Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democrats Begin SCHIP Veto Override Campaign

With a presidential veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) now official, Congressional Democrats have formally embarked on a campaign to find the 15 to 20 votes from House Republicans they will need to override President Bush's veto pen.

Aides say because the $35 billion expansion of the program originated in the House, that chamber will go first in its attempt to override Bush's third veto ever as president (his veto of the Water Development Act today makes four). That vote is likely to come during the week of Oct. 15, leaving two more weeks for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to exert political pressure on any wavering Republicans. The Senate will follow suit, presumably only if the House secures the two-thirds majority of those present -- the voting ratio that is required by the Constitution to beat a presidential veto. The Senate already has enough votes, 67, to defeat Bush's veto, so all the drama is on the House side for this showdown.

The magic number of votes Pelosi will need is a bit of a moving target at this point, depending on how many lawmakers are present for the vote. There are currently two open seats vacated by a death and a retirement, meaning if all 433 current members voted Democrats need 289 votes to win.

During the vote on final passage last week, the House voted 265-159 in favor of the legislation, with one "present" vote and eight lawmakers absent. At least two of those eight -- GOP Reps. Jo Ann Davis (Va.) and Barbara Cubin (Wyo.) -- have been ill and have not attended votes in quite a while, making it likely they won't be on hand for the SCHIP override vote. That would lower the override threshold to 287 votes in favor, out of 431 total lawmakers voting.

Politically, Democrats have begun targeting Republicans to try to sway their votes. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began airing radio ads against the following eight Republicans on the SCHIP issue: Steve Chabot (Ohio), Thelma Drake (Va.), Tom Feeney (Fla.), Sam Graves (Mo.), Randy Kuhl (N.Y.), Jim Saxton and Tim Walberg (Mich.).

Between those who weren't around for the first SCHIP vote and the 'present' vote -- from Rep. Dianne Watson (D-Calif.) -- Democrats believe they have a handful of other votes they could count on during a veto override, putting them at around 270 votes in favor of the program.

If they are successful in flipping five to 10 Republicans in the next week or two, the real pressure will likely fall on the eight Democrats who voted against the program, almost all of whom represent rural conservative districts: Reps. David Boren (Okla.), Betty Castor (Fla.), Bobby Etheridge (N.C.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Jim Marshall (Ga.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), and Gene Taylor (Miss.).

For now, the Democrats' top political strategists feel like they can win either way on this issue, convincing the requisite number of Republicans to side with them or punishing them at the polls next fall. Here are two statements this week that sum up the Democratic feelings on the issue, from the party's top operatives: Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the DCCC, and Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), former DCCC chairman and current chairman of the Democratic caucus.

Van Hollen: "We're going district by district to tell Republicans and President Bush to stop obstructing progress and start putting children first. Republicans who continue to vote in lockstep with President Bush and against children will be held accountable."

Emanuel: "The President and 15 Republicans stand in the way of 10 million children receiving the health care that we receive here as members of Congress. There have been three vetoes in President Bush's term--one to end the war, one to permit stem cell research, and now one to allow 10 million children to get their health care. That says it all about President Bush."

By Paul Kane  |  October 3, 2007; 12:53 PM ET
Categories:  Branch vs. Branch , Dem. Leaders , House , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Iraq Pulls Down Poll Numbers for Bush and Congress
Next: Larry Craig: The 'Crime' Scene


Catholic Group: SCHIP Veto 'Not Humane'

A Catholic relief agency is urging President Bush to reconsider his planned veto of a bill which would enlarge a federal program to provide health coverage to uninsured American children.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised that Dennis Kucinich voted against SCHIP. Will he be asked about his position during the next "debate"?

Posted by: Peter | October 3, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I seem to recall that Kucinich pledged to vote against the program because he felt that it didn't go far enough.

Posted by: TJM | October 3, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are against children? I wonder if they think cyborgs are dying in their war. What a pityful nation ours has become.

Posted by: DJ | October 3, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The decision to support SCHIP expansion wouldn't be so straightforward if the proponents had been up-front and honest about the costs, and if the costs were being immediately translated into higher taxes for a broad base of voters. This is the problem with entitlements - no effective linkage between spending and taxing means unlimited demand for expensive programs.

Posted by: JZ | October 3, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"No effective linkage between spending and taxing means unlimited demand for expensive programs."

Time for a special Iraq war tax then. That's a runaway big government project if ever I saw one.

Posted by: oddball | October 3, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

When people lose their coverage and cannot afford Cobra, you bet your behind this will happen more often:

SCHIP and my husbands suicide.

Posted by: Markus | October 3, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The issue here is not about the children, it's about how it's paid for. Taxing tobacco is not the fair nor responsible way to generate an additional $35 billion. Plus, it covers too many children; many of whom already have health care. To be responsible, we need to approach this with a realistic financial plan to cover the children that need it, not the ones that don't.

Posted by: Ricky | October 3, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Elementary 2nd terms are Bemjamin W Lee'song(To delivery)"Testimony,SCHIPS in 35 Locations are Belivery,might beeagle(+#)

Posted by: JUSUK.khan9606 | October 3, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

A little one sided in this story. Why werent any republicans quoted in this piece?
Second, this program is just one step to socialist health care in this country which, guess what, is going to be more expensive than what people have now and be worse! Think the lines are bad now in the ER? Try 100 times what they are now. Need an appointment for your doctor? Try waiting months instead of days. I'm all for kids having health care - but this bill is not the right way.

Posted by: Policzar | October 3, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

The Mark Foley Republicans pretend to protect children but they are more interested in humping Bush's Jack Abramoff cronies and using the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program to loot their competitors and remote neural rape their children.

Posted by: Singing Senator | October 3, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Tell me why I was offered SCHIP benefits
from an insurance guy that says it's on the way, and I have no children. I am all for it!!!!!

Posted by: | October 3, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

George Bush knows that his veto of this bill will cause millions of poor children to be deprived life-saving medical care. That he feels no shame about this whatsoever, is disgusting. Here is a man who campaigned for president the first time as a compassionate man, and the second time as a Christian. He is neither.

Posted by: Will | October 3, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

the gov. is taxing seniors making more then $80.000 a yr. by raising there medicare payment. why should other people making $82.500 or more get a fre ride under this program. thank you pres. bush for the veto

Posted by: | October 3, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

The conversation about government spending has totatlly shifted since we started paying hundreds of billions of dollars to remake Iraq. What's 35 billion or even more to pay for children's health insurance? It's a drop in the bucket compared the costs of the war. I say spend some on the kids.

Posted by: TWH | October 3, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

The needy already have health care. Kids have health care. This bill is a back-door to socialized medicine, read it. The U.S. is not a socialist state (see No one is entitled to be given a house, car, food or health care, etc. If we want these things, we have to earn them. The government does not earn money. Perhaps some of us should take a civics class and learn about America. We all have to labor for what we want. For those who need help there are the charities and state programs. We need to fix the health care issue but we cannot fix it unless we know how it is broken. For the answer, please see

Posted by: Dr Coles | October 3, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

190 billion for his pet war in Iraq.

0 for children's health care.

I guess its OK to bomb children but not to help them.


Posted by: Cal | October 3, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

If Pres. Bush and the other neo-con phonies in Congress are so worried about creeping socialist health care, why don't they waive their right to have free (read: taxpayer-provided) health care. Walk the walk, George Bush. This is a case of presidential and Republican hypocrisy.

Posted by: Bob G. | October 3, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

We all know that George "Let Them Eat Cake" Bush. Is the worst president in the history of America. And now it's clear that he is a despicable, and terrible human being, and person too. I hope the war crimes tribunal will issue an arrest warrant for him soon. So we can get him out of here. I know the US military is sick of him. And will be glad to hand him over to the world court.

