October 4th, 2007
08:50 AM ET
7 years ago

Congress regroups after SCHIP veto

Watch Dana Bash's report about what Congress is doing to respond to President Bush's veto.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Dana Bash reports on the Congressional response to President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill. The legislation would have expanded federal funding for childrens' health insurance coverage and it had bipartisan support - though not currently enough support to pass the bill over Wednesday's veto.

More: Democrats begin to push to override veto of kids health insurance bill


Filed under: Congress • President Bush • SCHIP
soundoff (65 Responses)
  1. Ryan, New York, NY

    Ryan in Indianapolis,
    You're awfully violent to people who disagree with you. You might want to seek some counseling or at least control what you say. Otherwise, secret service might show up if the death threats/wishes continue. You and your Republican buddies have been expecting that treatment when someone advocates Bush and Cheney being tried and punished for treason, so realize that the shoe fits for one, it fits for the other.

    You're going to love all the expansion of presidential powers that Dick & George fought for after a Democrat takes office.

    It's just too bad that your people were only thinking about what power could do for them, not what it could do in the hands of your opponents when they obtain it.

    October 4, 2007 01:56 pm at 1:56 pm |
  2. Tom - Dedham, Mass

    This is just another way for the Democrats to install their "cradle to grave socialistic plans".

    By implementing this, they will gain and keep votes of the sheep that think it is the governments sole job to TAKE CARE OF THEM.

    My wife and I make a little more than that amount with 2 children, I pay about $300 a month for a family plan that includes us all and I will be damned if I will pay for someone elses insurance that makes $83,000 (poor?) and is 25 years old (children).

    Just like Bush said, let's take care of the POOR CHILDREN FIRST AND I AGREE WITH THAT.

    Even as a "mean" republican I will write that check TODAY.

    Do you realize who smokes in this country more than anyone, THE POOR, so the Dumocrats propose to tax the hell out of them to PAY for their healthcare?

    You are against a so called "poll tax" to prove who you are to vote, but you are all ok with a "Health tax" that will cost these folks a lot more.

    What happens after some people do quit, who will pay for this expanded program then?

    Do ANY of you believe that SOMEONE will keep track of how much comes in in regards to the taxes and will SOMEONE make sure the extra TAXES will be USED JUST FOR THIS?

    I got this bridge for sale.

    Let's go after twinkie, ho-ho and beef eaters, A BUCKET OF KFC WILL NOW COST ME $25 using that rational.

    The same party that wants to ban smoking (I don't smoke), now wants to USE the smokers to pay for their grandiose power grab, bah, bah, bah.

    October 4, 2007 02:26 pm at 2:26 pm |
  3. JB Boston MA

    How many of the people who are mouthing off about how evil Bush is, smoke?

    Relevant question, because if you don't smoke, of course you will be all for this. It don't hurt ya!!!

    If the majority of the public (like you all say) is for this then they ALL should pay for it.

    Finally, since when did $83,000 become poor? And when did 25 become a child.

    Is that your definition of poor child Ms. Pelosi, you lying sack of. . . . .

    October 4, 2007 03:00 pm at 3:00 pm |
  4. Tim, Seattle

    Here we go again with the cop-out 'socialized medicine 'line.
    I will ask this again because I have asked 6 times in the last week on various posts and have yet to get a real answer.
    So I ask again...
    What is the republican plan to cover the 47 million uninsured in this country? If you dont have a plan, you are going to be asked for one once we get to a national debate (if not sooner). If you dont have a plan, voters can only assume you could care less. And then you LOSE! This is the #2 issue next to Iraq, so if you dont have a plan, your party is going to lose.
    Hillary has a plan which is being pretty well received (and scrutinized) by many in the healthcare industry. Not a perfect plan, but it is a plan and there is room for bi-partisan tweaking to make it better. It is also out there to be debated.

    Where is the GOP on healthcare?

    And please, I dont want to hear about long lines in Canada or clinics in France or other deflecting blather about socialism. What is your plan, GOP?

    October 4, 2007 03:48 pm at 3:48 pm |
  5. Reggie , Anaheim, Ca.

    Insurance companies won't pay for pre-existing imformailities! The insurance companies doesn't want to pay for even normal claims! Again, we are surrounded
    by greed and ignorance! Until you are faced with the realities of many other
    Americans suffering from a broken healthcare system you have little room talk!

    Being sick has no political preference!
    Watch Sicko by Mike Moore if you don't want to read about our broken system!
    Beyond the Pale! If I was insured I'd
    go to the broken system to see a doctor because king moron makes sick to my stomach!

    One more thing a lady had both breast
    removed for a incorrect diagnosis of breast cancer! Healthcare for profit
    is un-American and dangerous!

    October 4, 2007 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  6. JDS N.C.

    HEY SARAH HSA ARE A GREAT OPTION FOR ALL INCOME AND AGE GROUPS YOU IGNORANT FOOL. MOST WHO ELECT THIS COVERAGE DONT MIND TO HAVE ALL THEIR RX AND MEDICAL COSTS APPLYING TO THIER DEDUCTIBLE. MOST HSA OFFER FREE PREVENTATIVE/WELLNESS CARE AS A PART OF THE PLAN. NO OUT OF POCKET TO STAY WELL. THEY ARE EXTREMELY POPULAR. ADD IN THE TAX BENEFITS TO MAKING YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HSA IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE PRACTICAL. HSA ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE BUT WHAT I HAVE SEEN THEY MEET A PERFECT SOLUTION. THOSE WHO ARE CLOSE TO 65 FIND THESE VERY ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE THEY HAVE FUNDS TO PLACE IN THE HSA MORE THAN A YOUNG PERSON. MORE CHOICE IS A GOOD THING RATHER THAN ONE PLAN FOR EVERYONE.

