Posted on 08/03/2007 12:25:55 AM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 — The Senate defied President Bush on Thursday and passed a bipartisan bill that would provide health insurance for millions of children in low-income families.
The vote was 68 to 31. The majority was more than enough to overcome the veto repeatedly threatened by Mr. Bush. The White House said the bill “goes too far in federalizing health care.”
But Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chief sponsor of the bill, said, “Millions of American children have hope for a healthier future tonight.”
The bill would increase spending on the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over the next five years.
“Covering these children is worth every cent,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, who helped create the program 10 years ago.
The House passed a much larger bill on Wednesday, presenting negotiators with a formidable challenge in trying to work out differences between the two measures.
Still, the strong commitment to the issue by Democratic leaders virtually guarantees that they can work out a compromise before Sept. 30, when the program is set to expire. But that compromise is likely to be unacceptable to Mr. Bush.
If Mr. Bush vetoes the bill, the future of the program would quickly become an issue in 2008 campaigns for Congress and the White House, in the context of a broader debate about universal coverage for health care.
The House bill, which passed on a vote of 225 to 204, would increase spending by $50 billion over the next five years. The Senate rejected a proposal by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, to match that increase — and to cover the extra cost by raising taxes on people with incomes exceeding $1 million a year.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
No one here at FR would give up their Social Security check, I'll wager. Even we've gotten comfortable with the government regulating our money and our lives for us.
I am very, very pessimistic about not only the 2008 election (I've written off the Repubs already), but--
I'll just avoid all the silly posts about "bringing us down" and "quitting," which is what one gets from the those wearing rose-tinted glasses around here. You get the gist.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
goldstate - you’re famous, you’ve been shown on Bill O’Really’s program!
The President will not veto this as it is a piece of the immigration bill being “spoon fed” to us.
With Ted Kennedy! How many cents is $35 BILLION?
Yes, probably veto bait..but from an implementation side...a fraud. Where are the docs and the Rns? No new med schools, fixed production of docs, J-1 visa docs very limited. Several hundred thousand nurses short over the next 20 years. One fourth of physicians in general are over 55years of age. HHS did study in NY in 1999. In 2000 it cut all specialty physician residency slots nationwide by 25%. In some surgical subspecialties, reimburstments from the govt programs are an 80% discount from normal fees...docs running from them now, retirements are accelerated. Importation of foreign docs has slowed..rest of world resisting loss of their docs..lots of foreign docs in this country cannot get state licenses....go to a restaurant without a waiter or waitress...no food, same with medical care...either party is essentially offering at great cost a vending medical healthcare system with long lines..WIsconsin recently adopted the Dim version of the Rep version of (Romneys) in Mass...in WIs the cost of the plan is $3 bil more than the entire tax base collections....eom
And people wonder why folks here refuse to donate to the Republicans?
Duh?
It's not like anyone was given a choice about this system... well some President somewhere did suggest changes but many at FR seemed to have other priorities at the time and didn't bother hammering Congress over THAT issue. Snooze you lose, I guess.
That's my whole point--once it's forced in place, the attitude is "Well, I would have voted it down when it came up, BUT since it's HERE now, I want my share!"
Which is precisely what the proponents of Nanny Government want.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Agreed. And my point is where was FR when a President did offer an alternative that would allow younger people to keep some of their own money? AARP was all over the issue. It will be a long, long time if ever a President has the stones to offer something like that again.
Probably bitching about our ports being taken over by mooslims or some other media-whipped-up non-issue.
You could see their power in the first, SR 1639 cloture vote. We saw many Senators thought solid... turn to mush before our eyes. It was only the deluge of phone calls, emails and letters that brought them to their senses before the second vote.
The nomination of a Rudy McRomney in 2008 would signify the high water mark for this RINO coup.
Uh perhaps because people kept voting for their sorry hides each and every time they were up for re-election because Da Boogieman might get in office otherwise? Well the lesser of the two evils vote liberal also. Bush will not VETO this bill. Bush has been a supporter of this very thing since 1999. Actually he complimented a fellow RINO Friend of his who nearly bankrupted our state over this very issue.
Excerpted from a Bush 2000 press release.
Re-elected to a second term last year with a record 69 percent of the vote, Governor Sundquist has initiated unprecedented reforms in Tennessee in the areas of welfare, government and crime, while placing a special emphasis on Tennessee children. Under his watch, the growth of government spending has been cut by more than half; the number of employable adults on welfare has been reduced by 60 percent; and Tennessee became the first state in the nation to connect every public school and library to the Internet and to offer universal health care coverage to all children.
Yeah we got played plenty in the last 4 years. Also on the SS issue specifically, I suspect we have more members collecting (or near collecting) than we have young people who would have benefited from the change so we're no less motivated by self-interest than anyone else. The real fools were younger people who couldn't get over their Bush-hatred to see the freedom he was offering. As a result we all know how Soc Security will be "fixed" - by eating the young.
amother backdoor by the lib/dems and no cajone republicans to give amnesty and all benefits to illegals...
no way jorge bush will veto this piece of crappola!!!
I think he will veto it. I will send some email encouragement to do just that. Why don’t you?
This bill cuts medicare for seniors to help pay for the expansion of health insurance for children up to 25, so I guess that seniors are giving up part of their SS benefits.
My point, if you read it in context, is that no one WOULD give up their SS check--as in willingly GIVE, not have something taken away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.