For the first time in the history of America. The life expectancy of American children is less than that of their parents. Catastrophic. And this stupid man. Vetoed the children's health care. Because it might cost the insurance companies some profits. This has got to be the most stupid corrupt act ever committed by a US president in history.

George Bush is a murderer of American children for profit. I hope God gets him good. And I hope that the American people see to it that his name is reviled for all of history.

Posted by: Bill Jones | October 3, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Betty Castor? Rural conservative district?

Posted by: Tampa | October 3, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I'm an independent voter.. and got sick of the biased media coverage of this, when the media will respect the audiance and report both sides!! Exploiting children to score political points is not going to do to Democrats any goods. This is not about children, it's about embarrasing president Bush and the Republican party, with twisted facts and unfair program. Typical dirty prolitics tactic.

Posted by: gmitry | October 3, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Yeah...let the "poor" families with children suffer. That's ok. Don't give us SCHIPS, we will tax the economy in different ways...unpaid hospital bills, rising health coverage insurance, long long lines in Hospitals and Medical Clinics. Oh, by the can thank Mr. Bush for that!

Posted by: Po' folk | October 3, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Why is only one side of this issue being reported? It is customary to report BOTH sides of an issue.

Shame on you.

Posted by: Nick | October 3, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Have any of you read the proposed bill? No. You take what the media tells you as gospel. It was vetoed because it has verbage in it that would allow illegal aliens access to tax payer funds. Maybe you all feel like supporting the world's children, but I sure don't. U.S. funds for U.S. citizens. Period!

Posted by: America needs a wakeup | October 3, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

42 days of Iraq war funding = 10 million SCHIP children funded.

Who determines American values & priorities?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

42 days of Iraq war funding = 10 million SCHIP children funded.

Who determines American values & priorities?

Posted by: Dallas | October 3, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

W should learn how to be a good lame duck and not kill his party's chances in the next election.

Posted by: Bob | October 3, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"XXXX is a murderer of American children for profit. I hope God gets him good. And I hope that the American people see to it that his name is reviled for all of history."

What a slanderous statement.

There is a group in the U.S. that does murder 1 million babies a year. Curiously enough, the democrats are all in favor of that.

Posted by: Fred | October 3, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Heard an interesting theory yesterday, that the Republicans who really hate guv'mint hate this type of program because it works, and there's nothing worse than a government program that actually works. It serves their agenda better to make Americans associate the government with a giant DMV rather than an institution which helps people who are not wealthy or healthy enough to be served by the private insurance market. And if the expanded SCHIP is, as it has been demonstrated to be, a popular, effective, and cost-effective program, well, those 47 million uninsured folks might actually start voting to be covered under something similar. I think we need to readjust our thinking to think of basic, affordable health care as a human right; as something that the richest nation on Earth can afford to provide for its citizens; and as a lot more practical than paying for ER visits, neonatal care, intensive care, etc. for people who cannot afford preventative medicine and hence wind up in a worse state. I suggest we not listen to people who suggest, with the language that implies we are all spoiled whiny children who want our shots and preventative asthma medication and checkups, that such requests are "entitlements". And I suggest that if you live in a district of one of these bozos who voted against this thing, that you get on the phone.

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

It's nice to see there are some intelligent comments here from people who know beyond a shadow of a doubt what this program is about.

Then there are the leftists who lie and claim that children will be without healthcare. Bull. Lies. This program exapands SCHIP to cover families who DO NOT NEED IT. Period. Why don't you blame the democrats who want to expand the program instead of providing just the coverage to provide for poor kids? Hmmm?

Also, please note Emanuel's LIE about stem cell research. PRESIDENT BUSH didn't veto stem cell research, he vetoed embryonic stem cell research. Emanuel, you are a liar.

Posted by: Steve | October 3, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

This is rich. No Republicans quoted, no truth about the costs. Only the focus on flipping Republicans.

You can't equate the Iraq war with this issue. It is the federal government's job to deploy troops if necesary. It is NOT the federal government's job to create and expand entitlements. If we were only spending money on the poor instead of defining "poor" to include anyone who we can scare into voting for somethink they THINK is free, we'd have more than enough money in the federal budget.

Posted by: Frank Lawson | October 3, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

That's right...let's put those kids to work to pay for their healthcare just like the rest of us. Real life education is better than the failing school systems anyway...right?

Posted by: CCal | October 3, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

In the light of the costs of the Bush's Excellent Iraqi Adventure in the hundreds of billions and soon to reach a trillion, one has to wonder the logic of denying children health care if its only a few billion. SCHIP was a REPUBLICAN program and is very popular.
I guess the great thing that will come from this is the political self-destruction of the GOP.

Posted by: Steve Savage | October 3, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe this is even an issue. The fact is there are many children who do not have health care. There should be no excusable rational for allowing that to continue.

As for people who don't need it taking advantage, most reasonable people would agree that is a justifiable risk to ensure all the children that do require health care receive it.

As for a tax on tobacco being an unfair way to pay for it. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Smoking is one of the reasons health care costs are so high to begin with.

As for the risk of it becoming socialized medicine, as someone who is from Canada take it from me the lines are not longer, the care is not sub-standard. It is excellent and it is available to all, regardless of whether or not they can pay.

Get a clue people and think about someone besides yourself for a change. Maybe if you spent more time and money fixing your own country than you spend "fixing" others, the lives of all Americans would be better.

Posted by: Disgusted Neighbour to the North | October 3, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm...I can choose health coverage for American children or nothing? Wait...I can choose to obey all of the US laws, work 40-60 hours/wk, pay taxes, put profits in big corporations who prefer offshoring jobs and not get health insurance for my children because 1 person chooses a war is more important than my children? Oh, btw...I am a US citizen. That's the sad part. Immigration is another issue that the Federal goverment has to address, but has failed to. Why let the children suffer because of mispriorities/mismanagement in a few goverment officials.

Posted by: America is Awake | October 3, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"One step away from socialized health medicine"??

Oh my gosh....we better get rid of the VA, Medicare and Medicaid.

Make sure you know what you're talking about before you spout off what the right wing talk show hosts want you to say.

Posted by: Woke up | October 3, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

A modest proposal

Some of the people who would be covered by SCHIP are old enough for military service. Granted, they are full-time students, but we could kill 2 birds with one stone by making them go to Iraq! If they die, they won't need medical care any more. If they live, they'll be covered by the VA, which please note is an effective government-run health insurance program. Given that we will probably be in Iraq long enough for all the children currently alive to eventually turn 18 and join the military -- PROBLEM SOLVED!

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

terrible -- what kind of a sorry nation are we? Slovakia (literally) has a better health care system, and we, the wealthiest nation on the planet can't get it together to take care of our kids?


Posted by: Richard | October 3, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"42 days of Iraq war funding = 10 million SCHIP children funded."

25 year old kids ARE NOT CHILDREN.

25 year olds making $82,000/year ARE NOT IN NEED OF FINANCIAL AID FOR SCHIP.

It is a fraud that will steal money from the children who really ARE in need.

Posted by: Sam | October 3, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

SCHIP could easily be paid for by taking some dollars out of Bush's unworkable Star Wars boondoggle, or reducing the tax breaks to the richest of the rich.

The Pentagon estimates that they burn through $6.8 Billion per month in Iraq (though this is probably a conservative estimate). So we could fund SCHIP for 10 years with 5.15 months of Iraq.

Fact-check here:

Posted by: Impeach Cheney First | October 3, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Please provide a statutory cite to support your claim that SCHIP covers 25 year olds making $82,000 per year.

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we tax the Alcohol industries as well as the Tobacco industries? Ooops, can't do that. Prohibition can't and won't be repeated by our paid congressmen.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

SCHIP is Drop the C and promote the P to T
Thank goodness this otherwise inept fool pulled his head out of his 4th point of contact to veto this program.

