Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Signs S-CHIP Legislation

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

By Anne E. Kornblut
President Obama signed legislation on Wednesday extending health insurance to millions of low-income children, ending a two-year Democratic effort to enact a bill that former president Bush had vetoed.

The House passed the legislation -- known as S-CHIP -- on Wednesday afternoon by a vote of 290 to 135 and brought it swiftly down to the White House for a signing ceremony. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed it as "the beginning of the change that the American people voted for in the last election,"and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy praised Obama for "making this bill one of his earliest priorities."

Obama, signing the legislation in the East Room, said guaranteeing health care for children had only grown more urgent during the current economic downturn.

"Let's give America's families the support they need to weather this crisis," Obama said, adding that all families want is a "chance to work hard and to have that hard work translate into a good life for their children."

An estimated four million children will gain access to health care through the new law, which passed the House largely along party lines. The Senate passed it last Friday.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 4, 2009; 5:30 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama to Address Congress
Next: Gen. Zinni Says He Was Offered Iraq Post, Then Dropped

Comments

Posted by: indep2 | February 6, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

How is giving children medical care considered "radical" unless you are from a Charles DIckens novel?

What makes you think that legals and illegals will stop taking their kids in for treatment when they are sick or injured whether they are insured or not. You still will have to pay for it one way or another unless you think there should be a law denying children medical care until their parents can prove they are citizens or insured.

You probably don't have, or like kids.

Posted by: JRM2 | February 5, 2009 6:39 PM
---------------------

You know, the sooner you HELP us remove the despots and fix our laws to prevent the bleeding from our country,the sooner we can get on the road to recovery.

If you continue to stand in the way then expect to be run over when the government is overthrown by force in a few years...

Its coming unless people in DC wake up and begin to listen to the people that pay the bills.


Posted by: indep2 | February 6, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

If you don't like this bill quit smoking.

You'll feel better all the way around and people will enjoy being around you more.

Besides, you are driving up medical costs with your smoking.

Posted by: JRM2 | February 5, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

It never ceases to amaze me that a policy of taking care of children's medical needs is labeled as "radical" but pre-emptivly invading a country isn't, or killing thousands of innocent iraquis, or ignoring the Geneva convention, I could go on and on.

Posted by: JRM2 | February 5, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

"Radical is too weak a word to describe his policies thus far...

Posted by: indep2 |"
----------
How is giving children medical care considered "radical" unless you are from a Charles DIckens novel?

What makes you think that legals and illegals will stop taking their kids in for treatment when they are sick or injured whether they are insured or not. You still will have to pay for it one way or another unless you think there should be a law denying children medical care until their parents can prove they are citizens or insured.

You probably don't have, or like kids.

Posted by: JRM2 | February 5, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Sweet, just a few more social programs and I never have to work again. I can get free health care, gov't housing, and all the cheese I can eat. Who needs to work 40+ hours a week any more, with the Messiah in office all you suckers will pony up for my care free lifestyle. Now I'm off to have 8 more kids so I can get a check for every one of them. Daddy needs a new pair of government subsidized shoes... Woohoo!!!

Posted by: madmax8600 | February 5, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

If they are going to force us to eat the costs of supporting anchor babies, they better clarify the 14th amendment again since it was never meant to apply to children of illegal immigrants.

Next up, total amnesty for 30 million of them so he can have an excuse to finish off our national ideals in one fell swoop.

Radical is too weak a word to describe his policies thus far...

Posted by: indep2 | February 5, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

So we have to pay for our insurance and now we also have to pay for theirs. Great plan. I'm sorry if you don't have insurance but it's not my problem or responsibilty. This in no way will stimulate the economy. SAD!!!!!!!

Posted by: askgees | February 5, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I'm no expert here but can I hazard a guess that the runaway cost of your medical insurance AND the taxes you pay to support public medical care for those without insurance are tied together. BOTH expenses are coming out of your pocket because the medical system doesn't care where costs come from.

Public health care SHOULD remove cost from private insurance - but it doesn't because all health care is tied together by corporate interests that manage the entire system - public and private - for profit.

If you're betting that by paying your own way you're somehow immune from paying for those who don't, you lose.

Posted by: JohnQuimby | February 5, 2009 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, Lonewacko, for your lesson in revisionist history.

Is there a reason Bush opposed immigration reform?

