Quote :

"WASHINGTON - House Democrats failed yesterday to override President Bush's veto of a bill to expand a children's health insurance program, coming within a dozen votes and promising to continue their push on what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi termed a 'banner issue.' The 273-to-156 vote in the House of Representatives was the latest in a series of setbacks faced by the Democratic leadership on key issues that it has championed. When Bush announced his veto of the insurance legislation nearly a month ago, Democrats were optimistic that the program's popularity would leave Republicans wary of standing with the White House. Yet a major push by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, advocacy groups, and unions proved unable to convert a single Republican who had voted against the bill on Sept. 25."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/10/19/house_fails_to_override_veto_of_schip/

I hate to pile on, folks, but it seems like the Democrats are trying to chalk up at least one major loss per week these days. When are some of you going to realize that your leadership team--Pelosi, Reid, and others--are taking you down a rathole?

BTW, don't give me any of that shit about the children losing in this and not the Democrats. This push wasn't about the children and most reasonable people know that--this was another failed attempt to further advance universal health care, nothing more.

10/19/2007 2:52:14 AM

Doesn't seem like a loss to me. The Democrats, by passing the bill to begin with, put the President in a no-win situation.

If they overrode the veto, then the bill passed and they could claim landmark Health Care reform.
If they failed to override the veto, then the President has shot down a bill "for children's health care" and they have a message they can take to the public denouncing him.

Seriously -- I'm sure the House leadership could've killed the veto override vote if they wanted. This was a calculated move, and a pretty shrewd one politically.

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 2:58 AM. Reason : foo]

10/19/2007 2:58:03 AM

^ Yeah, keep telling yourself that. If this were one "loss," if you will, I might agree--but note the following quotation from the article above:

Quote :

"The 273-to-156 vote in the House of Representatives was the latest in a series of setbacks faced by the Democratic leadership on key issues that it has championed [emphasis added]. When Bush announced his veto of the insurance legislation nearly a month ago, Democrats were optimistic that the program's popularity would leave Republicans wary of standing with the White House."

How can this be a "shrewd" political move, as you put it, when it's just one more in a "series of setbacks"? It looks more like the current Democratic leadership team is trying to snatch defeat for its constituency from the jaws of its '06 victory.

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 3:31 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2007 3:30:37 AM

You can see it how you like. While the only thing it may hurt for Bush is his public image it does seem like the names of those who voted against this will come up in the '08 races. Something I haven't heard mentioned was if SCHIP was originally designed to scale with inflation or if it was set at a certain dollar amount. Let's be clear, this isn't a program for poor kids. It's for families that fall into the nether regions of being poor yet don't make enough to meet the demands of skyrocketing costs from private insurance. You can try and label it as some socialist bogeyman if you'd like but it comes across as more paranoia than actual concern for tax dollars being spent. Makes one wonder how "compassionate" conservatives really think they are.

10/19/2007 5:03:37 AM

^^ ummm, maybe because that quote was the opinion of the journalist who wrote the article?

if the Democrats continue to pass bills for children's insurance and stemcell research, issues that the vast majority of Democrats support, and even a majority of the country in general supports, then they will be able to continue to blame the President when he vetoes those bills.

10/19/2007 8:09:26 AM

SCHIP

Quote :

"Socialized Clinton-style Hillary-care for Illegals and their Parents"

Quote :

"You can try and label it as some socialist bogeyman if you'd like..."

BECAUSE THERE CLEARLY AREN'T ANY SOCIALISTS IN AMERICA

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONCEPT OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARE PERFECTLY SAFE

10/19/2007 9:07:59 AM

Quote :

"Doesn't seem like a loss to me. The Democrats, by passing the bill to begin with, put the President in a no-win situation. If they overrode the veto, then the bill passed and they could claim landmark Health Care reform. If they failed to override the veto, then the President has shot down a bill "for children's health care" and they have a message they can take to the public denouncing him. Seriously -- I'm sure the House leadership could've killed the veto override vote if they wanted. This was a calculated move, and a pretty shrewd one politically."

