Washington — With no ceremony for television cameras, President Bush will veto a bill today expanding a popular health care program for children by $35 billion.
The move will set up a veto fight that Bush probably will win but will give Democrats a campaign issue for next year's elections. They will argue the veto shows Bush and his Republican allies are insensitive to low-income children who are uninsured through no fault of their own.
The Senate passed the bill with enough votes to override the veto, with 18 Republicans lining up with Democrats. But the House fell about two dozen votes shy of the number needed to override.
Bush argues the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, is a step toward socialized medicine and would entice people with private coverage to switch to government-financed plans.
In Congress, Democrats didn't wait for Bush's veto to begin campaigning against Republicans who oppose the expansion.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads Monday attacking eight GOP House members who voted against the bill and face potentially tough re-election campaigns next year. Democratic lawmakers held a string of events highlighting the issue, including a parade of children bearing anti-veto signs and T-shirts in front of the White House on Monday.
By mid-afternoon Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., had hosted three events devoted entirely or largely to the SCHIP issue. He said Democrats would continue to implore 15 House Republicans to switch positions and overturn the veto, but he acknowledged that none had agreed to so far.
Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups planned more than 200 events throughout the nation to highlight the SCHIP issue.
The group, which includes MoveOn.org, and several unions, will flood Congress "with hundreds of thousands of calls, letters and e-mails, all demanding that members of Congress vote to override Bush's SCHIP veto," McEntee told reporters Tuesday.
The coalition will devote $3 million to $5 million to the effort, he said.
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" the House would sustain Bush's veto.
Blunt and other Republican leaders met with Bush at the White House on Tuesday.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
SCHIP expansion is a not-too-subtle push toward a socialized medicine debacle for our nation.
EXks (anonymous) says…
Well, of course "W" is gonna veto anything other than bills designated for his Iraqi war machine. What would you expect from a "kinder & gentler conservative?????"
............................I can't wait for 2008
EXks (anonymous) says…
And oh yes, whatever happened to "family values?" i suppose they're another causality of "W's" Iraqi War and his future plans to bomb Iran, turn the entire M.E. into a war zone.....I can't wait until gas hits $5.00 a gal and all you me, me, me,me, only gluttons out there have to sell your SUV's. When that happens I'll be LMAO!!!
Haiku_Cuckoo (anonymous) says…
But my household income is only $80k per year. I need the taxpayers to foot the bill for my kids' health care so I can continue to make payments on my boat! Bush just ruined that for me! Dog gone you, Bush! You don't care about my kids!
Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (anonymous) says…
I can't wait until gas hits $5.00 a gal and all you me, me, me,me, only gluttons out there have to sell your SUV's. When that happens I'll be LMAO!!!
============
You won't be laughing long because you'll find that the $5 gas you hoped for also caused bus fare to increase. You'll be left crying in the bus stop asking yourself, "How will I get to Wal-Mart now?!" When you finally walk to Wal-Mart, you'll be even more upset when you see that they raised the price of your favorite beef jerky and NASCAR shirts due to the increased cost of trucking them to the store.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
Hmmm... Dubya's daughter is engaged to be married to his clone. How would he feel about his future grandchildren not having insurance and his daughter being forced to choose between food and medicine for her kids? Sure, it won't happen. Isn't his family lucky?
Haiku_Cuckoo (anonymous) says…
Can anyone tell me why a person who makes $83k/year needs the taxpayers to foot the bill for his kid's health care? Anyone?
salad (anonymous) says…
I pray this veto gets over-ridden. Bush validates everything I always suspected about stupid, lazy, boring, never-had-to-work-for-anything-in-my-life frat boys. Like these self-centered blow-hards, Bush doesn't care about anybody who isn't like him: rich & white. As a result...suffer the children.
jonas (anonymous) says…
"Gee, scene, maybe because that's because before the Democrats "took power" he didn't have a congress sending him ill-conceived, unworkable, and pointless legislation like this POS."
You don't, errr, actually believe this do you?
