House Votes to Expand Insurance for Kids

[stephanie]

The Associated Press By CHARLES BABINGTON Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON Sep 26, 2007 (AP)


The House voted Tuesday to expand health insurance for children, but the Democratic-led victory may prove short-lived because the margin was too small to override President Bush's promised veto.

Embarking on a health care debate likely to animate the 2008 elections, the House voted 265-159 to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, by $35 billion over five years. Bush says he will veto the bill due to its cost, its reliance on a tobacco tax increase and its potential for replacing private insurance with government grants.


SCHIP is a state-federal program that provides coverage for 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty level but have trouble affording private health insurance. The proposed expansion, backed by most governors and many health-advocacy groups, would add 4 million children to the rolls.

The bill drew support from 45 House Republicans, many of them moderates who do not want to be depicted as indifferent to low-income children's health needs when they seek re-election next year. But 151 Republicans sided with Bush, a move that Democrats see as a political blunder.

It hardly matters that the expansion would be expensive or a step toward socialized health care, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said during the House debate. When lawmakers go home, he said, "the question is, Were you with the kids or were you not?"
To overturn a presidential veto, both chambers of Congress must produce two-thirds majorities. The 265 yes votes in the House are two dozen fewer than Democrats would need to override Bush's veto, and House leaders expect few members to switch positions.

The Senate appears poised to pass the SCHIP expansion by a large margin later this week, but a Senate bid to override a veto would be pointless if the House override effort falls short.

Despite the expected veto, many congressional Democrats welcomed the SCHIP debate as a way to open a second political front in addition to Iraq on which they feel Bush and his allies are out of step with voters. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said the president willingly pours billions of dollars into the war but resists a significant expansion of a health program for modest-income children.

read the rest and comments..
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3650712

[5stringJeff]

The headline ought to read, "House votes to socialize more health care and take away Americans' freedoms.'

[Psychoblues]

Just what kids would you choose to exclude, jeff?



The headline ought to read, "House votes to socialize more health care and take away Americans' freedoms.'

The present system eliminates millions of True Blue Americans. Are you for that as well?

[avatar4321]

Just what kids would you choose to exclude, jeff?




The present system eliminates millions of True Blue Americans. Are you for that as well?

I dont know, how about the ones over 18?

[JohnDoe]

In calling for Congress to pass a “clean, temporary extension” of the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Mr. Bush argued that the Democratic bill would raise taxes and allow children whose families earn up to $83,000 a year to enroll. The Democrats propose paying for the measure by raising the federal excise tax on cigarettes.

But the chief Republican sponsor of the bill in the Senate, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, said Mr. Bush “is getting bad information.” He said Mr. Bush’s reference to the $83,000 limit was drawn from a proposal put forth by New York State, which the administration recently denied.

The senator said he appealed to the president directly this morning, telling Mr. Bush that a long-term extension of the current law would leave children uncovered, and that the $5 billion increase in the program the president has proposed is not enough to cover more children.

“Drawing lines in the sand at this stage isn’t constructive,” Mr. Grassley said, adding, “I wish he’d engage Congress in a bill that he could sign instead of threatening a veto, and I hope he’ll still do that.”


In 2004 President Bush supported the CHIPS program and made some very supportive comments to the American people about this initiative, but now he is against it when the Democrats are trying to extend it....

So he was for it, when he could use it to his political advantage and against it when he could not use it to his political advantage it appears....

[PostmodernProphet]

It hardly matters that the expansion would be expensive or a step toward socialized health care, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said during the House debate. When lawmakers go home, he said, "the question is, Were you with the kids or were you not?"

you're either for 'em or you're against 'em.......

[avatar4321]

In 2004 President Bush supported the CHIPS program and made some very supportive comments to the American people about this initiative, but now he is against it when the Democrats are trying to extend it....

So he was for it, when he could use it to his political advantage and against it when he could not use it to his political advantage it appears....

Im sorry but extending it to people under the age of 25 who are not children is a bad idea. After all, common sense says that a program to help children should actually apply, you know, only to children.

[Joe Steel]

Im sorry but extending it to people under the age of 25 who are not children is a bad idea. After all, common sense says that a program to help children should actually apply, you know, only to children.

Private health insurance, the kind Republicans love so much, usually extends to college age children. It covers them until they're out of college. That could be right around age 25 with graduate school. SCHIP shouldn't be any different.

[5stringJeff]

Just what kids would you choose to exclude, jeff?




The present system eliminates millions of True Blue Americans. Are you for that as well?

I don't want the government to provide anyone with health insurance. It should b purchased by those who want it,, with premiums deducted from individual income taxes just like charitable deductions and mortgage interest.

[avatar4321]

Private health insurance, the kind Republicans love so much, usually extends to college age children. It covers them until they're out of college. That could be right around age 25 with graduate school. SCHIP shouldn't be any different.

They arent children if they are adults.

[Joe Steel]

I don't want the government to provide anyone with health insurance. It should b purchased by those who want it,, with premiums deducted from individual income taxes just like charitable deductions and mortgage interest.

