When Will Dems Fight Bush On SCHIP Veto? “Maybe next week. Maybe the week after. There’s no time limit,” Hoyer said.
Yes, he vetoed the SCHIP bill as promised. This isn’t because he wants to end SCHIP, but he will not expand it beyond what the program was set up to do.
It appears Congress lacks the votes to overturn Bush’s veto. Though 67 votes in the 100-person Senate would suffice to override a veto, the 265-159 vote on September 25 in the House version is short of the two-thirds majority needed.
Majority Leader H. Steny Hoyer, D-Md. He offered no date for an override vote.
“Maybe next week. Maybe the week after. There’s no time limit,” Hoyer said.
Ed:
Bush doesn’t want to end S-CHIP, nor does he want to freeze its funding level. He wanted to increase funding to the program, but Democrats wanted to increase it seven times more than Bush’s proposal — and they wanted to slap a highly regressive tax onto the public to fund it. In effect, the Democrats wanted to take money from the poor to subsidize health insurance for middle-class children.
Ken:
No conservative who agrees with Bush on SCHIP was given room for his or her talking point on controlling spending or preventing more federal control of health care.
What’s more, at no point in CNN’s brief online article is there a mention of President Bush’s support for a $5 billion increase (over five years) in funding for the health care initiative. According to the White House’s official Web site, President Bush favors a boost to SCHIP amounts to a roughly 20 percent boost in SCHIP spending, while the seven-times-larger Democratic plan would amount to a whopping 140 percent increase.
Tons more reaction at memeorandum
October 3, 2007 - 03:17 PM on October 3rd, 2007
And here come the (predictable) Democrite sound bytes:
1. Bush doesn’t care about children.
2. Bush wants poor children to go without health care.
etc. blah, blah.
I saw some dope yesterday in traffic and he had a bumper sticker that read: “Bush doesn’t care about you”.
So, what, like HilLiary does? Mister $1200 haircut-Two Americas Edwards does? Baraq (saddam) Hussein O’bama does? Like “Lockbox” Gore does?
He clearly was just another Leftist useful idiot…
October 3, 2007 - 04:26 PM on October 3rd, 2007
Robert, funniest thing I saw this week was riding through hippy town on way back from cottage…many signs all over the yards read Support The Troops End The War…as hippy is cutting his grass, he trips over sign and then kicks the sign…
My husband and I just sat there laughing 
October 3, 2007 - 05:04 PM on October 3rd, 2007
Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha!
Serves him right!
October 4, 2007 - 03:32 PM on October 4th, 2007
They are taking their time on this so they can get more republican votes in the House.
This would be a HUGE embarrassment for Bush if his veto is chucked out – by a bipartisan majority.
The Dems are going to try their hardest to to get this done, even if it means taking a week or two.
Be patient. This might actually happen.
October 6, 2007 - 12:08 AM on October 6th, 2007
God help us if it does SFL. It will drain the treasury faster than WWII. And for what? To provide healthcare for people who can afford it, on the backs of other taxpayers? Taxpayers who will then have to reduce their buying and investing, both of which will cause a downturn in the economy. Want to watch every non-union employer in the country drop family health coverage? Allow this to pass. Want to see every union drop family healthcare from their contract demands? Allow this to pass. Want to see more people unemployed and living in poverty? Allow this to pass. Want to see how fast the deficit can double? Allow this to pass. Want to watch every employee who currently pays for his/her family’s coverage drop family coverage and sign up for welfare? Allow this to pass.
What no liberal supporting this bill seems to ignore is that the projected cost is based on people who are currently paying for their family coverage will continue to do so. Smart money says that’s NOT going to happen. Think about it. If you could save thousands of dollars a year by getting the government to subsidize your healthcare insurance, why wouldn’t you?
October 6, 2007 - 12:10 AM on October 6th, 2007
That’s what no liberal supporting this is willing to face is that the projected cost is far below what the actual cost will be.
October 6, 2007 - 10:32 AM on October 6th, 2007
This bill has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, FAO.
Which is why anybody is even talking about rejecting the Bush veto.
It’s a win-win for congress…
If they override the veto, Bush looks bad.
If they are unable to override the veto, Bush STILL looks bad, because its got bipartisan support.
As far as your allegation that this would provide care for people who can pay for it, I assume you are talking about the cap of $83,000. You should know that those in that range are a small fraction of the total, and the vast majority earn far less than that limit.
October 6, 2007 - 10:35 AM on October 6th, 2007
Besides, it really doesn’t matter in the end.
The United States WILL have universal health care for ALL its citizens within a decade.
Our long march of progress towards full health coverage and affordability is enevitable.
October 6, 2007 - 11:02 AM on October 6th, 2007
Yes, and it’s wonderful!!!
Your taxes will be raised so much to pay for it that anyone who has two nickels to rub together (that weren’t given to them by the Gov’t) will pay for something they will not even get the full benefit of, because like the socialized schemes already existing, it will be low-quality (if you can even get it).
The Gov’t controlling health care will enable unlimited intrusion and control into out personal lives. Every sort of behavior will be scrutinized an controlled, using its impact on health and cost of it as justification. The Constitution, at some point, will effectively be gone as the tentacles of control reach into everything. It will just be a matter of time.
But in return, we’ll get a perceived short-term benefit! Idiots who abuse the system (run into The ER for as cold, or call an ambulance because they don’t have a car and don’t feel like taking a bus)plus the hordes of illegals will get FREE HEALTH CARE! Woo-hoo!!!
Free, yeah sure. The ultimate price will be Liberty.
