Bush set to veto Bill to Expand Child Insurance

[dajoki]

Bush Is Prepared to Veto Bill to Expand Child Insurance
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: July 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/washington/15child.html?ex=1342152000&en=c156687b96059d9c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

WASHINGTON, July 14 — The White House said on Saturday that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee.

The vow puts Mr. Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular program to cover some of the nation’s eight million uninsured children.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said: “The president’s senior advisers will certainly recommend a veto of this proposal. And there is no question that the president would veto it.”

The program, which insured 7.4 million people at some time in the last year, is set to expire Sept. 30.

The Finance Committee is expected to approve the Senate plan next week, sending it to the full Senate for action later this month.

[Zucca]

1. UMMM Pro-Life president against supporting these kids?

Pro-Life is and always has been Pro-Birth. They do not care about lives,,,Just want to ensure they get born,,,,after that they proceed to knock down health care, education and any other help poor kids need.

[rodeodance]

2. spllllllllainn dat one!

[bluestateguy]

3. Pass it and let him veto it.

It's called standing for something.

This is what we stand for. This is what they stand for.

Two crisp, clear choices.

Then the voters sort it all out.

[dajoki]

20. Like they should have with the funding bill n/t

[JANdad]

4. But Wait!

Some here at DU say that Americans "Do not want" gov't run health ins...

"White House officials said the president had several other reasons to veto the bipartisan Senate plan.

“The proposal would dramatically expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, adding nonpoor children to the program, and more than doubling the level of spending,” Mr. Fratto said. “This will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage, to go on the government-subsidized program.”

[thereismore]

5. There you go, private insurance is threatened, ergo, veto the bill. nt

[dajoki]

9. I'm sure he has "other reasons" for...

all the crap they try to get away with. Lies, spin, excuses, blame, etc. is all we ever hear out of this bunch.

[Cass]

6. You frigging have got to be kidding me!!!

And this SOB claims he is pro-life??


:grr:

[dajoki]

19. That's only before birth...

Once the child is born he looses interest.

[Robeson]

7. As an atheist, I'd like to borrow a religious term to describe Bush:....

...anti-Christ.

[kurth]

8. Better to give Viagra to old geezers than to immunize little children?

I suppose little children can't vote.

[Nite Owl]

10. This is a bill that will hit

middle class working families alot of whom always went along with Reagan and his lines about the middle class supporting those poor people who would rather not work. What will they think now that it is them? We liberals have been saying this to them all along that it is only time and it will be them too. Maybe now they will wake up to the fact that conservatism is rotten to the core, just a bunch of lies.

[dajoki]

11. You are so right...

I remember during the Raygun years arguing with co-workers about how they were getting screwed and didn't even know it. Now they have completely wiped out the middle class.

[Bitwit1234]

12. Why in the hell isn't the MSM

reporting that bush is vetoing every single social service bill that is proposed. That he wants to take all the taxpayers and throw it into Iraq and no bid contracts for his friends and family. HE HAS GOT TO STOPPED FROM DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY. IMPEACH THE FART.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. rhe media only cares about missing kids not ill ones

that's how gagged they are

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. In Indiana clients weren't required nor encouraged to drop their private coverage

I used to work in public assistance and I don't recall that my clients were ever required (nor encouraged) to drop their private insurance coverage (if they had any) to apply for Medicaid coverage for their children. We required them to provide us with information about any private insurance coverage that they might've had and would enter it into the system because, at it was explained to me, their private insurance coverage would be first in line for billing for any healthcare services but that Medicaid would step in and help with anything else that wasn't covered by the private insurance coverage. What a cretin! At least, we are on the right side of this issue and I hope that we still send it to the President's desk. I would love to see him have to explain this veto to the public. With it being a bipartisan bill, is there any possibility of Congress overriding the veto?

[Vidar]

15. "Family values" at work.

[dajoki]

16. Yep, good old repub "Family Values" n/t

[Vinca]

17. Is there a way to turn little kids back into embryos so Shrub will

give a damn about them? What a piece of work this guy is. Wonder if God told Georgie to let the children suffer? This friggin' nightmare is never going to be over.

[dajoki]

21. But, but, but...

no child left behind, only millions of them.

[dajoki]

18. "a serious setback for children with and without public health coverage"

Congrees, Bush Clash Over Children's Health Insurance
Plans to Renew Program Bog Down as Lawmakers Debate Funding, Philosophy

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 15, 2007; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/14/AR2007071401000.html

<<snip>>

President Bush has attacked the proposals as big-government attempts to enlarge the federal role in health care, saying they would siphon choice away from individuals and reduce private insurance coverage for some children. He has proposed about $5 billion in new funding for children's health insurance over five years, for a total of $30 billion -- an amount that the Congressional Budget Office says would be too little to keep covering even just the number of children enrolled in the program now.

<<snip>>

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said yesterday that Bush's senior advisers "will certainly recommend a veto" of the Senate committee's proposal because of its size and the plan to fund it with a tax increase.

<<snip>>

Bruce Lesley, president of the Alexandria-based nonprofit First Focus, said limiting growth to $35 billion would be "a serious setback for children with and without public health coverage."

For people such as Beverly Chappell, 43, a Web site developer in Thornton, N.H., the debate is about health and family, not ideology. Chappell and her husband, David, 49, a self-employed carpenter, earn a total of $43,000 a year and for years could not afford health insurance for their family. While the couple still have none, they had signed up their children for the program in 1998 -- just before their son Nathan had his first severe asthma attack.

"If I had not had that insurance, I would not have taken him to the emergency room and he probably would have died," Beverly Chappell said. "The program has value. Nobody should have to evaluate when it is an emergency and when it is not because they are afraid of getting a bill."