Pure politics...you make me sick....

10/19/2007 9:12:06 AM

actually this is the sort of thing Pelosi SHOULD be doing. A clear majority of people want this, a clear majority of congressmen support it. ... but, unfortunately, not a 2/3 majority.

i dont see how this will hurt supporters of the bill, when the republicans (as led by their wildly-popular president) will be shown as obstructing healthcare access for children.

10/19/2007 9:20:35 AM

Should we be giving free health care to kids of parents who make 85K a year?

yes or no?

10/19/2007 9:21:33 AM

Quote :

"Should we be giving free health care to kids of parents who make 85K a year?"

Actually....

Quote :

"President Bush gave a false description of proposed legislation to expand the 10-year-old federal program to provide health insurance for children in low-income working families. He said it "would result" in covering children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year, which isn't true. The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what's in the current law. (The compromise bill that was released a few days after Bush's press conference does rescind an administration effort to block New York state from increasing its eligibility cap to that level.)"

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_false_claims_about_childrens_health_insurance.html

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 9:30 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2007 9:29:54 AM

Quote :

""Should we be giving free health care to kids of parents who make 85K a year?""

if they dont have insurance?

HELL YES.

puttign aside the fact that these numbers are skewed (as ^ shows) ... $85K for a family (in many regions of the US), is just barely enough to buy food and pay the normal bills.




[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 9:33 AM. Reason : ]

10/19/2007 9:31:08 AM

The problem is our medical care system is broken. Unless your job provides it through a group policy, healthcare insurance is unbelievably expensive and in alot of cases out of the question for the middle class, with or without children.

So, yes, until the right can come up with an actual solution to the problem that amounts to something more than "tort reform", then the majority of the country is going to support some sort of universal government sponsored healthcare. The only people who look stupid in this are the repubs who are blocking the only real solutions being offered right now.

10/19/2007 9:36:07 AM

socialism, huh?

yep. socialism.

but why?

'cause we can.

oh. good enough. where's my free lunch?

10/19/2007 9:37:25 AM

Quote :

"Pure politics...you make me sick...."

1) Smoker4 was just stating what Congress was doing. he wasn't necessarily glorifying or endorsing it.
2) The last time I talked to him, Smoker4 was one of the more true fiscal conservatives i know. Of course, that was almost 2 years ago, before he moved to San Francisco!

10/19/2007 10:17:34 AM

^^ It's not socialism you dumb fuck. The program is in place to provide needed assistance to those who would not be covered by medicaid (poor people's insurance) and those that can not afford stupidly expensive private healthcare because rates are too expensive. Next time you want to preach about snowflake babies and taxes on the rich remember how compassionate you are about the working class. And 85k may seem like a lot to you but due in part that we live in a capitalist economy the cost of living is not uniform from state to state. So what do you say to families of 4 or more only making 85k a year combined? Work more? Get a second, third job? What kind of quality of life does that provide just to afford healthcare from a private insurer that's making big bucks off of it?

Also, realize that the overall cost of healthcare would likely decrease by having more people covered and healthy as opposed to being sick without insurance. This isn't socialism, it's common sense.

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 10:28 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2007 10:28:02 AM

Quote :

"Should we be giving free health care to kids of parents who make 85K a year? yes or no? "

Noone will answer this. Americans are a bunch of headline reading idiots that dont even LOOK at what the bill means. When you actually put it out like that, and the fact that thousands of ADULTS and people houses with incomes in the 80ks will be covered by this "poor kids" healthplan. The people defending it are clearly uninformed or just idiots.

This was nothing more than chipping away at the democracy. Moving to socalize medicine one step at a time and under the cloak of helping poor children. It works because people are too stupid to actually read into anything, they simply read headlines of "bush vetos child healthcare bill" and form thier opinions.