I’ve already given my formula for improving health care. but here it is again:
1. Get the Lawyers and the Frauders out of the system.
2. End abuse (I used two example of it above).
3. Get rid of the illegals. Send em home. That alone would make a huge difference.
But the Democrites cannot bring themselves to acknowledge let alone even consider any of these, because that would affect their constituencies and donors. So America will have to pay the price with its Constitution and Liberty, to satisfy the political ambitions of the Democrites.
SFL, if you want improvement so much, why don’t you advocate the three improvements I listed above? If you’re so smart, why can’t you figure it out for yourself? You profess to want personal freedom, Liberty, choice? Why are you so gleefully anticipating something that will eventually destroy what is left of our Liberty?
October 6, 2007 - 12:19 PM on October 6th, 2007
“Why are you so gleefully anticipating something that will eventually destroy what is left of our Liberty?”
——————————
Because it’s not going to destroy anything, let alone our liberty.
What it’s going to do is make Americans lives longer, make themselves and their children healthier, and will allow Americans to use that money that otherwise would have gone into health care and put it into the economy.
All you offer is fear on this issue, and we offer hope.
THAT is why your side will eventually lose on this.
October 6, 2007 - 01:19 PM on October 6th, 2007
If my “side” loses on this, it will be because we have too many morons who cannot predict the obvious, and too many grifters living off the work of others, who support the political degenerates who are trading Liberty for political gain.
You haven’t addressed even one of the issued I raised, lumping them all together as “fear” and dismissing them. The problem for your argument is that they are all very real, based on already-established known facts and the reality of human and political nature.
You apparently have nothing of substance to counter them with.
October 6, 2007 - 04:32 PM on October 6th, 2007
SFL, The fact remains that everything that I said will come to pass if this goes through as written. NO person who will be able to get government funded healthcare will pay for it. There is only one way to drop the costs of healthcare and that is to increase its availability. Do you think a doctor with $500,000 in student loans is going to work for $90,000 a year? I doubt it. Liberals are so damn ignorant of market forces it’s frightening. The quickest way to reduce the costs associated with being a healthcare provider is to do exactly what Texas has done. Cap lawsuit settlements. Tort reform limiting liability in malpractice suits in Texas has resulted in more doctors applying for licenses to practice in Texas than the Texas medical review board can process. If you want to reduce the costs, make it easier and more profitable to practice medicine. You want to reduce the price of medicines, make it cheaper to bring a drug to market. For every one drug that makes it to market, the drug companies spend billions to develop and test them. Every time anyone suggests that giving them a tax break to offset these development costs, the libs go nuts about corporate welfare. Welfare is money given to people who haven’t earned it. Tax breaks simply allow people to keep the money that they have already earned.
SFL obviously you haven’t been listening to what’s happening in other countries with socialized medicine. People are dying waiting for tests that take months to get there and only days or hours to get here. They’re denying coverage to people based on their lifestyle choices. Their refusing to provide services to people who smoke or are overweight. I realize that the liberals will think that is all fine and wonderful, but with the costs associated with treating patients with AIDS, the gay and swinging population of this country might find itself out in the cold with no coverage. Think about that! Let’s see, homeless people and drug abusers are high risk because of their lifestyles, got to cut them loose. Illegal aliens who come from countries without immunization programs are high risk of having TB and other chronic diseases that cost a fortune to treat, they’ve got to go. People on welfare or living in government housing have a much higher risk of drug abuse and being the victims of violence. Better cut them loose, they’re a cost risk. Pretty soon you have a small wonderfully healthy population who have coverage while the rest of the country does without. 45 million without coverage? If you follow this idiocy through to its inevitable conclusion, that number could be 245 million.
If that isn’t interfering with our liberties, what is? BTW George Soros is funding all of these Democratic liberals and he’s the lead proponent of turning over control of the US over to the UN and requiring US citizens to abide by UN edicts whether they violate the US Constitution or not. HE especially wants to confiscate all privately owned firearms in the US by use of force if necessary.
October 6, 2007 - 05:11 PM on October 6th, 2007
FAO I think SFL is like a child in this debate. He is blissfully unaware of the big picture. He sees a short-term perceived advantage without understanding any of the dangerous long-term implications.
If Hillarycare ever goes through it could be the watershed event that spells the end of the American Republic. At least the Roman Republic lasted ~400 years or so.
The modern corrupt oligarchists, and their masses of willing bread and circus idiots, may just do America in after only ~200.
We both have outlined steps that could be taken to improve the health care system, and start right now, but there is no political spine in Congress or the White House to do so.
October 7, 2007 - 12:38 PM on October 7th, 2007
Robert, historically no government has lasted much longer than 200 years. Thomas Jefferson said that a revolution every couple of hundred years isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The framers of the Constitution in their supporting writings have said that the right to keep and bear arms was specifically included in the Bill of rights as a means to insure that the people would have the means to once again overthrow a repressive regime. Why do you think that the libs are so anxious to TRY and ban them? These next 15 months are going to be crucial to the future of this country. The US and freedom loving citizens of this country may be forced to decide between freedom and a fascist tyranny funded by George Soros.
Here’s a little question for the libs. If Fascism is defined as a governmental system wherein the government dictates to private industry what they must produce, what do you call what the libs are planning?
October 7, 2007 - 02:56 PM on October 7th, 2007
It is Fascism, absolutely. There is no question in my mind that modern Leftism in this country is Fascism. With elements of Marxism (the Greenies), Stalinism (Waco and Ruby Ridge) and Oligarchy (the rich Democrites in the Senate, the richest, fattest pigs at the public trough).
October 15, 2007 - 10:28 AM on October 15th, 2007
[...] of the Frost family and SCHIP! In case you need a refresher course, see my posts here, here, here, here, and [...]