House fails to override Veto of SCHIP

[avatar4321]

Just breaking news

[stephanie]

:clap:

The Democrats, moveon.orgie and Paul Simon... weeps...:cheers2:

[theHawk]

Down with socialism!!! Hurray!!!

[5stringJeff]

Yay!!!

[CockySOB]

Thank goodness!

[MtnBiker]

Pelosi is doing a great job.

[Classact]

Pelosi is doing a great job.Well I guess when the Republicans were in the majority they blocked out the minority too but I don't think it was quite as bad as with her... Almost every bill introduced into the House of Representatives comes to the floor under a closed rule... that means what ever was crafted by the 17 or so democrats in the comittee is what everyone has to agree to or disagree with... that includes all the democrats too... no one can make any legislation better than what leadership and the committee members decided on... for that reason almost all appropriations bills will be vetoed by the president... the republican minority in the Senate can correct a lot of wrongs made by the House leadership but not all and SCHIP is a good example of that... Nancy wanted 95 billion for SCHIP and the Senate trimmed it to 35 billion... but the Senate didn't have the ability to remove basic language of the bill that is so offensive to the representatives of almost half of America's citizens... the same will be true of all appropriations will be my guess. Her tactic is to wait until the last minute and then blame the administration for the bill lapsing.

[actsnoblemartin]

socialism will bankrupt us all, and bring down the quality of care in many areas, not just healthcare.


Just breaking news

[JackDaniels]

This bill has nothing to do with children, and everything to do with creating within our children a dependency on government handouts

[actsnoblemartin]

you hit the nail on the head.


This bill has nothing to do with children, and everything to do with creating within our children a dependency on government handouts

[bullypulpit]

Does anyone apreciate the irony, let alone the hypocrisy, of this? The religious right wing-nut base of the GOP will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent abortions, claiming they're "protecting the unborn". Once they're born, however, it's just too bad if anything happens to them.

It would be better to have a millstone around their hypocritical necks and have them drowned in the depths of the sea.

[PostmodernProphet]

Does anyone apreciate the irony, let alone the hypocrisy, of this? The religious right wing-nut base of the GOP will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent abortions, claiming they're "protecting the unborn". Once they're born, however, it's just too bad if anything happens to them.

It would be better to have a millstone around their hypocritical necks and have them drowned in the depths of the sea.

you draw all of that from objection to expanding government provided healthcare to families that are not low income?

[avatar4321]

Does anyone apreciate the irony, let alone the hypocrisy, of this? The religious right wing-nut base of the GOP will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent abortions, claiming they're "protecting the unborn". Once they're born, however, it's just too bad if anything happens to them.

It would be better to have a millstone around their hypocritical necks and have them drowned in the depths of the sea.

There is no irony to appreciate. Wanting to expand the program to cover more children and not adults is hardly not looking out for the children. Wanting to prevent abuse of the system is not looking out for the system. quite the opposite its a sign that people are looking out for the people who actually need it.

Why do liberals seem to think that government needs to take over the parents responsibility? Why do liberals need to lie about what a program does and what Republicans are doing for their PR war? If you guys are right, why not just be honest about it and actually help the children.

The problem is Democrat leaders dont give a damn about the Children. They are just using the Children in order to push forward their real agenda: Socialized Medicine. And they have no problem lying, or convincing children to lie to make people dependent on them.

[bullypulpit]

you draw all of that from objection to expanding government provided healthcare to families that are not low income?

Medicare and Medicaide are for poor families. S-CHIP is for those working families who can't afford healthcare.

And given that the cost of living varies from locale to locale, A family of four in West Virginia would be living quite comforatably, where that same family would be struggleing to eke out a living in...say...New York City. It's means tested.

As for single payor health-care, as an RN that has worked in home-care, hospice, ICU and hemodialysis, I have seens, and see daily, the financial struggle many, even comfortably middle-class, face when confronted with a medical crisis. I'm all for it.