It is a tragic affair when an economically challenged child can not afford health care but it is a deplorable act of violence to force me to pay for it.

If you want to fund anyone else's health care open YOUR WALLET. JUST KEEP YOUR HANDS OUT OF MINE!

Posted by: Jason | October 3, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

That's a totally open invitation, by the way -- to anyone who can provide the text of the bill that says 25 year olds earning $82,000 per year qualify for SCHIP. I would really like to read that cite, as it hasn't been mentioned in, um, any of the media coverage.

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

And just because this loser of a president is stealing our money to fund his illegitimate war doesn't make it a good idea for him to steal more money to make me pay for other people's bad decisions!

Posted by: Jason | October 3, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Good for Bush. You want socialism go to China, UK, France, Germany, etc. You have many options available. Health Insurance costing too much? Stop having so many kids. The Earth is overpopulated anyway. I want people to pay for me a new car. Why shouldn't my desires be fulfilled? Why is it the people who are responsible enough to say "I can't afford kids right now" the ones that are obligated to support people who could care less about being responsible. I tell you what I may support: The people who need government support will have to be forced to undergo some sort of birth control since it seems they can't control themselves. The people using the emotion associated with kids are no different than the people who use the emotion of 911 to force their ideas down people's throats.

Posted by: bob | October 3, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

"It is a tragic affair when an economically challenged child can not afford health care but it is a deplorable act of violence to force me to pay for it.

If you want to fund anyone else's health care open YOUR WALLET. JUST KEEP YOUR HANDS OUT OF MINE!"

The thing is, see, this is not how democratic republics work. I don't get to un-check the box on my tax return for "funding the Iraq war", and you don't get to un-check the box for "funding health care for children" if this useless Congress can actually succeed in making the will of the nation, and the will of the majority of our representative, prevail over this moron. If you live in the district of a particularly useless representative, please call them. They probably will not change their vote. But they will know that you are paying attention, and that you are one of the 72% of Americans behind this thing, and that there may be one fewer person supporting them at the ballot box.

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Why not send a bill that covers the children that need it most? No one disputes our children need healthcare but not a big government program that would include children already covered. Don't be fooled by the spin masters. Congress should get it right but they clearly won't because the only agenda they have is to tax the heck out of everyone. Let the fun begin. The smoke screen that the democrates are hiding behind is so thick I am choking on it. The current SCHIP bill is the first step to socialized medicine. Good luck to all. This congress is a joke with an approval rating of 26%. Bravo!!!!! Let the spin begin.

Posted by: rjk | October 3, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Do you guys not get it? Won't children with access to health care grow up to be healthier, smarter and more productive adult citizens? When I have to deal with lower level people at American companies, I'm amazed at how dumb they are.

Posted by: allysay | October 3, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Typical post "reporting": cater to the sympathy of helping children, point to the evil Republicans as the cause for all of the suffering, highlight the chivalrous Democrats riding in to save the day, and neglect to give any indication as to why Bush or anyone else opposes the legislation, which therefore allows people who don't know the facts of the legislation to infer that Bush hates children. Well done.

Posted by: One Sided | October 3, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

This needs to fail because it is bad business. Dial it back to just include those that cannot afford health care, not those that choose not to purchase health care. Hillary Healthcare, here we come!!

Posted by: dennispro | October 3, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Start here Jen.


Posted by: Sam | October 3, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments here are interesting. All those against SCHIP spout fear of one thing or another. Seems like that's what all the Bushies are about - Fear. Thank goodness FDR wasn't a Republican.

Posted by: nestmaster | October 3, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Halloween's coming up. Think I'll dress up as a big, scary "Socialized Medicine."

I guess it's okay for member of Congress and the President to have "socialized" medicine, but not the rest of us.

Just think, if we avoid providing medical care to enough children who lack the personal responsibility to not get sick, nobody will be able to get into an emergency room in the event of a real emergency.

And how about when all those irresponsible kids with no medical care start spreading otherwise curable diseases to the rest of the population. Or is public health an "entitlement" too?

Posted by: Impeach Cheney First | October 3, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"Congress can actually succeed in making the will of the nation, and the will of the majority of our representative, prevail over this moron."
First I got to commend you, name calling, it shows such class and intelligence.

It is still an act of violence to make me pay for war or healthcare. Even if everyone agrees that I should pay.

It's like two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

Posted by: Jason | October 3, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

If you like the idea of paying for low-income children's health care PLEASE BE MY GUEST. Open up your wallet and go adopt one or just drop by the hood and dump YOUR wallet on the corner.
Just stop forcing me to do it.

Posted by: Jason | October 3, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh how politically brave our congress is; they vote to fund a popular bill by taxing the demon tobacco. What a joke. Hey, let's pass a bill to give healthcare to everyone and fund it with a tax on chips, pretzels and soda !

Posted by: rj | October 3, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

It's not easy being the worst President in U.S. history. You really gotta work at it.

Posted by: James | October 3, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"If you like the idea of paying for BUSH'S OIL WAR PLEASE BE MY GUEST. Open up your wallet and...just stop forcing me to do it."

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse


To see real acts of violence, please go to Iraq.

And please stop forcing me to pay for your fire department, your police, the roads you drive on, the courts which attempt to maintain the rule of law and your right to be a selfish, self-centered freeloader.

Posted by: Impeach Cheney First | October 3, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"If you like the idea of paying for BUSH'S OIL WAR PLEASE BE MY GUEST. Open up your wallet and...just stop forcing me to do it."


What ever you are being forced to pay for the act of force is wrong and any incident where the use of force is thwarted should be applauded, even if is is being done by the most inept president in history.

Posted by: Jason | October 3, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure what's more embarassing. The president or his supporters.

Posted by: BB | October 3, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Second, this program is just one step to socialist health care in this country which, guess what, is going to be more expensive than what people have now and be worse!"

Yes, the old socialised health care scare. We rank below Serbia in health care - millions of children lack any health coverage in this country, the free market is working perfectly.

Get a clue, we need socialised health care badly. Health care is a national security issue - the government owns national defense, adequate medical facilities to serve the population in the event of a terrorist attack should be a priority, especially if our foreign policy approach is to generate as many new terrorists as possible (a.k.a Bush foreign policy). We ahve a real problem with chem/bio weapons or bird flu actually strats spreading contagion to humans and the rich can shove their insurance cards up their buttocks, we lack the hospitals to deal with such a problem. Private insurance companies have completely failed to put people's health care needs first (or care at all about people's health care needs at all). We can sit and watch millions more people lose coverage every year, which in turn puts more cost on those who pay year after year until we rank behind Botswana, or we could start to do something now.

Wake up to what's going on around you.

Posted by: Adam | October 3, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Am I wrong in my thinking that if they ( the children ) are insured now, how are they going to lose what they allready have?

Posted by: dino6543 | October 3, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Impeach Cheney First

Thank you, I've been to Iraq. SGT US Army 1st Cav 312th MI BN.

I not forcing you to pay for anything or was that your attempt at sarcasm. Sarcasm is often the retort of those without a real argument.

Posted by: Jason | October 3, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I work with Families USA and I want to encourage all of you to join us in standing up for children's health care.

To learn more about how you can help, visit Let's get to work and let's get Congress to override this unfortunate veto!

Posted by: Families USA | October 3, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

So what you are saying is that if you are for socialized medicine. Well there are SO many places in the world you can live. Why don't you get on your way rather than trying to make me pay for other peoples mistakes.
This a great country where at least currently I am not being made to pay for others mistakes. Please let's return to a system of personal responsibility.

Posted by: Jason | October 3, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

20% (or less) of the population would be paying for the increases in this program. 32% of those paying have incomes below the poverty level.
So, all of you non tobacco users in favor of this bill .. call your congress person and let them know you want to pay your fair share.