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
"Well, luckily, it looks like the Democrats want to make sure even kids in his children's income bracket will be able to insure their kids on your dime:"
I don't mind paying my dime or taking more dimes from taxing those in Dubya's bracket, IF all families are covered.
Haiku_Cuckoo (anonymous) says…
I don't want my tax dollars to pay for health insurance for a kid whose home income is $80k+ per year. Sooner or later, parental responsibility must kick in. Provide to kids whose household income is $30k or less, then I'll chip in. Until then, grab your veto pen and sign away, President Bush, sign away!
bunnyhawk (anonymous) says…
You've gotta love the "Christian" Republicans' version of the Golden Rule:
That which is golden is MINE and all you other suckers will get YOUR rewards in heaven.
Haiku_Cuckoo (anonymous) says…
"Fine. Find a way to make them pay for it - not for us to pay for it."
My feelings on the war in Iraq.
=============
My point exactly. We're already wasting enough tax dollars as it is. Why waste even more money by paying for rich kids' health care? Set the household income limit to $30k instead of $83k.
EXks (anonymous) says…
Haiku and you YOKELS need to pick up the clue phone!!!! You don't get it!!! $30k a year in Lawrence, Kansas "might" be considered a livable income, but in New York, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, L.A., etc.....any major urban area.......YOU and you're family try making a living on that salary!! The cost of living in those areas is double or triple that in tiny Lawrence. Get out in the real world!!!
Haiku_Cuckoo (anonymous) says…
$30k a year in Lawrence, Kansas "might" be considered a livable income, but in New York, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, L.A., etc:..any major urban area::.YOU and you're family try making a living on that salary!!
===========
Why on earth would anyone who makes $30k choose to live in NYC, Boston, LA or San Francisco? Those of us who us financially responsible should not be punished by supporting foolish people who choose to live beyond their means.
"You mean I can't afford to live in San Franciso? I can't just move to a cheaper place! What will I do without an ocean view??"
"You have some nerve telling me that you won't pay for my kids health care. Sure I could move to a place where my level of income will allow me to provide for me family, but those places are are gross! I need to be near the coast and the beaches!"
ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie (anonymous) says…
I like how $83K is suddenly considered "rich":
============
It isn't poor, that's for sure. A person who makes $83k should not be looking for handouts.
EXks (anonymous) says…
Haiku.....you STILL don't get it!!!! Like I said, get out of your double-wide trailer and see the REAL world. Your last post was just plain STUPID and there is no point in arguing with a nitwit.
Haiku_Cuckoo (anonymous) says…
Haiku:..you STILL don't get it!!!! Like I said, get out of your double-wide trailer and see the REAL world. Your last post was just plain STUPID and there is no point in arguing with a nitwit.
=============
I grew up in Chicago and lived in NYC for six years, Kansas Boy. I have traveled to every continent, save Antarctica. I have seen people in other countries living far below the $30k mark. Only in America would taxpayers be expected to pay the bills for people in an $83k/yr household.
atavism (anonymous) says…
Instead of a well informed analysis of what makes for poverty, or the relative buying power of a particular salary or wage in particular places, how about a simple query. What exactly is wrong with providing health care for every single child in the U.S., poor or rich, and frankly illegal or not? All other countries in the West manage it, and so do many in the East. From a personal perspective, I do not have children; I earn an exceedingly nice living, and if it would mean that every child in the country has access to free and universal health care, then I am more than happy to have my income taxed. On a similar token, why is socialized medicine so wrong? Again, most countries in the West, and some in the East, see access to health care as a right for all people---equating it to the neo-classical Jeffersonian principles of 'Life, Liberty...' Since when did the people of the U.S. and by proxy the U.S. itself, become mean spirited and selfish? If this forum is indicative of how "Middle America" thinks, then I'm happy I left.
EXks (anonymous) says…
Haiku....one good thing....you're THERE in Ks and I'm NOT>>> yeah I was born there, but had the sense to get out long ago.
As far as traveling goes and seeing the world, I bet my dance card is fuller than yours.
I've lived in NYC too, so what, big deal. Chicago is nothing more than Kansas City in drag.