10/19/2007 10:32:12 AM

Quote :

"puttign aside the fact that these numbers are skewed (as ^ shows) ... $85K for a family (in many regions of the US), is just barely enough to buy food and pay the normal bills."

lol many regions my ass

you can get health care if you make 85K in all but a few areas (nyc, sfo, etc; places with high housing costs)...and really, if you cant afford to live in a place, you should move

what about the people that can afford it and dont pay for it, the government shouldnt have to pick up the tab regardless if they have children

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 10:34 AM. Reason : 

10/19/2007 10:32:47 AM

Quote :

"The problem is our medical care system is broken. "

Your medical care system isn't broken. It does a fine job of what it's intended to do, which is to look after the financial health of insurance companies.

Granted, every other industrialized country offers vastly better medical care to a lot more people at a lower cost than your system. But those countries have to struggle along and make do with an economy that lacks highly profitable private insurance companies.

Nice country you've got there.

10/19/2007 10:33:09 AM

It's a good thing that all of you Red Scare-mongers are here to point out the "hidden cloak of Socialism" and keep us safe by denying health coverage to working families.

10/19/2007 10:40:02 AM

Quote :

"trikk311: Pure politics...you make me sick.... trikk311:Should we be giving free health care to kids of parents who make 85K a year? yes or no?"

How odd that only one post after decrying political gamesmanship, you mold a Republican talking point into a yes or no question.

Quote :

"eyedrb: Noone will answer this. Americans are a bunch of headline reading idiots that dont even LOOK at what the bill means."

1. two people already answered it.
2. in order to buy into the 85k argument, you'd need to be one of those headline-reading idiots who don't even LOOK at what the bill means:

Quote :

"In fact, nothing in either the House or Senate bill would force coverage for families earning $83,000 a year. That's already possible under current law, but no state sets its cut-off that high for a family of four and the bill contains no requirement for any such increase. The Bush administration, in fact, just denied a request by New York to set its income cut-off at $82,600 for a family of four"

from teh link you seem to have missed:

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_false_claims_about_childrens_health_insurance.html

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 11:03 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2007 10:43:45 AM

I'm all for another solution to the problem besides government controlled healthcare.

What is it? hooksaw? eyedrb?

10/19/2007 10:46:13 AM

At 85k/year for your family you CAN afford healthcare. My parents earned less than 40K combined and I have four siblings. They had no problem paying for health insurance for the five of us. If you believe that with 85k you can't provide healthcare for your family, then you've been fooled. It's a bunch of stupid crock that the liberals drilled into your brain. Or you own a fancy house with 2 new cars (one BMW and one GMC gas guzzler) and can't afford to make those payments and provide healthcare for your family. I believe the latter is the culprit.

What we need is finacial responsibility, mandatory workshops, or some sort of financial education for those families who earn 85K/year and "can't" afford health insurance. We don't need to support middle America's habit of living large on a small income. That's reality. The reality is that the purchasing power of middle America has decreased, and we are just going to have to adjust to it on an individual level. Not try to make up for it by promoting bad finacial decisions.

Like the old saying goes, "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man how to fish; you feed him for a lifetime."

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 10:54 AM. Reason : quote]

10/19/2007 10:53:14 AM

Quote :

"At 85k/year for your family you CAN afford healthcare."

First off, that's not the point. Families making that much money aren't covered under this, unless the state applies for a waiver (which New York did, but they got denied)

Second, what if that 85k a year is from each parent working a job that pays 20k? With a job that pays that low, you better believe that health insurance isn't automatically provided for them.

I agree that financial responsibility is a must, but you're missing the point of what the legislation was trying to do.

10/19/2007 10:55:53 AM

^ so you have 4.25 parents?

10/19/2007 10:57:03 AM

^ Meant to say that each parent is working two jobs... I havent had enough coffee yet

10/19/2007 10:58:10 AM

why the fuck are people talking about 85K??