No; you're wrong. It should be a right of citizenship. That's the what the People want.

[5stringJeff]

No; you're wrong. It should be a right of citizenship. That's the what the People want.

No, you're wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to appropriate money for government-run health care. If that's what the people want, they should amend the Constitution first.

[Joe Steel]

They arent children if they are adults.

Nope; you're wrong. Children are sons and daughters of any age.



child /tʃaɪld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[chahyld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/children)
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.
5. a childish person: He's such a child about money.
6. a descendant: a child of an ancient breed.
7. any person or thing regarded as the product or result of particular agencies, influences, etc.: Abstract art is a child of the 20th century.
8. a person regarded as conditioned or marked by a given circumstance, situation, etc.: a child of poverty; a child of famine.
9. British Dialect Archaic. a female infant.
10. Archaic. childe.
—Idiom
11. with child, pregnant: She's with child.

[MtnBiker]

No, you're wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to appropriate money for government-run health care. If that's what the people want, they should amend the Constitution first.

Nice!:clap:

[avatar4321]

No; you're wrong. It should be a right of citizenship. That's the what the People want.

You cant tell people that they have a right to other people's labor. That's what "free health care" is. People have to labor to produce it. All you are advocating is modern day slavery. That is what its called when you force people to labor for others.

[avatar4321]

No, you're wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to appropriate money for government-run health care. If that's what the people want, they should amend the Constitution first.

Joe and others like him only care about the constitution when it furthers their own agenda. they ignore it otherwise.

[avatar4321]

Nope; you're wrong. Children are sons and daughters of any age.



child /tʃaɪld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[chahyld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/children)
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.
5. a childish person: He's such a child about money.
6. a descendant: a child of an ancient breed.
7. any person or thing regarded as the product or result of particular agencies, influences, etc.: Abstract art is a child of the 20th century.
8. a person regarded as conditioned or marked by a given circumstance, situation, etc.: a child of poverty; a child of famine.
9. British Dialect Archaic. a female infant.
10. Archaic. childe.
—Idiom
11. with child, pregnant: She's with child.

Telling people they are against health care for children by refusing to support health care for adults is a lie. You are purposely trying to mislead people in order to get them to support socialized medicine without realizing it and you know it.

Also, its rather telling that you dont accept definition four in the abortion debate dont you? looks like the truth shows that abortion is murder of children.

[Joe Steel]

No, you're wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to appropriate money for government-run health care. If that's what the people want, they should amend the Constitution first.

Of course it does. See Art. 1, Sec. 8; "provide for the general welfare..."

[Joe Steel]

You cant tell people that they have a right to other people's labor. That's what "free health care" is. People have to labor to produce it. All you are advocating is modern day slavery. That is what its called when you force people to labor for others.

Of course we can. The power of taxation is among the powers declared for Congress. See Art 1, Sec. 8 of the U. S. Constitution.

[jimnyc]

Of course it does. See Art. 1, Sec. 8; "provide for the general welfare..."

Wow, that's all it says in section 8? LOL

That section wasn't put into place for the welfare of the people but rather the NATION. Funny how you cut your sentence short as if anyone would be dumb enough to take you at your word.


<emp>Section 8.</emp> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

[Joe Steel]

Wow, that's all it says in section 8? LOL

That section wasn't put into place for the welfare of the people but rather the NATION. Funny how you cut your sentence short as if anyone would be dumb enough to take you at your word.

No need to post anything more. I provided enough to prove the point. I guess I could spin it a bit if you want, though. That seems to be the only that gets through.

The general welfare is anything Congress decides it is. If healthy kids makes the nation better-off, then a program to provide them health care provides for the general welfare.

[jimnyc]

No need to post anything more. I provided enough to prove the point. I guess I could spin it a bit if you want, though. That seems to be the only that gets through.

The general welfare is anything Congress decides it is. If healthy kids makes the nation better-off, then a program to provide them health care provides for the general welfare.

I believe they went down the list and specifically named the reasons, and likely did so for a reason. I looked hard but saw nothing in there about health insurance and the welfare of those without it.

So back to Jeff's statement in which you stated he was wrong:


No, you're wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to appropriate money for government-run health care. If that's what the people want, they should amend the Constitution first.

And he's right, and it's you who are wrong, and what you cited doesn't even come close to doing what you claim it does.

[Joe Steel]

I believe they went down the list and specifically named the reasons, and likely did so for a reason. I looked hard but saw nothing in there about health insurance and the welfare of those without it.

So back to Jeff's statement in which you stated he was wrong:



And he's right, and it's you who are wrong, and what you cited doesn't even come close to doing what you claim it does.

Obviously, you dont' understand the phrase "general welfare?" Read antifederalist paper Brutus V (http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/antifederalist/brutus05.html).