And as for paying taxes....I bet my tax bracket is HIGHER than yours. As for payiing TAXES If I had my choice, I'd opt out of social security taxes that are subsidizing your monthly checks.
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
Let's make war, and let our kids live without health care. That's what the Soviet Union did, now look at them. Oh yeah, there is no Soviet Union. It's kind of uppity that low income workers want to have what rich people have. Health care! Next thing you know they'll want a raise, so they don't have to work 2 jobs. Don't they know their place. (sarcasm, for the reading impaired).
It's kind of disgusting that most everyone here, who can afford a computer and probably has a well paid job with benefits can't put themselves in the place of the working poor. My sister works hard, but doesn't make much money. She doesn't beg or ask for welfare. Fortunately, her son is over 18 now, because she doesn't have the money to buy insurance for him. No she doesn't own a boat, yes she does have cable, but only because she gets it free through her employee. She would not be able to come up with the money to pay for the insurance, then get the tax credit at tax time, so what good would Bush's plan do for her? I hope all of you who stereotype poor people lose everything you have, either through illness or misfortune. I get really sick of the "I've got mine, I could care less about anyone else." attitude. Hopefully no one will be there for you when you need it.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
.... and this, on the verge of a chicken pox epidemic...
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/oct...
ljreader (anonymous) says…
"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage".
george w. bush
This bill, in large part, is yet another veiled attempt to get Americans to pay for the expensive burden of health care for illegal aliens. - which the loopholes in this bill would do. Afterall, how many more hospitals, clinics, and emergency rooms can we afford to lose due to unreimbursed medical costs incurred by illegal aliens? Instead of dealing with the heart of the problem, (their failure and refusal to enforce our immigration laws) the politicians' solution is to squeeze Americans to pony up some more money to throw at this problem.
Have any of you noticed this Congress spending much time and energy on matters that will benefit actual American citizens? You still haven't.
http://www.rightmarch.com/media/ssa-s...
Needy American children already have medical coverage provisions in this country. I understand there may be room (and need) for some improvement. Perhaps they could raise the cap for eligibilty a bit- but 83g?? C'mon!
This was supposed to be funded by a hefty "use" tax on cigs. If the price of cigs goes up that much, many people are likely to quit smoking. That should be a good thing, except to cover this, it will require 22 million more NEW smokers.
I wonder how many nonsmokers will be willing to take up a new smoking habit (at an even higher cost) so they can pay for the health insurance of kids who already have it (or should), or the probable REAL motive behind this revised program- to cover illegal aliens?
Perhaps we could offer 22 million illegal aliens "a pathway to citizenship" if they take one for their OWN team and start smoking..
Of course, both of the above scenarios are unlikely to happen- nor do we want them to- and many people WILL quit smoking because of the increased cost- so how will schips really get funded if this would've not been vetoed?
I don't want to see children (or anyone else) go without medical care, but this particular bill is a sham that is unworkable and would wind up raising taxes. There's gotta be a better way. Glad it got vetoed.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
Good. I'm already paying for my childs healthcare.
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
If you are paying taxes, how would this be a free ride?
C_hertling (anonymous) says…
Everyone seems to be forgetting the fact that not only would the bill increase spending on the SCHIP program by 1200% (yes, one-thousand two hundred percent) it would expand the definition of "Child" to include anyone under 25 years of age! Bush has never stated he is against expanding the program... he (and I) am opposed to expanding it this much.
Also for reference, in the state of Kansas... the Federal poverty level is still used to determine elligibility for the HealthWave (aka schip) program, despite our lower cost of living. For a family of four, this equates to $20,652. So, the 300% of poverty cut off in Kansas would be $61,956.
Currently, a 200% of poverty level limit is in place, or $41,304 for a family of four.
(source: http://www.srskansas.org/KEESM/Append...)
I challenge anyone to prove to me that in the state of Kansas, $62k a year, or even $41k a year would be considered *poor*. I fall dead center between these figures and have never sought, or needed, government aid.
Sounds like a step towards socialism to me.