Posted by: rj | October 3, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Thank You rj We allready have a 1.00 State tax on tobbacco products in South Dakota

Posted by: dino6543 | October 3, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

If Republican fund social programs, how are they going to fund the war?

Posted by: BSI | October 3, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

just to be clear, I think the intention of schip is good. I am angered that a gutless congress came up with such a cowardly way to fund it.

Posted by: rj | October 3, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Bush says he vetoed this bill because he's against socialized medicine. Other Republicans say they are against this because people aren't entitled to free health care.

Well then, let's get rid of the other free services, like the Fire Department, Police Department, Public Libraries, and all the rest of this free socialized stuff. And while we're at it, let's be sure to amend the Constitution to remove that pesky phrase, "promote the general welfare".

Welcome to the Republicans' Ownership Society--we're all on our own.

Posted by: John | October 3, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

John, please let us know your definition of "free.

Posted by: rj | October 3, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse


I believe you have been to Iraq just like Cheney served in Veitnam. Where in Iraq did you serve? I have 2 nephews there now who can check out your story.

Posted by: Wayne245 | October 3, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Jason: "Thank you, I've been to Iraq. SGT US Army 1st Cav 312th MI BN."

So you joined the military knowing full well that your salary was, according to your own argument, being extorted by force from your fellow Americans? How utterly hypocritical of you! Or did you do the principled thing and serve without accepting one cent of extorted taxpayer money?

Posted by: KR20852 | October 3, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

John, your analogy of comparing SCHIP to the fire deprtment, police or libraries is flawed because everyone benefits from those services. It's not like you have to apply to receive police or fire department coverage. Even if I never get robbed, or have a reason to call the police, I still benefit from their presence. So I don't mind paying taxes for those services. SCHIP is different in that those being asked to pay derive no direct benefit from the services.

On a general note, the way they plan to finance this program is thoroughly flawed. You cannot fund a program through the taxation of a consumer product (tobacco). Econ 101 tells us that as the price of good increases, demand will decrease, resulting in lower sales. Lower sales means lower tax revenue to fund the program, which leads to increasing the tax on tobacco to pay for the growning program, which further drives down sales, which leads to increased taxes on tobacco, etc etc. This basic economic principle coupled with the increase in jurisdictions imposing smoking bans (further driving down sales) means that the cost of the program would outpace the funds to pay for it in the long run.

Everyone knows that the hardest thing in the world to kill is a government program. Any legislation used to fund this expansion of SCHIP coverage will result in the growth of SCHIP for the infinite future. Given that reality, the funding for the program should at least be on solid footing at the onset.

Posted by: Hans | October 3, 2007 6:59 PM | Report abuse

presidential veto no problema amigo mi casa es tu casa yea right veto means vote ok my veto will be to republicans party next election 2008 so republicans party hasta la vista baby clinton we miss you in the white house

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

If you have 2 nephews in Iraq, I'm going to go out a limb and say they probably have better things to do than check out the credentials of some guy with whom their uncle got into an online spat.

Posted by: Better things | October 3, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

the shoe should be on the other foot ---lets have no health coverage for President Bush or his Vice President chaney---both have been in the hospital during their term so they have the money to pay for it ---the children are innocent and need the health coverage bad ---how heartless of President Bush.

Posted by: susan | October 3, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I really liked Ricky's comment:
"The issue here is not about the children, it's about how it's paid for. Taxing tobacco is not the fair nor responsible way to generate an additional $35 billion."

I wonder why that is not fair nor responsible. Let me say: tobacco causes health problems for the smoker (thus the government would want to mitigate / lessen those problems by taxing) and second-hand smoke (of parents to kids) causes children's health problems -- which SCHIP would cover.

Ricky, baby, are you a smoker? And a self-interested smoker, to boot? I don't even have kids and I think health protection for poor kids makes sense. I even want to help African kids in Botswana and Dafur, and to the best of my knowledge, they are not US taxpayers. So, I feel, logically, that I should want to help US kids. Please, Ricky, think this one through: a poor family that smokes and has kids that have breathing problems: you don't want to tax the cigarettes so that the parents cut down on smoking, and then have a health plan so that the kids do not go untreated?

Posted by: Pete from NYC | October 3, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Sam, these are the contents of H.R. 976 as passed by the House and Senate according to THOMAS (Library of Congress):

Sec. 113 Elimination of counting Medicaid child presumptive eligibility costs against Title XXI allotment
Sec. 115 State Authority under Medicaid

So, please quote me the excerpt from the bill, as passed, which allows people age 25 earning $83,000 to qualify for SCHIP, as you stated.

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2007 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Boy howdy there are a lot of inane and nasty comments in today's blog. It sure seems like our government is a reflection of its people. If we can't discuss important issues rationally and with minimal emotion, then how can we expect the pres and congress to do so? It sure would be nice if logic and due diligence were the bywords of our national arguments. Health care and war are not easy issues and they darned sure won't be resolved by name calling and tired partisan mantras. Good luck to us; we need it.

Posted by: Major Pain | October 3, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Better Thing:

Of course you are right. Josh is in Bagdad as we speak. He is armed to to the teeth but would not walk 50 feet in any "farmers markert".

They all need our support.

Posted by: Wayne245 | October 3, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

The Day After The 2008 Election:

White House/Clinton-Obama

Democrats: 60
Republicans 38
Indpendents: 2

Democrats: 246
Republicans 189

Scalia and Thomas immediately impeached for high crimes and stupidities.

By 2012 Hillary will have appointed a court which is:

Conservative: 2
Liberals 7

(All the liberals wil be under the age of 45)

The USA is then declared fully recovered from the Reagan-Bush junta.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I guess one of the bad features about the health care bill is that it would cover some children whose families make up to $82,000/year. That might sound like a lot now, but given the Federal govt.'s tendency to act slowly to index costs to inflation (cf. the minimum wage), I think it won't be too long before $82,000/year is not that large an amount. I would prefer letting some more kids slip into eligibility than shut out a whole bunch of kids. For a nation with a national debt of $9 TRILLION, 3 trillion of which was incurred on Bush's watch, we should hang our heads in shame that we even have to debate this legislative measure.

Posted by: Bob G. | October 3, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

When Repugnacants chant their story of 25 year olds making 83000 per year would qualify for SCHIP, they are stretching the truth as they typically do. Also, taking people off of private insurance is also a lie.

The truth is, as Senator Grassley said(a staunch repugnican) Bush and the the rest of them are using this as a fiscal responsibility argument when they have failed for years to rein in spending under a Repugnican congress. So now he is a fiscal conservative?? Nice way to start, f#$@ the children.

I laugh at the repugnicans who use children's health care as a political football. This bill was a bipartisan bill. Passed by a majority in congress. Americans are demanding change in the health care system and this is a place to begin.

We need to finally boot these repugnicans and their hollow hearted followers back under the rock they crawled out from under.

Posted by: the Dude | October 3, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

KR20852, Your comment is absolutely justified and I would never do it again. It was a mistake.

Wayne245, Habbaniyah Airbase about 80 klicks west of baghdad and go F*$% yourself!

Posted by: Jason | October 3, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I got to say that I do not have the same views that I had when I was 20, how about you?

Posted by: Jason | October 3, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Remember that SCHIP was a Republican=sponsored program. The bill that passed had wide bi-partisan support, not just a congressman or two. The majority of governors, D&R,support this bill. The majority of AMrican people support it.
Bush proclaiming the someone making $82K will profit from SCHIP is as believable as his lies on Iraq.
And, those of us with healthcare are already paying for those that don't with higher premiums and less coverage due to the uninusred being treated and the doctprs and hospitals passing on those bills to Blue Corss, Aetna, etc. They pass them along to us. So I say let's cut some of my healthcare costs.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I believe you mean Kathy Castor, not Betty. Betty was her mother, who used to be in politics.

