Posted on 10/14/2007 12:18:26 PM PDT by upchuck
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democratic leaders said Sunday they were working to gather votes to override a veto on a popular children's health program, but pledged to find a way to cover millions without insurance should their effort fail.
In talk show interviews, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer did not dispute claims by Republican leaders that the GOP will have enough votes to sustain President Bush's veto when the House holds its override vote on Thursday.
Pelosi and Hoyer promised to pass another bipartisan bill if needed.
"Isn't that sad for America's children?" said Pelosi, D-Calif., when asked about the GOP's assurances the override vote will fail. "It doesn't mean we aren't working hard throughout the country: governors, mayors, people who deal with children on a regular basis.
"We'll try very hard to override it. But one thing's for sure: We won't rest until those 10 million children have health care," she said in an interview broadcast Sunday.
Hoyer, D-Md., declined to predict Thursday's vote.
"This is a defining moment for the Republican Party, in my opinion," Hoyer said, before adding later: The program is "not going to die. We're going to go back and we're going to pass another bill."
House Democrats scheduled the vote after Bush earlier this month vetoed legislation that would increase spending for the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has called for a $5 billion increase.
An override requires a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate. The Senate approved the increase by a veto-proof margin, but the earlier House vote fell about two dozen votes short.
The program provides health insurance to children in families with incomes too great for Medicaid eligibility but not enough to afford private insurance. Bush has said the bill is too costly. The president now says he might be willing to provide more than $5 billion originally offered but that the current proposal shifts too much insurance burden onto the government rather than private providers.
On Sunday, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he hopes that Democrats will agree to negotiate once the veto is sustained so that the children's insurance program can be reauthorized.
"We will have the votes to sustain the president's veto," Boehner said. "And I think the differences are resolvable, but we're standing on our principle that poor kids ought to come first."
"Most people don't want government-run health insurance," he added. "Republicans are working on a plan that will provide access to all Americans to high-quality health insurance, make sure that we increase the quality of health insurance that we have in America."
Last week, Pelosi said Democrats were making some progress and hoped to "peel off about 14 votes" to override the veto. Republicans such as Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah also were working to sway wavering House GOP lawmakers.
On Sunday, Pelosi did not comment on the predicted vote tally.
"We'll take one step at a time. And, again, we'll maintain our bipartisanship and our fiscal soundness," she said. "And we'll talk to the president at the right time, when he makes an overture to do so, but not an overture that says, 'This is the only thing I'm going to sign.'"
Pelosi spoke on ABC's "This Week," and Hoyer and Boehner appeared on "Fox News Sunday."
1. This bill is funded by increasing the tax on cigarettes. This funding source is already declining due to the number of people giving up smoking. What are the RATs plans for funding when the cigarette tax increase is no longer enough?
2. As proposed by the RATs, this bill, originally designed for folks just barely outside Medicaid, will pay benefits for families earning in excess of $80,000 per year and will cover "kids" up to 25 years of age.
3. There's nothing "wrong" with the existing bill, especially with the $5,000,000,000 that President Bush wants to add. This BS bill from the RATs is nothing more than one more stealth step towards government run health care.
“Children will get insurance”......YEAH....PAID for BY future CHILDREN who will be indentured to the State/Feds.
Nothing stealth about. These socialists pushing this thing are in our faces with it, but the media is perpetuating the big lie about the specifics. The media are no longer doing their jobs, instead they have blatantly chosen sides. They are nothing but full blown partisan democrats of the worst kind.
The greatest incentive Washington holds to guarantee "children's" healthcare is the political hacks getting their hands on the hard earned labor funding it and skimming some of it off the top.
I’m glad that the Dummies are spending so much time chasing this around, taking as long as possible. It keeps them busy enough that they don’t have time to visit tyrants around the globe or surrender to the terrorists.
When exactly, between the 50s an now, did health care cease being one of the basic obligations of parenthood?
Third, only after food and shelter?
Until I get an answer to that, I am not only unalterably opposed to "health care for children" in any form, but refuse to engage in any discussion of it under the premise that it's a "given".
This "village" **** went waaaaay too far a long time ago!
They can start resting now, because everyone has access to healthcare (
Haven’t heard a thing about funding, or the 25 year olds, or how it is going to be funded, or who ultimately is paying, or the family income increase, only hear Nancy whining about the children, and the mean ol republicans. You would think if it means so much to her she would be the first with the voluntary contributions. How about leading the way Nancy?
Here are a two things that the Democrats will never increase the taxes on in order to fund health care "for the children":
1. Abortions.
2. Legal Fees in Excess of $1,000,000 per case.
I'm sure there are plenty of other things more important to Democrats than adequqtely funding "health care for the children".
Sway wavering House GOP lawmakers which way These days it's hard to tell.
These Marxists (tax and spend Democrats) will not ever be happy. They want to take away the responsibility of parents. They want to take away the hard earned wages of working people. I just wish they were as eager to spend their own money as they are to take and spend taxpayers money. In their vision of the world we will have all of our money taken by the government, leaving us with a small allowance for us to keep, as long as we do not spend any of it on cigarettes, candy, or transfats. When is enough, enough?
I fail to see the connection between health care for children and increasing the tax on cigarettes.
Besides, if Queen Nancy wants to have a bill that “veto-proof”, why doesn’t the house do what the president asked and take out all the unnecessaries that they put in anyway. Big surprise: he vetoed the porked out package!
When will they learn? I’d sure like to see what else got added into the package that the White House recoiled over. Does anybody have the list of any of the earmarks?
1) Does this bill offer coverage to "children" as old as 25?
2) Does this bill permit coverage to illegal alien children?
Thank you.
I wish that the govt would just fix problems with people who have insurance.
People have insurance and they think things are covered, and then it isn’t.
For example, you have an emergency and you are taken to a hospital in an ambulance. The hospital may be part of a the preferred provider insurance, but the emergency room doctor’s aren’t.
You get stuck with paying lots more money.
Or your insurance says that speech therapy is covered. However, once you start therpay you find out that it is only covered if you had a traumatic brain injury and it is not covered if you have a child who doesn’t learn how to speak.
You need a lawyer to figure out what is covered and what isn’t.
It would be nice to just know that if you have insurance, you know that you are covered by a certain amount (70, 80, 90,or 100%), but that is not the way the current system works.
I wish that the govt would just fix problems with people who have insurance.
People have insurance and they think things are covered, and then it isn’t.
For example, you have an emergency and you are taken to a hospital in an ambulance. The hospital may be part of a the preferred provider insurance, but the emergency room doctor’s aren’t.
You get stuck with paying lots more money.
Or your insurance says that speech therapy is covered. However, once you start therpay you find out that it is only covered if you had a traumatic brain injury and it is not covered if you have a child who doesn’t learn how to speak.
You need a lawyer to figure out what is covered and what isn’t.
It would be nice to just know that if you have insurance, you know that you are covered by a certain amount (70, 80, 90,or 100%), but that is not the way the current system works.
btt
Perhaps you can pay for it yourself. You, Teddy Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and all the other millionaires marxists who feel the need to cover these folks.
"It doesn't mean we aren't working hard throughout the country: governors, mayors, people who deal with children on a regular basis.
Oh, please, since when do governors, mayors and legislators deal with children on a regular basis???? Keep your hands out of my pockets and stay away from my children.
Yes, and to think the seventh point in Hillary’s plan is tort reform. LOL.
re your #3: I agree with it but I think the rats primary purpose is to smear Bush and Republicans...again; unfortunately this scam is a winner. Actually it is a win win.
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.