[actsnoblemartin]

The answer it would seem, is bringing more competition to healthcare, as a result lowering the price of it, not a one size fits all government plan,

no offense, but are you forgeting walter reed.

it the government cant even take care of our soldiers, what makes you think it can take care of you and youre kids.

no offense bp, i think government create bigger problems it cant solve


Medicare and Medicaide are for poor families. S-CHIP is for those working families who can't afford healthcare.

And given that the cost of living varies from locale to locale, A family of four in West Virginia would be living quite comforatably, where that same family would be struggleing to eke out a living in...say...New York City. It's means tested.

As for single payor health-care, as an RN that has worked in home-care, hospice, ICU and hemodialysis, I have seens, and see daily, the financial struggle many, even comfortably middle-class, face when confronted with a medical crisis. I'm all for it.

[bullypulpit]

The answer it would seem, is bringing more competition to healthcare, as a result lowering the price of it, not a one size fits all government plan,

no offense, but are you forgeting walter reed.

it the government cant even take care of our soldiers, what makes you think it can take care of you and youre kids.

no offense bp, i think government create bigger problems it cant solve

That "free market" approach was tried with HMO's...And for a while, they helped contain health-care costs. Now, however, with health-care costs rising and the continued demand for profits from insurance company share-holders, insurance companies are raising premiums and squeezing more people out of the market with each premium increase. Those people, the some 45 million uninsured, put off health-care until an illness becomes so sever that they go to the emergency room, which runs about 5 to 10 times the cost of a regular office visit. And, being sicker, their rates of hospital admissions and length of hospital stay are correspondingly higher. Since they can't pay for it the costs are passed on to those who can, thus leading the insurance companies to raise their premiums and co-pays even higher, thus forcing more people into the ranks of the uninsured and exacerbating the whole ugly, unnecessary cycle.

So yes, Americans who don't have health insurance do have access to health-care. Just as Chimpy McPresident pointed out, utterly ignorant of the consequences, the uninsured can go to the emergency room. The net result being that we pay a hidden tax for the costs of the uninsured at a higher rate than if we actually paid for a national health service.

[Classact]

Does anyone apreciate the irony, let alone the hypocrisy, of this? The religious right wing-nut base of the GOP will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent abortions, claiming they're "protecting the unborn". Once they're born, however, it's just too bad if anything happens to them.

It would be better to have a millstone around their hypocritical necks and have them drowned in the depths of the sea.
In my opinion the President was correct to veto this legislation. Well, he explained the reasons to the public but I would add the following: I watch the operations of the House of Representatives and the Senate on CSPAN and note that since the beginning of the 110th Congress the house more than not operates under "closed rule". For those not familiar with the rules of the House I would suggest that you learn more about the rules. Under this system the Comittee writes the legislation and the Comittee is of course managed by the Majority as the house. The problem is under the closed rule no representatives of the other states that are not assigned to the comittee or leadership are allowed to make the bill or law better through amendments, this includes members of the majority. For this reason it is making law similar to the Catholic Theoracy, or law as seen by the elected hiarchy. The Republicans also used these rules on their behalf when they were in majority but not to the extent that this congress has. The result is reflected in current holds in legislation and veto threats from the President when the additional power of the Senate rules do not allow representation of "all the people".

The political implications are still up to the House Leadership. They have choices of sending an almost same bill forward that will again be vetoed or working with the minority and the Administration. I think the American people are smart enough to see that the Democrats cannot scream the Republicans are responsible for killing or harming young poor children. Reasonable people will ask why not demand the SCHIP program be reauthorized at an acceptable level under this administration? Because reasonable people would conclude that if "the people" aren't satisified with the final bill as required by this administration they fully have the opportunity to elect more members of the Majority Party along with a Democratic Executive to allow amendments to increase the program to the desired level. For the Democrats to run on a punch line that the Republicans killed the SCHIP when in fact an olive branch was extended they will blame the Democrats for failing to legislate.

