President Vetoes Children's Health Insurance Bill

[red states rule]

Bravo Pres Bush. This is a waste of money and takes the first step towards Hillary Care

The Dems are now in full meltdown and tossing out the hate filled one liners



President Vetoes Children's Health Insurance Bill

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Wednesday vetoed a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the current State Children's Health Insurance Program, arguing the new program offers government-run health care to too many Americans who don't need it.

Democrats are confident they have a winning issue and are working hard to find enough votes in the House to override the veto. The Senate already has enough votes to override.

"Today the president showed the nation his true priorities: $700 billion for a war in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids; $50 billion in subsidies for huge oil companies; but no health care for low-income kids; $8 billion lost to waste, fraud, abuse, and no-bid contracts in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

"Millions of American children and their families won't forget that they are on the bottom of the president's priority list," Emanuel said.


"President Bush is a one-man axis of evil," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. "If this is ‘compassionate conservativism,’ what is cruel and unusual punishment?"


Family health care coverage can cost more than $1,000 a month, and Democrats say they have the public on their side.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299129,00.html

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

IT'S About time President Bush Started acting Like A Conservative Since when was a 25 year old a Child? Just Think A couple Of 24 Yr olds Have 4 kids And Have an Income of $79.999.00 A Year. All 6 Are covered Because the dimwits want to raise the age limit To 25 it was a real BAD DEAL that needed to be vetoed :dance:

[red states rule]

IT'S About time President Bush Started acting Like A Conservative Since when was a 25 year old a Child? Just Think A couple Of 24 Yr olds Have 4 kids And Have an Income of $79.999.00 A Year. All 6 Are covered Because the dimwits want to raise the age limit To 25 it was a real BAD DEAL that needed to be vetoed :dance:

not to mention yet another tax increase to apy for this insane idea

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

not to mention yet another tax increase to apy for this insane idea :beer:

[red states rule]

:beer:

I am waiting for the libs to tax breathing. It may not be very far off

[avatar4321]

im glad to see the President vetoing this badly named "children's health" bill. 25 year olds are not children

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm worried there will be a compromise which still spends too much money.....that's what they did with the Medicare prescription plan.....you know we subsidize the premiums of people who earn $110k a year there?.......

[manu1959]

tax increase....on cigarettes.....

[MtnBiker]

tax increase....on cigarettes.....

Don't more poor people smoke than weathier people?

[manu1959]

Don't more poor people smoke than weathier people?


so they are paying for their own health care.....that is a problem for you why?...plus the will be dying young and not collecting social security...looks like a win win to me....

[MtnBiker]

ok that works

[red states rule]

If Dems get their way, one out of three children will be moved out of private insurance into government coverage

The number one goal for Dems is to get as many people as possible dependent on government - and the producers pay the bill

[bullypulpit]

Allow me to remind you of the story of the biblical prophet Nathan when he came to King David.

Nathan told King David of a wealthy man who had many sheep, but took the one lamb of a poor man to feed a visiting friend. David was enraged at the cllousness of the wealthy man, proclaiming that ayone who would do such a thing deserved to be put to death for abusing his power and showing such a lack of compassion. Nathan then said to King David, "You are that man."

With his veto of the SCHIP legislation, Greorge W. Bush has shown us that he is "that man". His every economic policy has taken support from the elderly, children, education, housing, Medicaid, community development, small business lending...the list goes on. The poor and middle class foot the bill so Bush can continue to reduce the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans. His claims of "compassionate conservatism" are as empty as he is morally bankrupt.

[theHawk]

Allow me to remind you of the story of the biblical prophet Nathan when he came to King David.

Nathan told King David of a wealthy man who had many sheep, but took the one lamb of a poor man to feed a visiting friend. David was enraged at the cllousness of the wealthy man, proclaiming that ayone who would do such a thing deserved to be put to death for abusing his power and showing such a lack of compassion. Nathan then said to King David, "You are that man."