    October 4, 2007 04:08 pm at 4:08 pm |
  7. Reid - St. Louis, MO

    Yippee!

    I can't wait to dump my insurance!

    The GUBMINT is gonna pick up the tab for me!

    Let's see... nearly 500 bones extra each month to spend on all sorts of stuff. I'm gonna buy an iPod and a new computer and some bling and maybe a new cell phone. Oh, and maybe some shiny new 24-inch rims for my hoopty!

    Long live the Nanny State!

    October 4, 2007 04:29 pm at 4:29 pm |
  8. Chip Celina OH

    Ryan, NY
    I could be wrong, but I thought the Declaration of Independence guaranteed "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

    I think you are wrong on this one. What this is that government will not TAKE your life, TAKE your liberty nor obstruct the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't mean that gov't will PROVIDE your life, liberty or pursuit.

    If gov't wouldn't steal 33% of my income (there's that liberty thing) I would certainly spread it around to those less fortunate than me. I do that right now, but could do more if they didn't take it so they could fly first class on their routine trips.

    Happy Thursday,

    October 4, 2007 04:30 pm at 4:30 pm |
  9. Randy S. Lawton, OK

    To Terry in El Paso
    Yes a Democratic candidate has proposed socialized medicine, it is currently being referred to as Hillary-care. You need to really check out her proposals. Then ask yourself why so many Canadian doctors now practice their skills in America.
    Folks, comparing this bill to the Iraq war is apples and oranges. Don't get me wrong, the war is a senseless, shameless, egregious waste of money. Nevertheless these are two separate issues, each worthy of its own debate.
    I still maintain that the SCHIP is too expansive as currently written and hopefully it will have to be cut back before passage.
    I make a little better than $60K a year, I'm a single parent of a teenager and yet I maintain both health and dental coverage for the both of us. Why should I have to pay medical costs for someone making $83K?
    Congress' time would be better spent trying to get a handle on the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. If they did that, millions of folks that currently cannot, would be able to afford health insurance. Let's put the blame and guilt where it truly lies.

    October 4, 2007 04:31 pm at 4:31 pm |
  10. Chris, Orlando, FL

    BOO HOO! While all of you were partying up a storm I worked hard in school, have a great job, and don't need government handouts.

    I certainly don't want to pay for you....get the right training/education, get the right job and GET A LIFE....the only thing holding YOU back is YOU.

    None of the politicians will do anything for YOU.

    October 4, 2007 04:47 pm at 4:47 pm |
  11. Ryan, New York, NY

    David,
    First, you're mistaking the Decl. of Independence for the Constitution. Second, Jefferson took those words from Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government, where he claims that the inalienable rights of man are "life, liberty, and property." By the way, you do realize that Locke was one major founders of "liberalism," so when what does that say of his followers and those who create governments under his teachings.

    As for your argument, if you acquire a curable disease, are refused treatment, and die, I hate to tell you, but you've been indirectly murdered. Take that however you want in relation to our current health care system.

    October 4, 2007 05:26 pm at 5:26 pm |
  12. Anonymous

    Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hitlery Clinton, all stoges of George Sorros,
    I can't wait until next year in the elections that Reid will be sent back to NV to the tumble weeds, Pelosi will lose too, Hitlery, she will lose to Romney or Thompsen, thank god for that.

    October 4, 2007 09:30 pm at 9:30 pm |
  13. EUGENE A. PITTS, FAYETTEVILLE, NC

    THE PRESIDENT VETO IS JUST MORE DEMONIZING THE POOR AND MID-CLASS IN THIS COUNTRY. I WISH HE WERE POOR AND NEEDED HEALTH CARE FOR HIS FAMILY. HE WOULD THINK DIFFERENTTIRED
    LY. HE CAN SPEND BILLIONS ON A WAR AND NOT SPEND BILLION TO HELP THE POOR. WHAT KIND OF MAN IS THIS. I'M A RETIRED SOLDIER AND GOOD ALONE WITH THIS WAR SPENDING AND NOT SPENDING ON THE AMERICAN POOR.

    October 5, 2007 01:11 pm at 1:11 pm |
  14. JB Boston MA

    $51,000 is for a single working parent. When two parents work, it jumps to $83,000. Just the facts.

    Someone recently said this should be a State issue because cost of living differs drastically state to state. That makes alot of sense.

    Also, why just smokers? It is almost like picking on people that don't have a voice.

    And don't forget an illegal can come over the border with 10 kids, and they are immediately eligible. That is messed up!

    October 5, 2007 02:17 pm at 2:17 pm |
  15. xtina - chicago IL

    I agree with the commentor who says we need to do health care more cheaply and broadly in this country.

    However, the answer isn't the government. Look at all the states and cities that go on shut-down because they exceed their budget. Look at the USPS, having those forever stamps because they're desperate for cash. State nursing homes are horrible. Look at the slow, shoddy quality of service at govt agencies. Why in the world would you want your health entrusted to any govt employee.

    October 5, 2007 02:28 pm at 2:28 pm |
1 2 3