Posted by: Emily | October 3, 2007 7:53 PM | Report abuse

I want all of the naysayers to SCHIP to try and raise a family with 2 kids on only $35,000 a year (at most) while being forced to buy private health insurance.

After 2 months, you'll be begging for SCHIP coverage.

Posted by: Phule | October 3, 2007 7:55 PM | Report abuse

"This a great country where at least currently I am not being made to pay for others mistakes"

Proof that Jason is ignorant or a liar.

We are still paying off the F*CKUPS that Reagan and Bush Sr did to the federal budget with their ****ing tax-cuts and corporate bailouts.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 7:59 PM | Report abuse

HERE's something the Senate, the veto reversal effort counts four abstaining votes from four of our august nominees for the presidential nomination of their respective parties: Biden and Obama (D), and McCain and Brownback (R). I can understand the spinelessness of the Republicans, I mean, really. But the Dems? Obama and Biden need to get behind this effort, which seems to me a non-issue. I know the House vote (Oct. 15th) will go first, but this early sign of cowardice on the part of presidential dems cannot be allowed to stand. I am a raving, drooling liberal and have a major problem with the lack of a stand on the issue shown by Obama and Biden. Inexcusable. Inexcusable. Inexcusable! Are presidentially-oriented members of Congress all child haters?!?

Posted by: Troy | October 3, 2007 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Well Jason,

I'm glad you made it home.

Posted by: Wayne245 | October 3, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Wow - I can't believe that anyone would veto a plan that would encourage and reward those who can ill afford to /should not procreate / welfare sponges with free health care for all of their children.

Posted by: JK | October 3, 2007 8:20 PM | Report abuse

What a surprise PRESIDENT BUSH vetoes a 'bad bill' that's for 'the chilluns' claim the DEMBHOLES - who woulda thunk it??? The mostly DEMBHOLE [operant relevant portions of ^SSHOLES+DUMB-DEMOCRATS=DEMBHOLES] U.S HOUSE of 'FOOLISH' REPRESENTATIVES passed a bill to increase 'health-care' to supposed indigent children. Except the 'children' are now minors up until age 25 and are now 'indigent' even if their respective families earn up to $86,ooo dollars in income. Further people who can afford 'private insurance' will now receive mandatory 'government insurance' paid for by our TAX DOLLARS!!! Some 'SOCIALIST DEMBHOLE RIP-OFF eh??? 'Let's do it for the chilluns' - Ha!!! DEMBHOLE SOCIALISTA TURDHEADS!!!

Posted by: Zyskandar A Jaimot | October 3, 2007 8:27 PM | Report abuse

I urge everyone reading this to do a google search for SCHIP section 651. You will be surprised what these democrats have snuck into this bill. This section restricts doctors from having ownership in medical facilities. It virtually eliminates all competition to government run "non profit" hospitals. Oh but did I mention, it's for the children...

Posted by: Degen | October 3, 2007 8:28 PM | Report abuse

"Wow - I can't believe that anyone would veto a plan that would encourage and reward those who can ill afford to /should not procreate / welfare sponges with free health care for all of their children."

Because poverty is a crime in America now.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"Except the 'children' are now minors up until age 25 and are now 'indigent' even if their respective families earn up to $86,ooo dollars in income. Further people who can afford 'private insurance' will now receive mandatory 'government insurance' paid for by our TAX DOLLARS!!! "

And the proof of this is where now?

Given how much Bush supporters lie, you can forgive the rest of us for not trusting what people like you say.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Because poverty is a crime in America now.

Work two full time jobs and go to school to get advanced training. I did. Twice.

Posted by: JK | October 3, 2007 8:32 PM | Report abuse

A major American city lies in ruins; infant mortality & child mortality rates climb--especially so relative to other industrialized nations; our (former) AJ denies before Congress that Habeas Corpus exists or that the Geneva Conventions are binding while asserting unwarranted searches and torture are lawful; greenhouse gases continue to accrue and to have their effects while the executive branch doctors, denies and deletes the facts; we are awash with millions of illegals who lower our standard of living and strain our resources and infrastructures; many of our industries have chased higher profits to off-shore manufactories; the executive cannot distinguish loyalty from cronyism or religion from self-serving display; our vice-president is nothing
more than a corrupt corporate hack who denies he is accountable or even being
part of the executive branch while our president is a bone-headed illiterate
who deceived us and involved us in illegal wars--squandering our treasure
while our real enemies thrive and remain free to work their will; our soldiers
shed their blood in vain and receive substandard care when they return from
war while we license mercenary murders to act outside all law with impunity; we run prisons outside our borders and all morality; the pious republican congress's main pursuits remain corruption and buggery;homeowners cannot meet the obligations they were conned into
undertaking--and now we're taken aback by the merely ignoring sick children? Don't forget our Prezdent has a personal relationship with the lord--you bunch of crybaby commies. The pillar of fire precedes Air Force One--children are born, children die--so what? I thought you godless marxists already believed in natural selection?

Posted by: sim | October 3, 2007 8:39 PM | Report abuse

I urge everyone reading this to do a google search for SCHIP section 651. You will be surprised what these democrats have snuck into this bill. This section restricts doctors from having ownership in medical facilities. It virtually eliminates all competition to government run "non profit" hospitals. Oh but did I mention, it's for the children...

Posted by: Degen | October 3, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Nice rant, sim...Wasn't this comment section about SCHIP, or did I miss something?

Posted by: JK | October 3, 2007 8:45 PM | Report abuse

For those who complained about this story being biased.. If you would have noticed this story was under the section called "Opinion & Editorials". Guess what that means? I will not even answer that for you. If you're looking for a republican view point its right under this link in the section. Please read before you start *itching.

Posted by: GAC | October 3, 2007 9:02 PM | Report abuse

THOMAS seems to be down and I cannot find Section 651. But it does seem to me if doctors had major concerns about this bill then the AMA and American Academy of Pediatrics would not have endorsed it so forcefully.

Or maybe all the nitpicking about certain provisions of the bill, which are blown way out of proportion a la the as yet UNSUPPORTED contention that 25 year olds earning $83k a year would be covered, is actually just the best argument you guys can throw up, when that is at BEST an argument to debate certain provisions rather than vote against the measure...?

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2007 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Zyskander, if you are one of the lucky ones with health insurance, there are some medications which might prove helpful to you...

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2007 9:11 PM | Report abuse

I am a resident of Virginia. My husband and I have three children ages 6, 9 and 14 and all three of them are currently covered under SCHIP. My husband and I both work full time and before taxes we make $50,000 per year. We are expecting our fourth child in December. We live in a modest 3 bedroom 2 bath home which has a mortgage of $1400 per month which is considered "affordable" where we live. We own two vehicles that are over ten years old. My husband and I are covered under private insurance at my work but the monthly cost to add our children is $936. Our oldest son is 14 and has asthma which puts us into a high risk category. During the past year he has: fractured his elbow when he fell of his bike, torn his ACL in football practice, needed a root canal and most recently been rushed to the emergency room with an asthma attack. We have no savings and live mostly pay check to pay check. With these health care needs we would literally be bankrupt right now if it weren't for the SCHIP program. If you do not fund the program, we will fall out of the income guidelines because the current number of participants can't be funded without an increase. We are hard working people. We volunteer in our community. We don't live in luxury and we did not leave the private insurance sector for this program. Before this program our children did not have insurance and we had to think very seriously as to whether we could afford to take them to a doctor or not. They had no yearly well visits for preventative care. They did not have any regular check-ups with a dentist. Some months our son did not get his asthma medications if we had an emergency repair on one of the cars or house. (Heating / air / water)

Posted by: Sarah | October 3, 2007 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Sarah, thank you for posting such a moving and relevant picture. You say it better than almost anyone here could and I hope everyone reads it. I am fortunate enough to have insurance for my son with asthma -- I once looked at the cash price of Pulmicort, which is a preventative medication that can prevent attacks and of course, expensive trips to the ER. The full price to fill the prescription, once, was over $500. Do you think maybe some uninsured families might end up in the ER with asthma attacks because they couldn't pay for Pulmicort?