With his veto of the SCHIP legislation, Greorge W. Bush has shown us that he is "that man". His every economic policy has taken support from the elderly, children, education, housing, Medicaid, community development, small business lending...the list goes on. The poor and middle class foot the bill so Bush can continue to reduce the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans. His claims of "compassionate conservatism" are as empty as he is morally bankrupt.


Government health care has nothing to do with compassion. Kind of funny you like quoting the bible when it suits your needs. Have any bible quotes that support abortion on demand or gay marriage?

[JohnDoe]

I'm worried there will be a compromise which still spends too much money.....that's what they did with the Medicare prescription plan.....you know we subsidize the premiums of people who earn $110k a year there?.......
really postmodern?

what compromise took place on the medicare prescription drug bill?

did you know that no democratic house of representative member voted for this purely Republican bill? hold on, maybe 1 rep did...

the medicare pill bill was 100% republican, they refused to let any democratic congressmen in to the conference /committee on it, while they had PHARMA personel writing it.... the republican leader in charge of the committee that put the bill together left congress shortly thereafter to work for PHARMA at millions a year.....

then the house leadership kept a 15 minute vote opened for 3 hours, till 3am in the morning while they TWISTED and BRIBED republicans not voting for the bill to change their vote cuz they lost the vote at the 15 minute mark, so getting enough to change their vote took the 3 hours extra to do....

there was no compromise with democratic congressmen....

again, fyi...the med pill bill was 100% republican.

dems make enough mistakes at times, no need to add to their list with something that imo, is simply not true. :slap:

jd

[JohnDoe]

Government health care has nothing to do with compassion. Kind of funny you like quoting the bible when it suits your needs. Have any bible quotes that support abortion on demand or gay marriage?

Do you have any Bible quotes that speaks specifically about abortion, whether right or wrong? or specifically about gay marriage for that matter? not homosexuality, but gay marriage? (you can pm me)

nevermind....this isn't the topic of this thread, but being poor and helping those that have less or helping a stranger or helping the sick is the topic...so why not stick with that and what you know the Bible says about that thehawk? it is appropriate, is it not?

jd

[theHawk]

nevermind....this isn't the topic of this thread, but being poor and helping those that have less or helping a stranger or helping the sick is the topic...so why not stick with that and what you know the Bible says about that thehawk? it is appropriate, is it not?

You need the government to help those that have less or to help the sick? Whats stopping you from doing it yourself? The bible tells us we should do that. There are many different ways we can do that, raising taxes and government interferrence is probably the most ineffective and wasteful way of doing that. This is just an attempt by the political left to appear as if they care more about "children" than the political right. Sorry, but no matter how many government health care programs the Dems try to pass it isn't going to make me believe that a political group that believes in abortion on demand and advocates gay marriage is all about helping "the children."

[TheStripey1]

Allow me to remind you of the story of the biblical prophet Nathan when he came to King David.

Nathan told King David of a wealthy man who had many sheep, but took the one lamb of a poor man to feed a visiting friend. David was enraged at the cllousness of the wealthy man, proclaiming that ayone who would do such a thing deserved to be put to death for abusing his power and showing such a lack of compassion. Nathan then said to King David, "You are that man."

With his veto of the SCHIP legislation, Greorge W. Bush has shown us that he is "that man". His every economic policy has taken support from the elderly, children, education, housing, Medicaid, community development, small business lending...the list goes on. The poor and middle class foot the bill so Bush can continue to reduce the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans. His claims of "compassionate conservatism" are as empty as he is morally bankrupt.

Bush would rather have us spend hundreds of billion$ killing people than spend a few billion saving them...

saw this on another forum...

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070927/spo070926.gif

[TheStripey1]

Government health care has nothing to do with compassion. Kind of funny you like quoting the bible when it suits your needs. Have any bible quotes that support abortion on demand or gay marriage?

Got any that condemns them?