Big Business Republicans want the illegal immigrants because they provide a cheap source of labor for many industries. In fact, certain experts estimate that at least a dozen industries, like homebuilding, would immediately collapse if all the illegal labor disappeared overnight. Dozens of other industries would also be severely impacted because of their indirect associations with companies that use such illicit labor.

BUSH SAID: "For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders. As a result, many who want to work in our economy have been able to sneak across our border, and millions have stayed."

Here's what Bush wouldn't admit: that the gang of which he's a charter member, wanted those porous borders. They wanted them because the flow of illegals drove down real wages across the board in the United States in agriculture, the building trades, the domestic trades, the food service and hospitality trades and a whole host of other industries that counted their fortunes on Wall Street while their laborers worked harder for less and the minimum wage remained stagnant since 1997.

Now having outsourced enough American labor to be noticed, the GOP gang of Robber Barons has a problem and it's not economic -- it's good old fashioned American racism!

Oh, to see the GOP implode - pure greed fighting against pure racism. Oh my! Dog eat dog! Let the feasting begin!

Posted by: nescoba1 | February 5, 2009 12:42 AM | Report abuse

As discussed here, the bill can be abused by illegal aliens:

http://24ahead.com/schip-passes-house-lifts-five-year-waiting-period-legal-immi

Democrats: helping insure a cheap labor supply for corrupt businesses since forever.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 5, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse

The bill does NOT allow for aid to go to 'illegals'

Further, it does NOT force states to give aid within five years of legal immigration status, as the previous law forced states to wait five years, the NEW, Obama-signed bill simply gives states the OPTION to choose whether or not to wait the five-year period:

"E) Paragraph (4) of section 1903(v) (relating to optional coverage of categories of lawfully residing immigrant children or pregnant women), but only if the State has elected to apply such paragraph with respect to such category of children or pregnant women under title XIX.'."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111rn57iG:e132906:

hubbleman007 is same old, same old, lying, disingenuous, fact-distorting, repub SCUM

Posted by: nescoba1 | February 4, 2009 10:33 PM | Report abuse

hubbleman007,

I can tell that you are insincere in your arguments, as you use 'straw men' such as mentioning the buzz-word 'illegal' immigrants. I NEVER used that term, as I don't believe they should get funding. I said LEGAL immigrants, the ones that, you know, pay taxes, TOO.

You are insincere, are using lies about this bill to further your tax-smoker agenda, as the bill does not provide aid for illegal immigrant children, as the nice lady below already noted, as also read the BILL yourself, idiot:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111rn57iG:e132906:


SEC. 214. PERMITTING STATES TO ENSURE COVERAGE WITHOUT A 5-YEAR DELAY OF CERTAIN CHILDREN AND PREGNANT WOMEN UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM AND CHIP.

Posted by: nescoba1 | February 4, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Again you are wrong. I pay for my own health insurance, and life insurance, so I will never need to live off of anyone. Unlike you, who feel the need to support any taxes that you do not have to pay. As for illegal immigrants, what right do they have to any taxpayer assistance? Instead of coming here and mooching off the backs of hard working Americans, let them all go back home and make their country better. If they can't do that, then you spend your tax money on them, not mine.

Posted by: hubbleman007 | February 4, 2009 10:06 PM | Report abuse

President Obama,
Again, you have my most sincere respect and admiration. Thank you for your leadership and courage.

hubbleman007, just because YOU made the unhealthy, immoral choice to smoke (it is proven unhealthy; it is immoral because later, when you get cancer in your advanced age, society will most likely have to pay for you)

You are lucky that at least half of us are civilized and are unlikely to let you die on the street as an old man, though, in my opinion if you like banana republics, where children (the poor ones, that is) are treated as disposable, worthless, less than dirt items, then YOU move to Mexico, Haiti, or God knows some other third world country if you don't agree that American children, new Americans, too, are NOT disposable items.


As an American I am SICK of MY tax money (yes, i pay taxes, you low-life scum, so i get to have a say where it goes, too,)going to fund military crap, more war missiles, more useless nation-building (read military PORK and dictator bribe money) NO MORE empire-building around the world with my tax money.


Keep MY tax money here at home, and YES, help my PEOPLE, the AMERICAN people, here at home, both new legal immigrants and long-time citizens alike.