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2007 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Force birth control on these unwed mothers.

Posted by: Roy | October 3, 2007 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Free housing
Free food
Free insurance
Free money
Have as many kids as you want, the govt will pay for delivery and raising.
WHY WORK ?????????????????????????

Posted by: James | October 3, 2007 10:02 PM | Report abuse

How does a brain-dead individual like "Roy" think his comment "force birth control on these unwed mothers" relate to this debate on SCHIP? The previous comments came from married couples,both working, who had problems getting by, and who were grateful for SCHIP. I would guess that an individual like Roy is not capable of making his way to a voting location, and so we're probably safe in thinking that he is not part of the electorate, who are actually trying to make intelligent decisions based on facts.

Posted by: Bob G. | October 3, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

The GOP would rather kill children than offend any of it's good corporate friends.

Posted by: Gentry | October 3, 2007 10:10 PM | Report abuse

If you cant afford 4 or 5 children, dont have them. Why shoud I pay for them?

Posted by: John | October 3, 2007 10:15 PM | Report abuse

If Bob G had a brain he would understand that is is just more welfare that people like me would have to pay for.

Posted by: Roy | October 3, 2007 10:23 PM | Report abuse

I think it is the very openness of our government that leads to libertarian aberations like Jason. Because our government is open; you can see what they take on your paystub, and what the government does with the money is public record and openly covered in the news. Because he sees this, Jason thinks the government is the only organization that takes from him by force.

He must be very young. Whenever an individual deals with an organization, something is generally being taken by force.

Corporations will take more from him over his lifetime than government. They won't tell him what they took, or what they did with it. There is one simple way all corporations make money; pay your people considerably less than they are worth, and charge your customers considerably more than your costs. The difference is your considerable profit, and by paying some employees less than a living wage, and paying your investors' 401Ks less than the profits they earned, you can pay your CEO tens of millions and bribe elected officials with large campaign contributions.

But that is just money. Some businesses choose to pollute air or water, or make their employees endure exposure to hazardous substances; secretly stealing years from the lives of millions.

Corporations do what they do exclusively for private gain.

On the other hand, government does things for the public good, like SCHIP and laws about what is permitted in financial transactions and pollution. Government programs and law enforcement let ignorant folks like Jason survive to adulthood, ensuring they get some education, a fighting chance at success, and the freedom to shoot their mouths off.

Government makes us dispose of sewage properly and government gets safe drinking water to our homes. This does more to extend our lives than anything else. Libertarians would rant about government forcing them to treat their sewage and demand the right to dump it in the river. If they got their way, they as well as us would be drinking the sewage from up river and we would probably all die of cholera.

I don't resent what I pay in taxes to take care of children, even though I have no children of my own. I consider it repayment for the care and education that was provided to me when I was too ignorant to know what I needed, and too helpless to get what I needed on my own.

Unless you were raised by wolves, you owe your world a little return on its investment.

Posted by: Evan | October 3, 2007 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Health care for children is not about an entitlement program, it is about a government investment. When a child cannot get regular health care, checkups, physicals, sick visits, etc., small problems become large ones and the government/general insured populace picks up the far more expensive tab. Instead of preventative care or taking care of illnesses when they are minor, illnesses fester until the child winds up in the ER, and that costs a hell of a lot more than the visits which would have prevented the situation. Who pays that tab when the parents cannot? Either the government, or everybody else in the form of higher co-pays, deductibles and premiums.

As far as the rhetoric regarding coverage for people who can afford their own health care, do the math. The new administration rules cap coverage at 250% of the federal poverty guideline - $42,000 for a family of 3. If you are trying to support a family of 3 on $42,000 a year and you don't have health insurance, you sure as hell cannot afford to buy it. You likely cannot even afford a couple hundred dollars a month family coverage can cost an employee enrolling in a workplace plan. I'd like to see any of those voting against the bill try to manage that for a couple of months - I guarantee they'd change their vote.

Posted by: jr | October 3, 2007 10:31 PM | Report abuse

I dunno.....Roy found his way to a computer, I'm guessing he can find his way to a voting booth, although the optimist in me does want to believe you, Bob. There are mouth breathers all over this country, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2007 10:32 PM | Report abuse

What people tend to forget is that taxing cigarettes makes perfect sense when it comes to health care. As taxes for cigarettes goes up, this encourages more people to quit smoking. This has the effect of saving lives and lowering health care costs in the long run.

Posted by: Zoltan | October 3, 2007 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Jen, I love that mouth breathers thing. Can I use it?

Posted by: doug | October 3, 2007 10:49 PM | Report abuse

It's yours. Use it with my blessings. :)

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2007 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Taxing tobacco is a win-win. If people smoke, they pay for children's health care. If they stop smoking, they cost the rest of us less for their health care.

Posted by: Chris Fox | October 3, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

It's beyond funny hearing Republican hacks who cheered when the GOP Congress rammed through the 2003 Medicare drug benefit bonanza (for the drug companies, anyway) now bleat mindlessly aboot "socialized medicine."

Socialism, apparently, is only good when it wins votes for REPUBLICANS.

Posted by: Peter Principle | October 3, 2007 11:41 PM | Report abuse

A) It's Dan Boren, not David.
B) Diane Watson spells her name with one 'n,' not two.

Posted by: Daniel | October 3, 2007 11:42 PM | Report abuse

That Dennis Kucinich voted thumbs down comes as a surprise to me. I could rationally argue how and why a veto override would benefit Republicans and recalcitrant Democrats, but this truly seems to be a government and an age of profound lack of reason. It would be refreshing to see one good thing come out of Washington, but. . . .

Posted by: Staggo Lee | October 3, 2007 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Emily, good catch on it being Kathy Castor, not Betty. It was Dan Boren's father, David, who was a Senator from Oklahoma.

Does anybody edit the Capitol Briefing, Fix, etc. posts or do they go straight from writer to internet?

Posted by: Daniel | October 3, 2007 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Don't mean to pick on Policzar per se

"Second, this program is just one step to socialist health care in this country which, guess what, is going to be more expensive than what people have now and be worse!"

So many people commenting about socialized services that have little or no knowledge or experience. I am an American living in Taiwan: a crowded, developing country with, you guessed it, socialized medicine.

I pay taxes to the Taiwan government for my health care. It is administered properly, fairly, and guess what, it works.

My taxes are no higher as a fraction of income than in the US. You can see a doctor 7 days a week, and in the evening, not like the 9-5pm health care system in the US. And my family has had an ER experience twice, and we were seen right away during the busiest time of the day. No paperwork. Flash the health card, and you're in.

This is not just my personal experience, very few people, poor or rich, complain about health care in (warning: bad word coming) Socialized Taiwan.

Besides, the US already has socialized mail delivery and socialized K-12 education. Why all the vitriol against socialized medicine?

Posted by: Jon | October 3, 2007 11:50 PM | Report abuse

President Bush has every right to veto anything that comes his way. He just has to be prepared for some people to take offence to it and override his choices. I think that it is great that Nancy Polesi is taking charge of this campaign, she is a strong, well rounded woman. President Bush on the other hand is not all that well rounded. If this is what he plans to do with his last moments then hats off to him.

Posted by: Justice | October 4, 2007 12:00 AM | Report abuse

You Republicans are playing politics just as much as the Democrats. For 6 years you ran up the deficit, and now that the Democrats are in charge, you suddenly discover fiscal discipline? Give me a break.

Posted by: Dave Tholen | October 4, 2007 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Remember, Republicans think that it's the duty of government to interfere in what happens to fetuses, and then wash their hands of the children who are born.