Why not work with the administration and approve an SCHIP Bill? Then allow those running for office, including for the president run on a ticket promise that they will ammend the SCHIP in thier first year of office... what do the Democrats fear will happen if they work with the rest of the nation.

Make an SCHIP Bill that requires proof of citizenship, bring your birth certificate if you want this freebee.

Make another SCHIP Bill for Illegal Aliens allowing those poor kids to enroll in a similar program... Fund it with an initial $5 million dollars and make it law that the home country will reimburse the US government for all medical claims of their citizens... if one country falls behind in health care reimbursment then put a tarriff on everything smoking, planes, boats and trains going to their countries efectively closing down their tourist industry if they fail to pay up... this fee could be assigned on every airliner of every nation that desires to use American ports of call.

[bullypulpit]

In my opinion the President was correct to veto this legislation. Well, he explained the reasons to the public but I would add the following: I watch the operations of the House of Representatives and the Senate on CSPAN and note that since the beginning of the 110th Congress the house more than not operates under "closed rule". For those not familiar with the rules of the House I would suggest that you learn more about the rules. Under this system the Comittee writes the legislation and the Comittee is of course managed by the Majority as the house. The problem is under the closed rule no representatives of the other states that are not assigned to the comittee or leadership are allowed to make the bill or law better through amendments, this includes members of the majority. For this reason it is making law similar to the Catholic Theoracy, or law as seen by the elected hiarchy. The Republicans also used these rules on their behalf when they were in majority but not to the extent that this congress has. The result is reflected in current holds in legislation and veto threats from the President when the additional power of the Senate rules do not allow representation of "all the people".

The political implications are still up to the House Leadership. They have choices of sending an almost same bill forward that will again be vetoed or working with the minority and the Administration. I think the American people are smart enough to see that the Democrats cannot scream the Republicans are responsible for killing or harming young poor children. Reasonable people will ask why not demand the SCHIP program be reauthorized at an acceptable level under this administration? Because reasonable people would conclude that if "the people" aren't satisified with the final bill as required by this administration they fully have the opportunity to elect more members of the Majority Party along with a Democratic Executive to allow amendments to increase the program to the desired level. For the Democrats to run on a punch line that the Republicans killed the SCHIP when in fact an olive branch was extended they will blame the Democrats for failing to legislate.

Why not work with the administration and approve an SCHIP Bill? Then allow those running for office, including for the president run on a ticket promise that they will ammend the SCHIP in thier first year of office... what do the Democrats fear will happen if they work with the rest of the nation.

Make an SCHIP Bill that requires proof of citizenship, bring your birth certificate if you want this freebee.

Make another SCHIP Bill for Illegal Aliens allowing those poor kids to enroll in a similar program... Fund it with an initial $5 million dollars and make it law that the home country will reimburse the US government for all medical claims of their citizens... if one country falls behind in health care reimbursment then put a tarriff on everything smoking, planes, boats and trains going to their countries efectively closing down their tourist industry if they fail to pay up... this fee could be assigned on every airliner of every nation that desires to use American ports of call.

That's not really the issue here, but I can only wonder why it was alright for Republicans to do when they were in the majority. And can you provide links to support that assertion?...Aside from your "observations" on C-SPAN that is. As for Chimpy McPresident's "explanation", that was as incomprehensible as the rest of that little dog-and-pony show.

And, sorry, S-CHIP is NOT for illegal aliens. Proof of residency is required by the state programs.

[bullypulpit]

bump

[manu1959]

Does anyone apreciate the irony, let alone the hypocrisy, of this? The religious right wing-nut base of the GOP will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent abortions, claiming they're "protecting the unborn". Once they're born, however, it's just too bad if anything happens to them.

It would be better to have a millstone around their hypocritical necks and have them drowned in the depths of the sea.

just trying to give evolution and darwin theory a chance.....