This constitution considers the people of the several states as one body corporate, and is intended as an original compact, it will therefore dissolve all contracts which may be inconsistent with it. This not only results from its nature, but is expressly declared in the 6th article of it. The design of the constitution is expressed in the preamble, to be, "in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." These are the ends this government is to accomplish, and for which it is invested with certain powers, among these is the power "to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." It is a rule in construing a law to consider the objects the legislature had in view in passing it, and to give it such an explanation as to promote their intention. The same rule will apply in explaining a constitution. The great objects then are declared in this preamble in general and indefinite terms to be to provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and an express power being vested in the legislature to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the general government. The inference is natural that the legislature will have an authority to make all laws which they shall judge necessary for the common safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make laws at discretion: No terms can be found more indefinite than these, and it is obvious, that the legislature alone must judge what laws are proper and necessary for the purpose. It may be said, that this way of explaining the constitution, is torturing and making it speak what it never intended. This is far from my intention, and I shall not even insist upon this implied power, but join issue with those who say we are to collect the idea of the powers given from the express words of the clauses granting them; and it will not be difficult to shew that the same authority is expressly given which is supposed to be implied in the forgoing paragraphs.

The "enumerated powers" idea is a sham concocted by misfits and malcontents to delude the weak-minded. Congress doesn't need an "enumerated power" to enact health care legislation. It already has the power to provide for the general welfare with any law it deems proper and necessary.

[avatar4321]

Of course it does. See Art. 1, Sec. 8; "provide for the general welfare..."

you are completely ignorant of the Constitution if you think that supports your arguments in any way.

[avatar4321]

Obviously, you dont' understand the phrase "general welfare?" Read antifederalist paper Brutus V (http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/antifederalist/brutus05.html).



The "enumerated powers" idea is a sham concocted by misfits and malcontents to delude the weak-minded. Congress doesn't need an "enumerated power" to enact health care legislation. It already has the power to provide for the general welfare with any law it deems proper and necessary.

no, obviously you dont understand the phrase general welfare. Because that phrase does not authorize the federal government to do anything it wants. its ridiculous to assume so when the government has limited jurisidiction and power and is specifically designed to provide states with general jurisdiction. Even attempting to claim such a thing demonstrates you know absolutely nothing about the Constitution.

[MtnBiker]

General welfare is the federal government providing defense of the country ie the military, specific welfare is paying for someones opperation. The constitution does not provide for specific welfare.

[Joe Steel]

General welfare is the federal government providing defense of the country ie the military, specific welfare is paying for someones opperation. The constitution does not provide for specific welfare.

Says who?

Typically, "general" means "the whole." General welfare, then, means the welfare of the whole. Guaranteeing the health of the nation's citizens, especially its children, guarantees the welfare of the whole country because a healthy country is a strong country.

[JohnDoe]

General welfare is the federal government providing defense of the country ie the military, specific welfare is paying for someones opperation. The constitution does not provide for specific welfare.


But Mtn Biker? Defense is listed separately in the two places mentioning the General welfare?


General Welfare

The “general welfare” clause is mentioned twice in the U.S. Constitution: first, in the preamble and second, it is found in Article 1, Section 8.

The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

[5stringJeff]

Please note that, in both places where "the general welfare" is mentioned, it is immediately preceded by the phrase "provide for the common defense." Therefore, it would be prudent to interpret general welfare in that sense, i.e. in the sense of maintaining the security of the Several States.

[BoogyMan]

This is nothing more than an election year talking point. The democrats know that it will get a veto and have timed the debate on this legislation accordingly in order to setup a strawman talking point for their candidates running for president.

[stephanie]

This is nothing more than an election year talking point. The democrats know that it will get a veto and have timed the debate on this legislation accordingly in order to setup a strawman talking point for their candidates running for president.

You are right..
Very dishonest in my opinion, but what's new??

This is from the original article

It hardly matters that the expansion would be expensive or a step toward socialized health care, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said during the House debate. When lawmakers go home, he said, "the question is, Were you with the kids or were you not?"

Also from the article..

Despite the expected veto, many congressional Democrats welcomed the SCHIP debate as a way to open a second political front in addition to Iraq

[MtnBiker]

When is the general welfare going to provide housing, food, transportation, information services and other gratifications toward citizens?

[truthmatters]

General welfare has already been deterimined to mean what the people here on the left have been saying. Your team already lost this fight years ago and the American people have always backed this in higher majorities than exsist on your side of the issue.

When I was in college a woman with a sign approched me to sign her petition to have her kids school bus service reinstalled. I asked her if she had voted for a recently passed propostition 13 and she said YES proudly.I looked at her and told her she had gotten what she deserved.

People are all for every man for themselves when they think it means none of the services they use will end.

Americans like there programs and like to think they can be done with less money. Sometimes they have to be reminded by things like this to realise you cant do them with NO sacrafice. Sometimes they have to see it first hand like seeing people completely abondoned after a natural disaster, a Bridge fall down or their kids bus service stop to see the truth.

The genral welfare means things we do to keep the economy cranking(like infrastructure), to keep our lives from being miserable (like not having to have people beg for food in the streets), To keep our populace healthy(like not seeing sick kids dying in the streets with no care) and the people have shown over and over they like such programs.