They're pro-life *and* pro-sterilizing-the-poor. That's quite the eugenicist combo.

Posted by: Nick S | October 4, 2007 1:04 AM | Report abuse

Sometime during the next two weeks, the press will report the facts of this veto and what it means. The Democrats should be prepared for that day. Because the very next day, the Republicans that are supporting Bush in this facade of opposition, will be most vulnerable and most fearful of their position on this issue. That is the moment that the Democrats should attempt an over-ride of this veto. Make them pay for their vote.

Posted by: kentuck | October 4, 2007 1:16 AM | Report abuse

While I appreciate the comments by Sarah, I do think she should get her tubes tied after she has this 4th child. After the 2nd child would have been even better.

About the $82k/year: I read that this was requested by New York state, which has a higher standard of living than average. AND it was for families, not single 25-year-olds, AND it was rejected. Nada, not happening. Just another Republican't lie.

Posted by: NMAIF | October 4, 2007 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Why bother any response at all. You have consistantly proven that you speak defiance to our faces, but suplicate to every whim of G.W. Bush. First the Republicans, and now the Democrates consider the American citizen a moran.

Posted by: John G. | October 4, 2007 2:07 AM | Report abuse

"Why shoud I pay for them?"

Why did we have to pay for John? Because that's how civilization works, we help those who can't help themselves as we were helped in turn.

Don't like it? There's always Africa!

Posted by: Phule | October 4, 2007 3:48 AM | Report abuse

"Work two full time jobs and go to school to get advanced training. I did. Twice."

I'd like to see this person raise children working two jobs and going to school while paying for health insurance and the basics on 200% poverty level wages without getting busted for child neglect.

Its sad how the Right seems so intent on disproving Darwin through personal examples.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 3:51 AM | Report abuse

"There is a group in the U.S. that does murder 1 million babies a year. "

They're called Republicans.

Because rather then let girls have safe and rare abortions or easy access to birth control, they insist on making it as hard as possible for women to protect their health and that of any children they choose to raise.

If you're going to force women to have babies, then pay for them you Right-wing hypocrites.

Posted by: Phule | October 4, 2007 3:54 AM | Report abuse

Health care for poor children is a moral issue. Good vs. Greedy. Which begs the question: Why are the "Republicans", the so called "moral majority", the ones so opposed to what they call "entitlements" or "socialized medicine". War is the right thing to spend YOUR billions on, (a needless war at that!)yet helping needy children is a burden? Your values seem to be in the WRONG place.

Posted by: 4TruthNmedia | October 4, 2007 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Don't worry about SCHIP, Mexican adults will cross the US border, and replace the vaccuum created by unhealthy US kids. As more and more Mexicans pour into US soil, President Bush's veto is justified. The US citizens don't need any "healthy" kids, they don't need to have any kids (Guatemalans will send stolen kids to US).

Mexican immigrants will love to have gun in hand to fight in President's Pet "WMD" War in Iraq, and they will be awarded with a Green card. Problem solved.

Posted by: Yeti | October 4, 2007 8:12 AM | Report abuse

A veto on health care for children from a president approved a law that allows an accountant can make the life or death decision about an already born child on life support ... and let the kid die ... too bad the kid took a breath ... conservatives had no use for him then ...

Posted by: Michael P. Ryan | October 4, 2007 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Does Bush's veto of SCHIP not raise the "Guns v. Butter" issue that LBJ faced in the Vietnam War. I recall that John Gardner, Secretary of then HEW, resigned in protest to that War receiving priority over domestic needs.

While no politcal guru, I cannot understand White House thinking to support a veto on legislation designed to bring needed health services to children, primarily the poor. Oh well, time for the "Decider" to show his tough cowboy demeanor and demonstrate to the folks he says what he means and means what he says.

Wonder how the GOP House Members who support Bush on the veto feel with rising public indigantion, much of it in their home districts.

Can our White House leadership sink any lower in its utter disregard of the Nation's needs against the unjustified War?
Forrest Gerard

Posted by: Forrest Gerard | October 4, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing how uninformed the general American public is. If they heard Republican Senator Orin Hatch's explanation this morning on NPR they could be more educated how this is really not much about families making $82,000 (4 time poverty level for a family of 4). Bush doesn't know much either. He did not have to take out loans to send his kids to Yale and Texas (nor do they have to join the Army for bonuses for future educational needs, if they survive the Iraq War). The states have great power over this mandate and so does the Dept of Health and Human Services. Of course the press with there simplistic headlines don't help much. Wake up, Americans.

Posted by: Robert Parson | October 4, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

One of the most important things in discussing SCHIP is to actually read the text of the law being debated; a number of complaints (the alleged immigrant-loophole, the 25-year-old cap, among others) were in the House version of the bill, and have been excised to gain more Republican support.

The claim about "socialized medicine", too, seems to ignore the fact that SCHIP is federally-funded, not federally-run. At the very worst, states add SCHIP to their Medicaid rolls.

Finally, the "400 percent of povert line" argument ignores the actual text of the legislation. This is born out of the House bill, which put no reasonable limits, and a New York petition to raise their limit to 400 percent. The legislation vetoed capped SCHIP support at 300 percent of the poverty line, with the exception of those states already above it (which is just New Jersey, as New York's petition was denied).

Posted by: Appending_doom | October 4, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I think the expansion of SCHIP is a good idea, but they picked a poor way to fund the program. a) what's the correlation between smokers & children's lack of health insurance? 2) as more states ban smoking in public, cig tax revenue will continue to fall - meaning the programs relying on that funding will come up short.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

not quote - re: "On a general note, the way they plan to finance this program is thoroughly flawed. You cannot fund a program through the taxation of a consumer product (tobacco). Econ 101 tells us that as the price of good increases, demand will decrease, resulting in lower sales."

Smokers will ante up the extra money, because they are addicts. no problem.

Posted by: Linda Braun | October 4, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I would like to give some insight to those of you that think we are all free loaders.

I work an average of 50 hours a week, my husband works about 40-45 hours per week, we have three kids ages 13, 6, & 3. We make approx. $45,000/year we cannot afford private health care. My children have been uninsured for two years. That means my oldest child who has mental health problems can't see a much needed psyciatrist, because I have to chose between his bi-polar medication or psyciatric treatment; which in turn means he is not learning how to develop control of his bi-polar disorder and will most likely need to be medicated for his entire life. My three year old earlier this year had what I thought was a sinus infection and had we been insured I would have taken her to the doctor, however because we were not insured, I didn't take her until she was much sicker and had developed walking pnemonia, I did manage to skip paying our utility bills and for a month and a half and cut our $200/month grocery budget down to $100/month for two months in order to pay for her doctors visit, x-rays, and treatment. So I managed to self-pay for her treatment, but at the expense of our electricity, hot water, and dinners. It was either that or get kicked out of our meager 2-bedroom duplex that the five of us share.

Please don't think that everyone in need of a little assitance to offset the cost of healthcare are freeloaders, some of us work very hard and do have two parent, two income households. Sometimes people ask me, " well, don't they offer health insurance at work?" Yes, they do, it runs about $500/month for myself(which I have to enroll in order to cover anyone else)and our three kids. That is almost what I pay for rent, so it comes down to a roof over our heads or health insurance. That is not a choice anyone should have to make!

And as a side note, to those of you spouting off about the war.... I don't agree with it either, but it does not have anything to do with this issue. This is about unneccasary suffering that children are going through because of the rise in cost of private health insurance. We absolutly need SCHIP to succeed for our children!

Posted by: Working Mother | October 4, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Why wern't more Republicans quoted in the story you ask? Because no self respecting Republican has anything good to say about George W's veto.