Signed,

a 'REAL' Northeastern, big city, American-loving, freedom and truth searching, LIBERAL PATRIOT

Posted by: nescoba1 | February 4, 2009 9:59 PM | Report abuse

nexcoba1:Fellow Americans, it is better to give all children, no matter their parents' economic abilities, race, sex, or class, the CHANCE to succeed! Well done Mr. President, you have my most sincere affection and support!

If this is true, then how much are you prepared to pay for all these poor children? Oh, just what I thought. NOTHING.....Keep up the bull####.

Posted by: hubbleman007 | February 4, 2009 9:43 PM | Report abuse

I am SO PROUD of President Obama! YOU GO OBAMA - use YOUR political capital, push through what is good and right, overturn and put a stop to what is wrong and economically unsound policy (it is not only immoral but economically dumb for society to let ANY child in the USA go without health care to the point that they become REALLY sick and burden the emergency rooms, hence more costs down the road).

More than half of us support you, this SCHIP bill is one small victory for us that have worked hard to put you where you are - keep it coming Mr President, I'm loving it!


Fellow Americans, it is better to give all children, no matter their parents' economic abilities, race, sex, or class, the CHANCE to succeed! Well done Mr. President, you have my most sincere affection and support!

Posted by: nescoba1 | February 4, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Elizabg:

No, I do not have a link to the bill. But I have checked out this bill for more that 2 weeks. I don't want to seem cruel, but you don't seem to care that only one segment of this country is made to pay for this. Since you stated previously, that several years ago, you had your child in this program, I was wondering, if you ever feel an obligation to the rest of the children who need help now? If so, then why are you not running to pay your fair share? Judging from your posts, I would assume you an intelligent individual, who probably has a better income now, then you did then. So why are you so willing to live off the backs of smokers, instead of contributing to the cause yourself? Not all of us took up smoking just to show how tough and grown up we were. I am a Vietnam Veteran, and in the service, the U.S. Government, provided us with free cigarettes in our C.rations and K rations. The first thing out of any sergeant's mouth, when you stopped anywhere, was smoke them if you got em. In Vietnam, a cigarette was just what you needed, after a fire fight, to calm your nerves. Since the government created my addiction in the first place, do you still think it is fair to still tax the hell out of me now?

Posted by: hubbleman007 | February 4, 2009 9:13 PM | Report abuse

THE US ALREADY HAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST INFANT MORTALITY RATES IN THE WORLD-FAR FAR EXCEEDING DEVELOPING WORLD COUNTRIES LIKE CUBA, AND EVEN, MOROCCO! YES, THAT'S RIGHT-THOSE COUNTRIES HAVE LESS INFANT MORTALITY PER CAPITA, THAN THE U.S.!

BUT THESE POSTERS HERE, OH NO-THEY DON'T LIKE THIS BILL, BECAUSE IT'S THEIR TAX DOLLARS GOING TO HELP THE POOR! THE POOR SHOULD REMAIN TO ROT THESE POSTERS SAY-BECAUSE, THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM IS BASED ON: POOR=BAD AND LAZY, THEREFORE, LET THEM ROT.

JESUS CHRIST-REPUBLICANS ARE A HIDEOUS, HIDEOUS LOT!

Posted by: arrabbiato | February 4, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Why should the taxpayers pay the health care costs of these 4 million children? How much is this going to cost? Whatever happened to parents being responsible for their children?

Posted by: get_it_right | February 4, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Concerned with kids is he? How about having his armies stop bombing Paki and Afghani kids while they sleep as he moves to escalate perpetual war and create additional terrorists.

Posted by: georgejones5 | February 4, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

bubbleman:

yes, it would be nice if all teens and young adults went "oooh, tobacco yucky" and never even really considered smoking ever. However, realistically, that isn't going to happen (see:"abstinence education" in lieu of-not combined with- education regarding birth control). People, young ones especially, will always have the idea that the bad things they hear about, especially regarding health and well-being, will never happen to them.

So, until they gain a little life knowledge regarding addictive behaviors and responsibility, they get to toss a few coins in the coffers. Just like all the other smokers whose contributions to the profits of Big Tobacco allowed the funding of the program in the first place.

Smoking is a personal choice, and I believe that there is a certain amount of responsibility that goes along with it.

I wouldn't stay too tense about exactly "who" is going to cover the expense; in another few months or years, another bill benefiting everyone, but not paid for by all, will be passed and another population with feel abused.