[manu1959]

That's not really the issue here, but I can only wonder why it was alright for Republicans to do when they were in the majority. And can you provide links to support that assertion?...Aside from your "observations" on C-SPAN that is. As for Chimpy McPresident's "explanation", that was as incomprehensible as the rest of that little dog-and-pony show.

And, sorry, S-CHIP is NOT for illegal aliens. Proof of residency is required by the state programs.

sorry but my research proves otherwise....in fact in california it is already available....

[CockySOB]

That's not really the issue here, but I can only wonder why it was alright for Republicans to do when they were in the majority. And can you provide links to support that assertion?...Aside from your "observations" on C-SPAN that is. As for Chimpy McPresident's "explanation", that was as incomprehensible as the rest of that little dog-and-pony show.

And, sorry, S-CHIP is NOT for illegal aliens. Proof of residency is required by the state programs.

Actually, it is left to the states to determine their own standards for eligibility. Some states have chosen not to require any residency papers or proof of identification, but the vast majority do have such a requirement.

As a states' rights advocate, I applaud the move to allow the states to determine who is and is not eligible, but I think there should be some mandatory requirements (including identification and proof of residency). That's the reason I was happy the veto held - there is next to no accountability for the disbursement of funds and the accounting of excess funds.

[bullypulpit]

That's not really the issue here, but I can only wonder why it was alright for Republicans to do when they were in the majority. And can you provide links to support that assertion?...Aside from your "observations" on C-SPAN that is. As for Chimpy McPresident's "explanation", that was as incomprehensible as the rest of that little dog-and-pony show.

And, sorry, S-CHIP is NOT for illegal aliens. Proof of residency is required by the state programs.

sorry but my research proves otherwise....in fact in california it is already available....


<blockquote>1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act prevents states from using federal funds to provide Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage for most immigrants who have resided in the United States for less than 5 years. Some states currently use "state-only" funds to provide Medicaid and SCHIP to recently arrived immigrant children, but others do not</blockquote>

The funds used by states can only come from the states...not S-CHIP, not Medicare, not federal funds. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, fall under that provision.

[Classact]

That's not really the issue here, but I can only wonder why it was alright for Republicans to do when they were in the majority.Actually the original SCHIP legislation was very bipartisan and openly debated by both parties. The republicans were in the majority in congress and President Clinton was in the Whitehouse. As far as closed rule in the House of Representatives, the republicans rarely used them but since the 110th congress they seem to be almost on every appropriation.


And can you provide links to support that assertion?...Aside from your "observations" on C-SPAN that is. As for Chimpy McPresident's "explanation", that was as incomprehensible as the rest of that little dog-and-pony show.

An act to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.
Bill # H.R.976
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/bills/?billnum=H.R.976&congress=110&size=full
As for the presidents communications on SCHIP I would say this link will make clear, even to a liberal, what he has proposed… http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and please note the sub-link below the SCHIP posting.



And, sorry, S-CHIP is NOT for illegal aliens. Proof of residency is required by the state programs. That may be true on the existing bill but the "new SCHIP bill" clearly states applicants will present a social security number for registration. There is a statement added by the Senate that say no illegal or resident (legal aliens) are authorized to use SCHIP but there is no enforcement... if three million people in CA apply for SCHIP with a SSAN# 000-00-0000 they will be accepted under the SCHIP bill that was vetoed.

[Classact]

Guess what? On CSPAN this morning it was reported that the House will not work with the President on SCHIP reauthorization, but will instead try to ram an almost identical bill through once again.

The Democratic Party is actually playing politics with poor people health care, they should be ashamed!

[Classact]

The Democratic Party will use the children as human shields on their political run for congress next year... I would never have thought they could be that heartless, well I guess I did... but this is ice cold!


Dems threaten pre-election SCHIP vote


Democrats are considering giving Republicans a stark choice on the stalled children's health bill - cut a deal now or face a politically treacherous vote on the issue one month before next year's elections.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1107/Democrats_threaten_GOP_with_preelection_vote_on_SC HIP.html

Heartless bastards!