

Well - I think we at least agree on the point of the child labor laws - they should be deleted completely so that we can compete on the same level as all of these children in Mexico that Bush just signed into law could now send us underpriced products without any duties or tariffs

And I agree about the size of goverment - and was only arguing that you should really read the text of the bill - here - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.3162: and choose the third version down as that was the one actually passed

The reason I think you should read it is that the definition of who is covered was raised to 20, and 21 instead of 19 as it was previously - so Im not sure where you are getting your "talking points" but they are wrong

[Jennifer]

I get my talking points from Howard Dean's daily newsletter. Since he's the chairman of the Democrat Party right now, I'd think he at least would get his spin right.

Anyway, 21 Years old is NOT a child. 19 is pushing it, and I'd only think its okay if it was 19 but still in High School and only because the liberal POS No Child Left Behind law forces parents to wait until the first year after a child turns 5 to enroll them in public day care, ere, I mean public school.

I also don't think we should have child labor laws removed. Children should never again be exploited like they were in the Industrial Revolution.

And finally, you evidentally concede that it extends coverage to people earning 4 times what a soldier earns for free medical coverage? The wealthy elite need to tax the poor so they can have free health care for their kids?


You want national health care it's simple. Do it the same way you got national auto insurance done. Legislate that everyone MUST have health insurance. Bingo, 100% of the population insured. Done. Just like auto insurance! And it doesn't bloat government. And it allows companies to compete providing better services and cheaper rates.

[Moby]

Legislate that everyone MUST have health insurance.
Isn't that the same plan that Communist Hillary Clinton and Glorious and Presidential Looking Mitt Romney have? :lmao2:

The only issue with that is health insurance has double in price in 7 years and any insurance company can raise prices so high that you can't afford it if you do need long term care.

[Linkster]

I dont want national health care - please dont put words in my mouth - I dont want any health care/insurance plan - I think its the biggest ripoff in the US - and since I do remember a time when we didnt have it (yeah Im old) - I also can remember when you could go to a doctor and he actually had time to talk to you and you didnt have a mile of paperwork to fill out to get an aspirin

I think all lawyers ought to be stifled in taking advantage of anyone - completely remove the ability to sue anyone - and we can go back to paying the doctor for his services - which when I was growing up didnt cost much

[Linkster]

Oh - I dont think it covers people up to that level - although if it does - it would be stupid as anyone making that much already has company provided insurance in "most" cases. And please dont take this that I am defending the bill - Im just trying to get the facts straight as there has been a lot of misinformation spouted about this bill

[Cat slave]

Yeah, I remember those times too. People got along fine and lived a long
time without.....health care!! The only "insurance" anyone had back then
was what they called major medical to cover hospitalization, surgery and
big things like that.

We didnt know what our cholesterol was or that it existed. Women were
not frightened into having their boobs squashed annually, or men told to
cough on a regular basis, kids got the dreaded shots in school (can still
remember the terror of entering the building and that smell was in the
air and a nurse in a navy blue uniform and waiting in terror for those
footsteps coming down the hall and stopping at the classroom door)...
I coulda made a whole thread of that one couldnt I. Anway you get
my drift. Doctors came to the house if someone was horribly sick
which wasnt often.

We have been sold a bill of goods through fear mongering, like we will
be at deaths door at any moment unless we have insurance coverage.
There are health crisis that require medical care but weve gotten to
the place where we expect no copays, no deductibles and endless
coverage. Are we any healthier? This is probably where survival
of the fittest enters stage left.

My sister is paying huge bucks every month for about 4 different policies
in addition to her employers plan. Seems like running scared at a very
high price to me. Shes bought in to the fear factor and is paying dearly.

[Cat slave]

Oh - I dont think it covers people up to that level - although if it does - it would be stupid as anyone making that much already has company provided insurance in "most" cases. And please dont take this that I am defending the bill - Im just trying to get the facts straight as there has been a lot of misinformation spouted about this bill

Yes, it would cover kids (!) in a family of 4 up to 83k of income. Kids can
already be cared for under numerous programs and this is a red herring.

[Cat slave]

Isn't that the same plan that Communist Hillary Clinton and Glorious and Presidential Looking Mitt Romney have? :lmao2:

The only issue with that is health insurance has double in price in 7 years and any insurance company can raise prices so high that you can't afford it if you do need long term care.

Yeah, Commie Hitlary wanted the country divided into sectors and we would
be assigned to our sector and get all our care from there. If you could afford
to purchase further care, or better care with your own money you could go
to prison. And Im sure all the politicians would visit their assigned sectors for
care....yeah, right. Thats only for the worker bees...we can visit our local
and assigned Red Sickle mobile unit and be seen by doctors who get paid
by the government at a set limit and Im sure we would have the cream of
the crop under those circumstances.:banghead:

[Jennifer]

No, Hillary Care 2.0 is a federal program where you get your insurance from the state.

I'm just saying if you have to mandate that everyone have health care insurance, then make it a law you have to have it. Don't make it a service provided by the government. Government health care starts doing stuff like letting people die because the funeral costs are cheaper then the treatment of the disease/injury.


And, I can remember doctors coming to my home to treat me. They did it last week! Doctor came to my house, drew blood, checked me for issues, did a full OB/GYN checkup, took my $20.00 and left. I received a phone call a day later with the results of my blood workup.


But I don't think everyone should have that level of service if they don't want to pay for it! And I definitaly don't think that you should be allowed to walk down the street and demand each of your neighbors to give you $5 so you can get treatment for a medical issue. Either buy insurance or live with it. Welcome to a free world where your actions and decisions have consequences.

Uncle Sam is not mommy nor is he daddy. And I resent anyone telling me I have to pay for someone else's bad choices in life.