[JohnDoe]

i truely believe the president WILL compromise on this....or enough repubs will change their vote to over ride the veto.

i do not believe a cigarette tax is the way to fund it. Cigarette taxes are regressive taxes....they are put on to primarily those with less, if statistics are correct about who the majority of smokers are... in addition states are already taxing cigarette smokers to the hilt from what i know about it.... in maine there is a $2.00 a pack tax and we are in the process of raising it even higher.

one segment of society should not bear the brunt of children's healthcare imho.

[theHawk]

one segment of society should not bear the brunt of children's healthcare imho.

Only the child raising segment should bear the brunt of it.

[theHawk]

Got any that condemns them?

Why? Do you honestly believe that the bible condones homosexuality and abortion?

[red states rule]

Why do liberals want to take both kids and adults from private ins to taxpayer paid governemt insurance?

Perhaps to expand government and make more people dependent on government - thus incrwasing their power?

[avatar4321]

Allow me to remind you of the story of the biblical prophet Nathan when he came to King David.

Nathan told King David of a wealthy man who had many sheep, but took the one lamb of a poor man to feed a visiting friend. David was enraged at the cllousness of the wealthy man, proclaiming that ayone who would do such a thing deserved to be put to death for abusing his power and showing such a lack of compassion. Nathan then said to King David, "You are that man."

With his veto of the SCHIP legislation, Greorge W. Bush has shown us that he is "that man". His every economic policy has taken support from the elderly, children, education, housing, Medicaid, community development, small business lending...the list goes on. The poor and middle class foot the bill so Bush can continue to reduce the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans. His claims of "compassionate conservatism" are as empty as he is morally bankrupt.

How is making people dependent and enslaving them to the government compassionate?

[avatar4321]

You need the government to help those that have less or to help the sick? Whats stopping you from doing it yourself? The bible tells us we should do that. There are many different ways we can do that, raising taxes and government interferrence is probably the most ineffective and wasteful way of doing that. This is just an attempt by the political left to appear as if they care more about "children" than the political right. Sorry, but no matter how many government health care programs the Dems try to pass it isn't going to make me believe that a political group that believes in abortion on demand and advocates gay marriage is all about helping "the children."

This is the problem with the left. They have no problem giving away other peoples money but cant seem to let go of their own.

[red states rule]

How is making people dependent and enslaving them to the government compassionate?

It increases the Demos power - that is the most compassionate thing one can do

[PostmodernProphet]

really postmodern?

what compromise took place on the medicare prescription drug bill?

did you know that no democratic house of representative member voted for this purely Republican bill? hold on, maybe 1 rep did...

the medicare pill bill was 100% republican, they refused to let any democratic congressmen in to the conference /committee on it, while they had PHARMA personel writing it.... the republican leader in charge of the committee that put the bill together left congress shortly thereafter to work for PHARMA at millions a year.....

then the house leadership kept a 15 minute vote opened for 3 hours, till 3am in the morning while they TWISTED and BRIBED republicans not voting for the bill to change their vote cuz they lost the vote at the 15 minute mark, so getting enough to change their vote took the 3 hours extra to do....

there was no compromise with democratic congressmen....

again, fyi...the med pill bill was 100% republican.

dems make enough mistakes at times, no need to add to their list with something that imo, is simply not true. :slap:

jd
nice try, JD, but I can't let you get away with THAT distortion....

yes, the Dems voted against the final version, but because it did not spend ENOUGH, not because it spent too much...

the original problem posed was that poor people could not afford prescription drugs......those hateful conservatives who don't want to help the poor proposed a solution which would provide government paid prescription coverage to the poor....

that was rejected by the Dems who demanded a program which included everyone, regardless of need....that was rejected by the Republicans....

the compromise program, which was passed upon a claim that it would cost a few billion less than it actually did......drawing in Republican votes with promises that it would cost less and drawing in Democrat votes by raising eligibility to the point that people earning as much as #110k a year would qualify.....

so, did Dems vote against it?.....yes, but only because it didn't provide coverage to people earning MORE than $110k a year.....

the net result?.....the Republicans wanted to provide a program that helped the poor, the Dems screwed it up by wanting to help the rich.......

http://arthritis.about.com/od/medicare/a/rxplanrejected.htm


Three other Medicare prescription proposals were also recently rejected by the U.S. Senate:


#1 - Democrats had initially supported a 10-year, $594 billion plan, which would have offered benefits to all seniors enrolled in Medicare, and which would have been administered by the government.
#2 - Republicans had supported a $370 billion plan, which would have offered limited benefits to all senior citizens, and which would have been administered by private insurers. This plan was backed by the Bush administration.
#3 - A second Republican plan would have offered drug assistance to the neediest seniors for a cost of $170 billion over 10 years.