Regarding the immigration issue, the whole debate may become moot if the economic downturn grows exponential, as many come here seeking employment at better wages than they can receive at home.

BTW, do have a link to the specifics of the new bill?

Posted by: elizabg | February 4, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

P.S. AND IF CAPSLOCKS BOTHERS YOU, I'M SORRY. THAT ONLY MEANS YOU VALUE FORM OVER SUBSTANCE-AND THAT AIN'T MY CONCERN.

Posted by: arrabbiato | February 4, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Eliza-I agree with most of what you said, but YOU ARE NOT A CHILD WHEN YOU ARE OVER 19 YEARS OF AGE-OKAY? YOU HAVE LEGALLY REACHED THE AGE OF MAJORITY AT 18 YEARS-WHEN YOU ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU EMPHASIZED THAT POINT IN YOUR POST, SINCE THE PREMISE OF A 19 YEAR OLD "CHILD" IS UTTERLY INCORRECT.

Posted by: arrabbiato | February 4, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

After reading through the posts that appeared while I was composing previous comment, I can only gather a few things:

--There a few out there that think that Obama was ineligible to run for/be elected President. He provided clear proof that his citizenship at birth as well as later in life, met the Constitutional guidelines. It might be time to begin the move on.

--Some states must have REALLY lenient eligibility income guidelines for CHIPS. Families who make $80-200K a year qualify? MS only allows that high an income if the family has at least 9 members. Remeber, $80K =/= wealthy if that amount is being divided among nine family members; rough math gives them approximately $9K apiece for the year. Compare to the "average" family of four earning $40K, giving them apprx. $10K each.

--Smokers, who purposefully inhale gases guaranteed to cause organ failure and death, are the unfairly trod upon. Where I live, a pack of the cheap sticks cost about $3.50, therefore broke smokers are literally burning $25.00 a week (at a pack/day). No, I have never smoked. It tastes nasty (no matter the "flavor"), and I have better uses for my money-like food, clothing and shelter. If you don't want to fund the package, then STOP FUNDING THE PACKS.

--To fill in a couple of blanks regarding the CA octuplets: there are SIX other siblings, between ages 2 and 7. The mother's last known address is with her parents, and she filed bankruptcy last year, listing debts of close to a million dollars.

I am pretty sure that the family has already been receiving some sort of government assistance, most likely via WIC/Food Stamp and health insurance programs. The addition of another eight children will definitely add to the dollar amount of the benefits she receives. According to current Medi-Cal guidelines, at 200% of the federal poverty level (assuming she earns that much) she could bring home $110K/year and still receive benefits. Granted, this is based on the 2007 guidelines (which are available via the Medi-Cal web site), and the new package could change them. The up-shot is, yes, taxpayers are paying for her offspring. Duh.

--CAPSLOCK, while a great way to show emphasis in a comment/post, is not anyone's friend when used as a sole means of communication. It is like trying to win an argument by shouting over those you don't agree with.

--And, finally, YES, there are several commenters who are being caught with their bigotry showing. It doesn't make them any less intelligent; it only causes other intelligent people not to give a damn about what these people have to say.

Posted by: elizabg | February 4, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

I'll start with the hideous comment of Arrabiato ---"Jesus Christ the republicans are hideous--hideous". Whenever someone comes at me with this kind of diatribe I ask where did they get their information? What papers do they read. (more than Palin I hope) One finds out that most of their accumulated knowledge comes from Jon Stewart and perhaps a few minute glance at some TV news show. The sad part is that his/her vote is equal to mine.

Posted by: tichy1 | February 4, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Typical WAPO BS. Report the headline but ignore the legislation. What does the bill do??? Hmm, oh, it must be good right? It's for the children. Well we sure can't depend on the WAPO to inform us. That is one thing that is certain.

Posted by: Jaymand | February 4, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

To Fuggy: Your are correct. But never expect the congress or senate to change this, as it would dry up their campaign coffers. They give the big talk, but take the small walk. This is a corporation driven government, and as long as it remains that way, nothing will ever be accomplished that really helps the American People. There is not one member of congress or the senate, that could stand the scrutiny of the Illinois Governor, or they would be thrown in jail too. This is a Quid Pro Quo form of government.

Posted by: hubbleman007 | February 4, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

This is just wrong, we get invaded by illegal aliens, then we get the over burden of taking care their children. It is not our responsibility, they should all be amde to go back to their countries, enough is enough.