Quote :

"However, no such proposal exists. The $83,000 figure comes from a request from New York to cover children in some slightly higher-income households because of the state’s high cost of living, but the final Congressional agreement put the poorest children “first in line” for benefits. Center for American Progress health care analyst Jeanne Lambrew notes that the section 106 of the bill specifically ensures that there will not be any expansion of eligibility. “It overwhelming targets resources to low-income children and it discourages expansion to families with more moderate incomes by lowering the share the federal government will pay for such coverage.” "

jesus fucking christ. its unfathomable to me that you people could be against providing CHILDREN with healthcare. and for a fraction of the cost of being in iraq, where you have no problem paying billions of dollars a week for a lost cause. compassionate conservative my ass. it's really pathetic

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 11:08 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2007 11:07:04 AM

No child left behind!!!!

10/19/2007 11:19:05 AM

Quote :

"jesus fucking christ. its unfathomable to me that you people could be against providing CHILDREN with healthcare. and for a fraction of the cost of being in iraq, where you have no problem paying billions of dollars a week for a lost cause. compassionate conservative my ass. it's really pathetic"

im against paying for a child's health insurance when the parents can afford it but choose not to get it

im against this stupid shit in iraq

i guess im really against stupid spending

10/19/2007 11:24:12 AM

Quote :

"its unfathomable to me that you people could be against providing CHILDREN with healthcare."

its unfathomable to me that some parents could be against providing THEIR OWN CHILDREN with healthcare that they could easily afford themselves, but decide not to and instead use the money on some other material possessions.

10/19/2007 11:31:15 AM

it's a terrific talking point, it really REALLY is. but you're not going to be able to say it enough to make it true.

10/19/2007 11:36:35 AM

lol

10/19/2007 11:40:05 AM

^^die


people in a society : cells in a living body

guaranteed health care for all : angiogenesis

permanent ecological damage, war for resources, & the ultimate fall of Western society : a body dying from cancer



if you, your family, your church, other churches, other religious institutions, your neighbors, your school, your employer, your families employer, your religious community, your friends, your coworkers, local non-profits, regional non-profits, national non-profits, international non-profits, other charities, etc., etc., etc. can't raise enough of their money to pay for your life saving surgery, then yes--you should just die. This goes for me and everyone I love. "Unfathomable" or not, it is not responsible to guarantee health. Period. There are no free lunches. Ever.

Quote :

"and for a fraction of the cost of being in iraq, where you have no problem paying billions of dollars a week for a lost cause. compassionate conservative my ass."

BECAUSE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES ARE ALL IRAQ WAR SUPPORTERS!!!!!1

(example #9146295824765294652 of why the over-polarized two-party-system causes prejudice)







 

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 11:59 AM. Reason :  ]

10/19/2007 11:40:13 AM

Yeah, its all about the CHILDREN? Open your eyes people. From the wallstreet journal

As of February 2007, the Government Accountability Office found that 14 states were using Schip to cover adults: pregnant women, parents of Medicaid or Schip kids--and even childless adults. Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin cover more adults than children. In 2005 Minnesota spent 92% of its grant insuring adults, and Arizona spent two-thirds the same way.




http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009981

10/19/2007 11:49:20 AM

This issue to me has more to do with responsibility than health ins. You can get affordable health ins. Sure it might be a high deductible, and if you are unhealthy you PAY more.

However, when the govt start putting thier hands in things it mostly gets fucked up. To the person that claims that if they have healthcare they will be healthier? Its bullshit. Our fattest population is given thier healthcare and they dont show up, when they do, they dont take thier free meds or lift a finger to help themselves. (some)

People simply want thier money to spend on things they WANT, and expect people to GIVE them the things they need. This thinking is growing and is clearly evident on this thread. However, all it does is encourage less responsiblity and more dependence. Which the govt loves.

how in the world can some of you bash the hell out of the admin for mishandling EVERYTHING, but want to hand them your healthcare? Its funny and sad.

10/19/2007 11:59:44 AM

hypothetical:

If someone was handing out free Twinkies and Ho Ho's

how many would you take?

