$250B for Iraq War says GOP, $35B for children's healthcare, GOP says "no way"
GOP specializes in death and murder. Now they want to do it to the poor kids of this country. Die in the streets, they could give a fuck, we need the money to kill Iraqi kids too:
House to test revised children's health bill today
President promises to veto newer version of $35 billion measure
Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt says lawmakers have not justified the need for a $35 billion expansion to cover 10 million children.
Updated: 30 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP)- House members are about to learn whether some nips and tucks to a children's health bill will be enough to secure a veto-proof margin against a White House that wants major surgery. The White House says President Bush will veto the House's revised effort, if the legislation reaches his desk.
The House planned to vote Thursday afternoon on a modestly revised version of a bill that President Bush vetoed Oct. 3. Last week the House fell 13 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, which had been prompted by Bush's objections to a major expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
The bill's supporters now hope the revisions will attract the seven or more Republicans needed to change the outcome later this fall. GOP leaders urged their colleagues to resist, saying the changes are too minor to justify abandoning Bush on a high-profile issue.
NBC News' Mike Viqueira reports seeing a lot of anger from Republican leaders, who are anxious about the prospect of losing more of their number to the Democratic plan and a possible override down the road.
As before, the bill would add would $35 billion over five years to the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The program, which now covers 6 million children, would enroll 4 million more. The increase would be paid for with a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, which Bush opposes.
Compromises
Under the revisions, the program would exclude families earning more than three times the federal poverty rate. Low-income childless adults, which some states cover, would be phased out in one year. And states would have to be more rigorous in checking the validity of applicants' Social Security numbers, an effort to exclude illegal immigrants.
Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt says lawmakers have not justified the need for a $35 billion expansion to cover 10 million children.
Democrats and their GOP allies are targeting 38 House Republicans who voted to sustain Bush's veto and later outlined their concerns in a letter.
The revised bill "addresses all the concerns that were expressed by our colleagues and by the president," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters Wednesday night. "This is a clarification of the legislation" vetoed by Bush.
The 10-year-old health insurance program is designed for families that make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy medical coverage. The main targets are families earning no more than twice the federal poverty rate, or $41,300 for a family of four.
Delay denied
Pelosi rejected requests from some Republicans to postpone a vote to give GOP moderates more time to round up converts. Republicans also noted that several California lawmakers will be absent Thursday to review wildfire damage in their districts.
Democrats said Thursday's vote is important, but not the crucial test, because both parties agree the bill will easily receive a simple majority. If Bush vetoes the measure, after House and Senate passage, the showdown will occur when its supporters again seek the two-thirds House majority needed for an override.
A veto-proof margin in the Senate is considered assured.
On Oct. 18 the House voted 273-156 to override Bush's veto, 13 votes short of a two-thirds majority. Forty-four Republicans joined 229 Democrats in voting to override.
This bill would have made it possible for a family of four making $62,000 a year to get federal government subsidized healthcare. Do you really think that’s necessary?
This bill was just the first step in creating a government healthcare system. Nothing more….
This bill would have made it possible for a family of four making $62,000 a year to get federal government subsidized healthcare. Do you really think that’s necessary?
This bill was just the first step in creating a government healthcare system. Nothing more….
Apparently you are unaware that that is what most people in this country want.
Apparently you are unaware that that is what most people in this country want.
It's barely "most" if your read the polls. It's nearly 50% either way. If the public knew the true issues behind a government healthcare system they'd drop it in a heartbeat. The main stream media won't allow those to be known...
I can garuntee that most would not support this bill if they knew someone making $60,000 would get free or subsidized health care from the government. This bill was sold by saying it would help the "poor". $60,000 a year isn't poor.
That vast majority support healthcare reform.
There is near-universal support (94% in favor) for giving tax breaks to small businesses to allow them to provide health insurance for their employees.
Nearly as many (86%) favor allowing American workers to keep the same medical insurance when they change jobs.
About four in five Americans (81%) favor requiring large companies either to offer health insurance coverage to their employees or to pay into a pool that would be used to pay for health insurance.
Along the same lines, 77% favor reducing government regulation to allow more health insurance providers to compete in the system.
Seventy-six percent favor providing government subsidies to help lower-income Americans buy health insurance.
Nearly 7 in 10 (69%) favor introducing reforms to the legal system that would place limits on the amount of money awarded in malpractice suits against doctors.
Sixty-eight percent favor providing American families with a $15,000 tax credit to allow them to buy private health insurance.
The same percentage (68%) favors having the federal government help fund state programs that attempt to address the health insurance situations of each state.
If the reblicans that are in power gave a shit about polls, we would not still be in the war, whose only mission is to make the miltary indusrial complex (i.e VP Cheney), even more richer than they are now. Do you really think they give a shit about anybody or anything. Life is just a game to them and money is how you keep score.
If the reblicans that are in power gave a shit about polls, we would not still be in the war, whose only mission is to make the miltary indusrial complex (i.e VP Cheney), even more richer than they are now. Do you really think they give a shit about anybody or anything. Life is just a game to them and money is how you keep score.
You really think it is any different for Democrats?
They're all in it for personal gain.
They've all be bought by someone.
Hell, something like 90% or more of Democrats are lawyers.... What does that tell you?
I do find it a bit intriguing that the discussion has shifted to one of money. It's as if we've now grown accustomed to the putrid taste of the Bush administration's incitement of our nation into an act of wanton mass murder in Iraq. And while the incredible waste and profiteering that result are an atrocity in their own right, we really shouldn't take our eyes too far off the ball, lest we continue down the path of national socialism that we've been treading for the last six years.
Look at the righties throw up the smokescreen. This thread merely points out the utter depravity of our national agenda, or has GS points out, our National Socialist agenda, where spending what is projected to be 2.4 trillion dollars to invade a country based on lies and occupy a sand pit is somehow wise spending of money, while spending 35B over the course of five or ten years to benefit our own children is somehow an act of perfidy. This country has been made spirtually, mentally and physically sick by six years of this madness. It is obvious to the public that if we are going to waste money, perhaps we will all be better off by wasting it on something other than this massive machinery of death built by these fascists that feeds on the children of others while killing our own either by bullets or sickness, and will bring us nothing but grief.
Look at the utter ridiculousness of it all. My my, we might over-help some smuck with four kids making 60 grand. We have much better uses for the money, like giving away billions to killers, incompetent and corrupt Iraqis and corporate rip offs instead. Sick fucks.
Last edited by FeelTheLove : 10-25-2007 at 01:56 PM.
Vast majorities of us on both sides want to see the war end. I've said before, just bring them back tonight. Fuck it all - leave everything there. Sustaining the empire costs too much money.
Establishing free healthcare for families well into the middle class doesn't make any more sense than perpetuating this war. The difference between those two cases is that with S-CHIP, there's nothing to "un-do". Congress can take another stab at renewing the program (without expanding it unduly), and it'll breeze right through.
If your lot (e.g. the Democrats running the show now) would stop playing a political tit-for-tat game of catch-up for the past 6 years and focus on doing their fucking jobs, this wouldn't be an issue.
Linear Mode