Billions in tax cuts to the Oil Companys? $270 Million for a bridge to nowhere? Millions of dollars of tax cuts for the richest? Billions lost or un-accounted for in Iraq? What kind of "philosophy" is that?

You Republicans had no guts at all when it came time to vote aganst or to veto any of that junk... Not anymore!

It takes a real conserative to get after all those dead beat 4 & 5 year olds - what a man...

Posted by: Gooch | October 4, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Many of you people are utter morons and that is beyond sad. I feel sorry for you because you believe information given to you more than information you discover for yourself. The facts are:

1.) This is NOT socialized medicine. States receive funds to help families obtain PRIVATE COVERAGE by providers that contract with the state. Just like your frickin' doctor now contracts with a insurer.

2.) Statements about 25 year olds making $80,000 and taking advantage of this is garbage. The bill actually phases out the state's ability to include anyone other than children and pregnant women. Currenly SOME states receive flexibility to include parents of the children that are enrolled.

3.) $80,000??? What the hell! This bill increases the income threshold of families to 300% of the federal poverty level....which sounds like a hell of a lot until you realize the sickness of what we define as poverty. You practically have to be eating dirt and shoe laces stew to be considered impoverished in America. The current federal poverty guidlines for a typical family of 4 is between about $20,000 and $26,000 ANNUALLY. Call 911 because this bill says a family of four surviving off LESS THAN $80,000 (26,000 * 3 =78,000)can get a well deserved break and have insurance so they don't have to declare bankruptcy should something happen and they can't afford the medical bills. And remember they may not be able to do that anyway with the new bankruptcy guidlines that are in place!

You idots need to do some research before you come on here trying to scare people. Its sad you feel so righteous bombing people whose faces you don't have to see but so uncomfortable doing a tiny part to make sure you neighbor next door or your employee can take full advantage of their right to life.

Posted by: Saddened Citizen | October 4, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Dr. Coles wrote that we are not a socialist country and that: "No one is entitled to be given a house, car, food or health care, etc. If we want these things, we have to earn them." exactly do children earn these things?

Posted by: cb1231 | October 4, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Unless something extraordinary happens the Republicans' are going to lose big next year. There are two reasons they're in trouble; George Bush and George Bush. They're clearly losing their attempted oil piracy in Iraq so they've cooked up scheme to widen it to include Iran. Nixon made the same fatal mistake when he invaded Cambodia. He killed 800,000 civilians, enraged the American people, and lost control of US troops.

On the home front Bush bashes the health care of babies and children and threatens to veto any law even remotely supportive of equality. Republicans are squirming to distance themselves and to make matters worse their old standby - gay bashing - has lost some of its punch.

As Der Gubernator recently said, "In movie terms, we are dying at the box office." Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), quoted by the Los Angeles Times, on the state of the Republican Party.

The only thing Republicans have going for them is the Democrats' deceit. They promised to end the war but instead they fund it and support broadening it. They're funding permanent bases including an immense colonial fortress in the Green Zone and a huge USAF base at Balad. They voted with Republicans to order the Iraqis to divide their country and to turn over its oil assets to American companies. They're for an attack on Iran. They tried (hopefully unsuccessfully) to gut ENDA. They've done little or nothing to help union workers or the elderly. Their feeble minimum wage law is a slap in the face.

They're the best and only chance the Republicans have for winning

Posted by: Bill Perdue | October 4, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

It should be known that Dan Boren, not his father and former US Senator, David (as you wrote), has a press release saying he will vote to override Bush's veto.

"While I still have reservations about the increased expansion of the program and its reliance on a dwindling revenue source, I believe after a search of my conscience that this is the right thing to do for Oklahoma and the country," Boren stated.

Posted by: Matthew Stensrud | October 4, 2007 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Republicans need to suck it up and think about the people who are less fortunate than they are...for ONCE.
If one of them were to come across financial difficulty, they would be the first to demand that the government pay for their children's health care.

Larry Craig for example had no interest in the rights of homosexuals...
Until he became one.

Maybe we should lower congressional pay to 200% of the poverty level, and we can see how they manage to raise their childrem.

Posted by: Greeneyedwitch | October 5, 2007 12:41 AM | Report abuse

America is more Socialist than people think.

Look at the Bill of Rights. Look at what the Founders wanted for EVERYONE!!!

As for Kucinich;

Kucinich: SCHIP Bill Fails To Provide Health Coverage For Legal Immigrant Children

Washington, Sep 25 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), issued the following statement after voting against the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) conference report today:

"I cannot support legislation which extends health coverage to some children while openly denying it to other children," Kucinich said. "This legislation is woefully inadequate: and I will not support it.

"Legal immigrant children deserve the same quality health care as other children receive. It is Congress' responsibility to address the main difficulties that prevent legal immigrant children from gaining access to health care. Today, we did exactly the opposite.

"HR 676 guarantees full health care coverage for all children. When considering a universal health care proposal, HR 676, the Medicare for All bill, is the only health care plan that addresses three important issues: quality, accessibility, and cost. HR 676 stands alone in an increasingly crowded field of efforts to provide health care coverage to all," Kucinich said.

Kucinich voted for the original House-passed version of the bill because it contained language to grant health coverage for legal immigrant children. However, in today's bill, this language was omitted.

Posted by: Corey Mondello | October 5, 2007 7:10 AM | Report abuse

As a person in the middle class as far as income goes, I'd be willing to pay more taxes to support healthcare for children. That, unlike the war is a productive choice, since children are our future.

Posted by: Leslie David | October 5, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

George w, bush is the worst president in american history.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 5, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

To Whom it May Concern:

I believe you have incorrectly listed Dennis Kucinich as having voted against this bill. If you go to your own site's info. on Mr. Kucinich, you will see that he voted "yes" or in favor of the bill!

Please correct this error!

Thank You

Posted by: Rev. Carter A. Dary | October 6, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Well Jo Ann Davis (Republican VA-1) is dead, so she definitely will not be around for this vote.

Posted by: Steve | October 6, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Re: "George w, bush is the worst president in american history." :

Can we validly call him that? Wouldn't that distinction be better left to one that was validly elected as President?
Wouldn't the individual mentioned in the quoted statement be better referred to as an illegitimately appointed aspiring emperor?

Posted by: | October 5, 2007 03:04 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Re: "George w, bush is the worst president in american history." :

Can we validly call him that? Wouldn't that distinction be better left to one that was validly elected as President?
Wouldn't the individual mentioned in the quoted statement be better referred to as an illegitimately appointed aspiring emperor?

Posted by: | October 5, 2007 03:04 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

LETS FACE IT! The Republican Party is regressive definately not conservative and considers making money for Military opportunists by promoting perpetual war. Their hearts are in you pocket book and that is where they want to keep it. Children, what children....we only sponsor snow flake babies. The rest of you either deal with it or die. Make sure your children grow up to be soldiers. GOP mantra. Take, give nothing back

Posted by: Carol | October 13, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Rep bob etheridge is more worried about
American still smoking a what they would have to pay for this bad habit.
I am being to find out that all of the goverment representives here is North Carolina had gone bad. This starts with some of the local and state elective persons.


Posted by: Bernice S. Lewis | October 18, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Might I remind you that our nation is deeply in debt.

Posted by: myxomorph | October 18, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Oh yea, veto! Suck on George's big salty chocolate balls!

Posted by: RXmeplz | October 18, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

Posted by: George | November 10, 2007 9:06 AM | Report abuse

9NQCYO kuttner nacktbild ,

Posted by: Becky Gonzalez | January 6, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I just don't understand the logic behind anything Bush says or does. I thought it was bad enough when he tried to link stem cell research to abortion, even though stem cells come from umbilical cords and not embryos, but then when he vetoed the S-CHIP bill that Clinton started in 1997, that was the chart-topper. And then he gave his explanation that it would end up leading to national health care


Posted by: tiero416 | January 17, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company