(you can't resell them; you must eat all that you take, or throw them away)






I would take one or none

it's the people that would fill their trunks that are the problem with our country

10/19/2007 12:04:59 PM

^^^

Quote :

"Adults are also generally not eligible for SCHIP; however, several states have been granted special federal approval to receive enhanced matching funds for coverage of parents of children enrolled in SCHIP, pregnant women, and, in some cases, adults without children (going forward, coverage of adults without children has been prohibited by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006)."

it's not like they're hoodwinking the system. which by the way has been around since '97

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 12:13 PM. Reason : /]

10/19/2007 12:05:24 PM

^right

hoodwinking isn't necessary when the system itself is fucked

10/19/2007 12:12:51 PM

Quote :

"To the person that claims that if they have healthcare they will be healthier? Its bullshit."

This is completely untrue. Studies have shown that people with health insurance have longer life spans, better health, and require less emergency and critical health care than people without.

10/19/2007 12:15:45 PM

BECAUSE CORRELATION = CAUSATION









[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 12:20 PM. Reason : studies show that 97% of serial killers eat french fries.

10/19/2007 12:16:52 PM

^^^^^ How does someone fill their trunk with healthcare? Healthcare isn't like welfare where you can keep sucking on the system, it's something that you have to actually be sick for it to cost money. It's a difficult system to REALLY defraud.

^ Haha, are you really trying to suggest that having better healthcare doesn't cause people to live a bit longer and healthier? If that's your belief, then you're either severely retarded or severely deluded.

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 12:19 PM. Reason : ]

10/19/2007 12:17:08 PM

Quote :

"^right hoodwinking isn't necessary when the system itself is fucked "

sure, but the WSJ column he quoted did not present the information in an honest way. Instead whoever wrote it presented it in a way that would attempt to make it seem like adults being covered is something shady and a flaw of the system, when in reality it's not.

Quote :

"the Government Accountability Office found that 14 states were using Schip to cover adults: pregnant women, parents of Medicaid or Schip kids"

see, the government ACCOUNTABILITY office, FOUND it out....

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 12:21 PM. Reason : ,]

10/19/2007 12:19:11 PM

Quote :

"BECAUSE CORRELATION = CAUSATION"

So let me get this straight.

You are saying that there is no reason to believe that regular doctor's visits and preventive medicine would have any impact on long term health? In that case, I guess family doctors should just be done away with and we can all go to the ER when it gets bad enough. Because that's just as good, right? And just as economically effective?

10/19/2007 12:22:01 PM

^
government provided health insurance, let alone any health insurance

isn't necessary for longer life, better health, and less emergency and critical health care

and

isn't necessary for regular doctor's visits and preventive medicine

so

it's a correlation, not a causation. period.

people with health insurance generally choose to have it

you know, the way they choose to live a healthy lifestyle

Quote :

"are you really trying to suggest that having better healthcare doesn't cause people to live a bit longer and healthier?"

again

it's you that's equating healthcare with health insurance
there are other options, like MSA's, out-of-pocket, etc.

Quote :

"Healthcare isn't like welfare where you can keep sucking on the system, it's something that you have to actually be sick for it to cost money."

and personal irresponsibility is often the cause of one becoming sick

not to mention that the pharmaceutical fascists invent a new "sickness" almost daily

10/19/2007 12:54:23 PM

Quote :

"it's a correlation, not a causation. period. "

It's a correlation that's very likely to be the causation. I would say it definitively is the cause, but you'd want me to post some numbers, but I don't feel like digging up numbers for something so blatantly obvious.

Quote :

""Healthcare isn't like welfare where you can keep sucking on the system, it's something that you have to actually be sick for it to cost money." and personal irresponsibility is often the cause of one becoming sick not to mention that the pharmaceutical fascists invent a new "sickness" almost daily "

So you're saying that this program shouldn't be implemented because children are going to say "i'm going to eat some rocks because I know my free healthcare will cover it" or something like that?

And I can't see, even if adults were using this, how it wouldn't cause an INCREASE in responsibility. A doctor telling someone they are fat and should lose some weight has a lot more weight that someone casually thinking to themselves they're fat, but not really doing anything about it. And I highly doubt people are going to choose to do things that make them more sick because they have a doctor to take care of them. First, people don't like to be sick, and secondly, even if free, health issues and doctor visits are terrible inconveniences to people's lives.