Posted by: highwaybluesoccer | February 4, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse


We are middle class and underinsured.
We would never qualify for this program. We spend $600 a month on health care and get hardly anything for it. We can't spend more.

Now you can say "well you should not have had four kids". But why does a dentist have to earn $1,000 for a crown? Why does a pediatrician earn $80 to take a peek at my child? We are a the mercy of doctors and hospitals, we cannot refuse our children medical care, and this industry takes us to the cleaners every time we are unfortunate enough to need them.

US doctors charge the government a fortune for the freebie medical care my over-65 parents get. NOBODY is overseeing what these US doctors charge.

Obama, please have congressional hearings into the best parts of the universal care found in other countries. The free market is great in lawn care but REALLY sucks in health care.

Posted by: fuggy | February 4, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

To elizabg: Your facts are wrong. This bill removes the proof of citizenship, and the immigration status of those receiving it. As for young smokers taking up smoking to pay for this, I thought the goal was to stop young kids from smoking. Now it sounds like they want them to smoke to pay for this health care. If you non smokers, are so adamant about this health care, why don't you demand congress tax everyone equally to pay for it? No, You want it, as long as someone else has to pay for it.

Posted by: hubbleman007 | February 4, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse

How dare he! Impeach! lol

Posted by: monk4hall | February 4, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

.
.
Republicans are like abused dogs... they feel at home when battered.

Posted by: A-Voter | February 4, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Several years ago I, a working single parent, enrolled my daughter in a CHIPs program as I was not able to afford family health insurance coverage through my employer.

CHIP is designed to provide coverage for children whose family incomes are significantly above the federal poverty level (up to 200% in MS, which is only around $2K/mth), but are unable to afford private health insurance. CHIP does NOT cover children over the age of 19, and as with the other Medicaid programs available in MS, proof of CITIZENSHIP or APPROVED IMMIGRATION STATUS is REQUIRED.

As Big Tobacco funded, albeit quite unwillingly, the original program, and given that at least half of the average young Americans out there will try smoking, at least for a little while, funding the new plan might be easier than we think.

Now, I just want to say a little something to "llnigrty": poor/lower income children become ill as the result of things other than abusive parents or violent environments; they fall and get broken bones, have ear infections, and need their tonsils removed like children every where. Refusing to provide services that help treat a child's injuries is as abusive as being the cause of them.

Posted by: elizabg | February 4, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

that all children are covered by a universal health care system has been & is the status quo in Canada. by the way, all adults are covered too, regardless of their income.

the US is still light-yrs away from a universal health care system.

why? greed, callousness, indifference to suffering. not a very pretty picture.

Finland has a total or 3 children under 18 in jail today. Finland believes in children. The US is one of those moral hinterlands where children are left to fend for themselves (that is to sink & drown) & where underage teenagers are sent to prisons or even to torture camps, like Guantanomo.

Khadr, a Canadian national, has been imprisoned there (at 15 yrs of age) for the past 6 yrs.

Scotland criminalizes children as young as of 8 yrs, England as of 12 yrs. The US belongs to this pitiful group of children bashing nations who imprison children, instead of educating them.

Obama has an immense job ahead of him. At least he recognizes the awful mess left by his predecessors, like W and Bush Senior.

Posted by: hchiba | February 4, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

People making $80,000 dollars a year, are NOT POOR. But we will be paying for the health care of their kids. Just because you can type in large print, does not make you right. By the Way, I am a lifelong Democrat. I bet your not a smoker, so you will not be paying for their benefits, will you.

Posted by: hubbleman007 | February 4, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Wow... so you guys are pretty racist, huh...

Posted by: gui_lo | February 4, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

THE US ALREADY HAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST INFANT MORTALITY RATES IN THE WORLD-FAR FAR EXCEEDING DEVELOPING WORLD COUNTRIES LIKE CUBA, AND EVEN, MOROCCO! YES, THAT'S RIGHT-THOSE COUNTRIES HAVE LESS INFANT MORTALITY PER CAPITA, THAN THE U.S.!

BUT THESE POSTERS HERE, OH NO-THEY DON'T LIKE THIS BILL, BECAUSE IT'S THEIR TAX DOLLARS GOING TO HELP THE POOR! THE POOR SHOULD REMAIN TO ROT THESE POSTERS SAY-BECAUSE, THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM IS BASED ON: POOR=BAD AND LAZY, THEREFORE, LET THEM ROT.