[JohnDoe]

Post modern

you need to read further...on this... ;)

the repubs said that their plan only cost 400 billion, the actuary that estimated the plan for the cbo had come to a figure of $550 billion as the estimate but the republicans threathened to fire him if he told all of congress the truth about the estimat eof the repubs... this was all aired out in a hearing... it did happen, and then when the pill bill went through it came out in less than a month afterwards that it's estimated cost was 730 billion...

So, I am glad you brought it up....

And the Democratic plan that was ignored covered MORE for the individual, while the republican plan had no negotiating with Pharma on bulk discounts and no drugs imported from Canada....EXACTLY what PHARMA wanted, costing us american tax payers BILLIONS in extra cost... please, please...do some more reading up on this....

the truth is out there to find....

jd

[PostmodernProphet]

Post modern

you need to read further...on this... ;)

the repubs said that their plan only cost 400 billion, the actuary that estimated the plan for the cbo had come to a figure of $550 billion as the estimate but the republicans threathened to fire him if he told all of congress the truth about the estimat eof the repubs... this was all aired out in a hearing... it did happen, and then when the pill bill went through it came out in less than a month afterwards that it's estimated cost was 730 billion...

So, I am glad you brought it up....

And the Democratic plan that was ignored covered MORE for the individual, while the republican plan had no negotiating with Pharma on bulk discounts and no drugs imported from Canada....EXACTLY what PHARMA wanted, costing us american tax payers BILLIONS in extra cost... please, please...do some more reading up on this....

the truth is out there to find....

jd

rofl....so let me get this straight.....the conservative Republicans were tricked into supporting the compromise with a misrepresentation that it was going to cost less than it really did to provide coverage to people who weren't poor.....and it is the fault of conservatives because they hate the poor and because they are overspenders......yes, of course....

and I suppose that the Dem plan which was projected to cost $594 billion instead of $400 billion would NOT have cost more than projected?....perhaps even by the same margin?......

[actsnoblemartin]

democrats are playing politics, :lame2:

People under 25, should not get free health care, adults dont need free health care

why?

cause this program already covers what it is supposed to

KIDS

When you see a politician attacking someone, its probably just playing politics, i.e. bsing.


Bravo Pres Bush. This is a waste of money and takes the first step towards Hillary Care

The Dems are now in full meltdown and tossing out the hate filled one liners



President Vetoes Children's Health Insurance Bill

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Wednesday vetoed a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the current State Children's Health Insurance Program, arguing the new program offers government-run health care to too many Americans who don't need it.

Democrats are confident they have a winning issue and are working hard to find enough votes in the House to override the veto. The Senate already has enough votes to override.

"Today the president showed the nation his true priorities: $700 billion for a war in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids; $50 billion in subsidies for huge oil companies; but no health care for low-income kids; $8 billion lost to waste, fraud, abuse, and no-bid contracts in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

"Millions of American children and their families won't forget that they are on the bottom of the president's priority list," Emanuel said.


"President Bush is a one-man axis of evil," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. "If this is ‘compassionate conservativism,’ what is cruel and unusual punishment?"


Family health care coverage can cost more than $1,000 a month, and Democrats say they have the public on their side.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299129,00.html

[red states rule]

Post modern

you need to read further...on this... ;)

the repubs said that their plan only cost 400 billion, the actuary that estimated the plan for the cbo had come to a figure of $550 billion as the estimate but the republicans threathened to fire him if he told all of congress the truth about the estimat eof the repubs... this was all aired out in a hearing... it did happen, and then when the pill bill went through it came out in less than a month afterwards that it's estimated cost was 730 billion...