Your arguments against this type of health care simply don't make any sense, when compared to reality.

The only argument against this really is the cost to taxpayers. But if you look at the cost:benefit ratio of this to Americans, it FAR exceeds the war in Iraq for sure, and probably the expanded programs the Patriot Act and even expanded NCLB related programs. If you want to save money, you'd be better off going after those things.

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/19/2007 12:56:50 PM

Quote :

"If they overrode the veto, then the bill passed and they could claim landmark Health Care reform. If they failed to override the veto, then the President has shot down a bill "for children's health care" and they have a message they can take to the public denouncing him."

not to mention overriding the veto would require a lot of republican support. they now have more ammo to use against them in the election

10/19/2007 12:58:56 PM

Ok. Its human nature to not appreciate things that are "given' as opposed to earned. Agreed?

Ask any doctor who takes medicaid who thier biggest noncomply and biggest no-shows are. Ask them. Why is that? Why do i have school nurses picking up medicaid kids bc their parents refuse to drive them to get help? And yes, the most unhealthy people I see are young people on either medicaid or medicare. WHy is that?

I also have people who ask me not to write a finding down bc they dont have ins. and need it and dont want it to effect thier rate. I also know people who try to lose some weight before they get medicial ins or life ins. Why? because it affect thier pocketbook. And encourages them to be healthier, which "free" ins does not.

In fact most docs are not taking medicaid bc 1. the pay isnt good 2. no shows 3. they are a pain in the ass. We do take medicaid, but have to limit the amount we see? Why? To stay in business!!! My god what a bad concept.

10/19/2007 1:08:17 PM

moron I would love to know what you do for a living or are you still in school? serious question

Quote :

"A doctor telling someone they are fat and should lose some weight has a lot more weight that someone casually thinking to themselves they're fat, but not really doing anything about it. And I highly doubt people are going to choose to do things that make them more sick because they have a doctor to take care of them. "

Wow, let me ask you something. Which is easier to do? Take a pill or run a mile a day, alter your eating habits by dieting? Clearly taking the pill is easier. Now, factor in if you dont even have to pay for that pill, doctors visits, surgeries, or even the increase in premiums. No, they dont choose to do things that will make them sick, they just choose not to do a thing for themselves. I probably have less than 5% of my diabetics that can tell me what thier last sugar reading was. Its sad. When a patient can have surgery, not show up for her post-ops, develop and infection and then sue her doc and win.. we have alot of attitudes to adjust in this country. We are simply losing more and more self responsiblity in this country, and our govt is glad to pick up the slack.

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2007 1:15:31 PM

those all sound like adult problems to me. not problems a child should suffer from

10/19/2007 1:44:03 PM

Quote :

"Wow, let me ask you something. Which is easier to do? Take a pill or run a mile a day, alter your eating habits by dieting? Clearly taking the pill is easier. Now, factor in if you dont even have to pay for that pill, doctors visits, surgeries, or even the increase in premiums."

What ailment are you referring to here?

Quote :

"No, they dont choose to do things that will make them sick, they just choose not to do a thing for themselves. I probably have less than 5% of my diabetics that can tell me what thier last sugar reading was. Its sad."

I'm not 100% sure what the point of this anecdote is. That most people with diabetes caused it to happen to themselves? That people with free healthcare will get diabetes?

Quote :

"When a patient can have surgery, not show up for her post-ops, develop and infection and then sue her doc and win.. we have alot of attitudes to adjust in this country. We are simply losing more and more self responsiblity in this country, and our govt is glad to pick up the slack."

Has this actually happened?

The fact is that all the statistics show that people with healthcare of any kind, free or not, live healthier lives. Your personal biases and stories don't change facts.

10/19/2007 1:45:22 PM

sarijoul, the problem with your last statement is that is the mindset that has allowed us to pump more and more money into situations where these kids are raised by parents with no responsibility and thats exactly what thier kids learn. We need to break the cycle.

10/19/2007 2:09:52 PM