JESUS CHRIST-REPUBLICANS ARE A HIDEOUS, HIDEOUS LOT!

Posted by: arrabbiato | February 4, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I really don't have many problems with this bill except that I don't think it should be paid for only by smokers, who tend to be poorer than the nation as a whole. If they're passing this legislation, everyone should have to pay for it, rather than just those of us that smoke.

Posted by: thatguy7104 | February 4, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

With this new tax, the lady that had the 8 children out of wedlock, will now benefit from our tax dollars. Isn't this great? What in the world has happened to personal responsibility. If you cannot afford children, then don't have them. I am sick of seeing people have more children then they can possibly pay to support, and then having the Middle Class pick up their tab. This is also a boon for the illegal aliens, who will be the greatest beneficiaries of this law. This will just cause more illegal immigrants to come into this country, to get the health care that is wanting in their own. It is also a scheme by the politicians, who want to please these people, as they will be the majority voting bloc in just a few years. Sleep Well Nancy Pelosi, while you screw the rest of us.

Posted by: hubbleman007 | February 4, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Socialized
Clintonist
Hillary-Care
for
Illegals
Y
Parents! :-(

Folks, not every SCHIPs Recipient is an Anchor Baby;

But, EVERY Anchor Baby(W/DUAL Nationality) IS a SCHIPs Recipient!

And, unlike Ahnold or O'Bomba, legally able to El Presidente! :-(

Posted by: SAINT---The | February 4, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

More tax dollars for illegal aliens. There is NO provision to exclude illegals, and thus, more of these illiterate peasants will continue to flood our country and destroy our nation. The illegals have destroyed our housing market, banking, and economy. Imagine our nation without the 30 million parasites that move through America like cockroaches. The only temporary worker plan for these fugitives from justice is to use them as human shields for our troops. NO HEALTH CARE FOR CRIMINALS.

Posted by: CitizenPayne | February 4, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

This is a bailout for California. They will have no income limit on how much the greedy parents can make. So the "writer" can make $200,000 a year, but the taxpayer will be taking care of his spoiled brat.

It was funny that Obama got a family, told them how needed health care, and he was signing this bill to do so. Then he mentioned that they already qualified under the SCHIP program already on the books and being funded by taxpayer. So I guess he should have said -- this family was given health insurance by the nice republicans.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | February 4, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

"There goes more of OUR
tax dollars.." What a disaster you are. Suffering children are reason enough to look beyond our own interests. Treat them better and when you're old and dependent on the good will of the younger generation, they might just treat you well. Regardless, this is a good bill and I'm not sweating a few of my tax dollars going to protect the health of children.

Posted by: rrau22 | February 4, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

No, you're absolutely right llntgrty-because these children are poor, they really should be left to rot and die-simply because they are poor, and the poor, who are the weakest members of our society, and poor children the most defenseless in our society SHOULD BE TREATED AS IF THEY DON'T EXIST-JUST LIKE THEY'VE BEEN TREATED FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, RIGHT, LLNTGRTY?

Posted by: arrabbiato | February 4, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Do you realize that there is a provision
included to provide health care for illegals? There goes more of OUR
tax dollars..
Email your congressmen and share your
opinion.
Watch for complete amnesty from BO :(

Posted by: njtou | February 4, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I don't get it: didn't poor children already have Medicaid? What's with that? In addition, health care won't help the children who are being made ill in the projects as a result of abuse, neglect, and rape. What is the benefit? What they need is not health care, but abuse prevention.

Posted by: IIntgrty | February 4, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I did not see Mitch 'no mouth' McConnell in the picture.

Oh that's right, he's gone to vent his anger at the thought that a non-rich child might receive some health care.

Posted by: Heerman532 | February 4, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

SCHIP is funded by new taxes on cigarettes. Congress will need an additional 22 MILLION new smokers to generate the money. When will these 22 million start smoking? With our Congress it is just one fraud after another.

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | February 4, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

okay... section 611 addresses the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005-which started the down slide (back then) of state low income health programs.

Once again, it must be realized that these programs are based on "eligibility parameters". You must qualify. Until these eligibility parameters are fully addressed by states, under federal guidelines, nothing MORE will be accomplished with SCHIP.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 4, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company