So, I am glad you brought it up....

And the Democratic plan that was ignored covered MORE for the individual, while the republican plan had no negotiating with Pharma on bulk discounts and no drugs imported from Canada....EXACTLY what PHARMA wanted, costing us american tax payers BILLIONS in extra cost... please, please...do some more reading up on this....

the truth is out there to find....

jd

Good Morning,

Yes, we all know how good the cost estimates are when the Federal government tells us how much a program is going to cost

Nothing in life is free - why do libs think they will be getting free health care? Why should I have to pay for someone elses kids when their patents make $$80,000/yr?

Alot of kids will be moved out of private ins and into taxpayer paid insurance. Why?

Once again, this is a great example of liberals trying to get as many people as possible dependent of government so they can increase their power over them. Now instead of listeing to Dems screaming "Republicans want to take your SS check away from you" we will also have to listen to "Republicans will take away your health insurance"

[red states rule]

Do you have any Bible quotes that speaks specifically about abortion, whether right or wrong? or specifically about gay marriage for that matter? not homosexuality, but gay marriage? (you can pm me)

nevermind....this isn't the topic of this thread, but being poor and helping those that have less or helping a stranger or helping the sick is the topic...so why not stick with that and what you know the Bible says about that thehawk? it is appropriate, is it not?

jd

It is about the Dems trying to increase their power, make more people dependent on government, and having anopther excuse to raise taxes.

The Washington Times gets it

SCHIP follies
House Democrats' parliamentary maneuverings have bought them an additional two weeks to prepare for another round of political theater on renewal of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Rather than taking a timely vote to override President Bush's Wednesday veto of the SCHIP expansion, Democrats have decided to postpone an override vote until Oct. 18. They hope the extra time will allow for enough behind-the-scenes arm-twisting to convince the 15 or so Republicans they need to override a presidential veto. They're also hoping to persuade the eight Democrats who voted with Republicans last month to reverse themselves. Despite a clear warning from President Bush of an impending veto, both chambers approved an expansion of SCHIP by $35 billion over five years, a figure seven times higher than Mr. Bush's proposal to increase the program by $5 billion.

As part of their latest political charade, Democrats are joining with their special-interest allies to launch a massive advertising campaign to trash politically vulnerable House members who are demanding fiscal restraint instead of backing a misguided bill that would expand SCHIP coverage to adults and upper-middle income families with incomes of up to $83,000 for a family of four. One liberal activist coalition includes everyone from the Service Employees International Union to MoveOn.org. Press reports indicate they're spending up to $5 million this month on an advertising blitz they hope will intimidate members into supporting the march toward socialized medicine.

Fortunately, House Republicans are standing strong. Some 147 Republicans — enough to block an override — have signed a pledge of support to sustain a presidential veto of irresponsible spending bills. We hope these members honor their pledge. If so, the Democrats' political theater will have been for naught — at least insofar as passing this bill is concerned. The SCHIP program, which provides coverage for some 6.6 million low-income children and expired on Sept. 30, will continue to receive funding until Nov. 16 under a continuing resolution passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

The question is whether Democrats will be willing to budge on the $35 billion SCHIP expansion they insist on peddling. All signs indicate the Democrats aren't willing to come to the negotiating table to hash out a compromise. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to meet with Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican, to come to a middle ground. "There's absolutely been no effort to reach out and work in a bipartisan way," Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy told the Washington Times.

President Bush has said he is willing to start a dialogue on approving additional funding beyond his $5 billion request. But House Democrats have indicated they aren't willing to budge and are stubbornly planning another vote on the same $35 billion bill. Rather than working for a serious compromise, congressional Democrats are digging in their heels in order to play the obstructionist. Their failure to produce much in the way of legislation is reflected in abysmal poll numbers. For now, the biggest losers are the SCHIP recipients they purportedly wish to help.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071005/EDITORIAL/110050002/1013/editorial