Republican Party Spokesman Bill Kristol: “Heartless Assault On Children” Is “A Good Idea”
Showing posts with label Child Health Insurance Program. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Child Health Insurance Program. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
House Passes New SCHIP Legislation
The House of Representatives approved an enhanced version of the popular SCHIP child healthcare program, by a vote of 265 to 159... just short of being Veto proof. See how members voted.
The Senate is also expected to pass the legislation later this week.
This is a battle that Bush might lose. Republicans, concerned about next years elections, may be willing to switch their votes in hopes of averting bad PR. It's hard to know if enough Republicans would be willing to change their votes to override a Veto.
__________________________________
Previous blog entries on SCHIP
SCHIP Deal Forces Bush's Hand On Veto
Bush To Veto Child Healthcare Program
The Senate is also expected to pass the legislation later this week.
This is a battle that Bush might lose. Republicans, concerned about next years elections, may be willing to switch their votes in hopes of averting bad PR. It's hard to know if enough Republicans would be willing to change their votes to override a Veto.
__________________________________
Previous blog entries on SCHIP
SCHIP Deal Forces Bush's Hand On Veto
Bush To Veto Child Healthcare Program
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Deal on SCHIP Forces Bush's Hand on Veto
Hat tip: Politico.com:
Of course Bush is going to veto it. Can't have children being covered by insurance. Oh, there's money for his War Profiteering buddies in Iraq, but making sure that children have health insurance, well we can't have that, can we? We can spend 400 Billion in Iraq, and Billions of that has been wasted,if not out and out stolen and just looted by his friends, but 35 Billion to make sure that children are healthy - can't have that. Suddenly he become a fiscal conservative. Wouldn't want those children to be healthy. If they weren't born to a well-off family, then why do they deserve health care? Where are the pro-lifers on this? Where are they on the health of children already here?
___________________________________
Previous Post Regarding Bush's Schip Veto Threat
Deal on children's health bill sets up veto showdown
Despite a clear veto threat from President Bush, Democratic and Republican negotiators on Friday announced a breakthrough deal on the children's health insurance program, agreeing to expand the initiative by $35 billion in an attempt to provide health care to million more uninsured children.
The agreement sets up a major showdown with the White House over a key domestic policy initiative backed by Democrats as well as a growing number of GOP moderates. The House will vote on the bill Tuesday and the Senate could vote as early as Wednesday. President Bush has promised to veto the legislation, and even though the Senate has the votes to override Bush's veto, the House does not yet have the votes for an override. It takes a two-thirds vote in both chambers to override a presidential veto.
The expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) will be funded by a 61 cent increase per pack of cigarettes. While conservative Republicans, along with President Bush, have said they will never support any tax increase, plenty of Republicans in both chambers seem to find a tobacco tax increase more palatable than virtually any other potential tax hike.
Under a deal announced Friday afternoon, dental coverage, along with mental health benefits, will be provided to all children eligible for the SCHIP program. Pregnant women will also receive expanded coverage under the deal. The program, which currently covers 6.6 million uninsured children, could provide benefits to up to four million more children.
The joint announcement by Senate and House leaders released Friday also pointed out that children of higher income families will not receive the SCHIP benefits. President Bush, in his press conference yesterday, complained that congressional negotiators wanted to provide the health benefits to children in families making about $80,000, but several lawmakers pointed out that there is no such provision in the legislation.
Moderate Republicans like Ray LaHood of Illinois are hoping Bush doesn't veto the bill.
"This is a good bipartisan compromise to help the millions of uninsured children in our country," LaHood said. "Whatever financial strains a family may endure, it should have no impact on the type and quality of care their child receives for health related matters. I support this bill and will encourage my Republican colleagues to do the same."
Of course Bush is going to veto it. Can't have children being covered by insurance. Oh, there's money for his War Profiteering buddies in Iraq, but making sure that children have health insurance, well we can't have that, can we? We can spend 400 Billion in Iraq, and Billions of that has been wasted,if not out and out stolen and just looted by his friends, but 35 Billion to make sure that children are healthy - can't have that. Suddenly he become a fiscal conservative. Wouldn't want those children to be healthy. If they weren't born to a well-off family, then why do they deserve health care? Where are the pro-lifers on this? Where are they on the health of children already here?
___________________________________
Previous Post Regarding Bush's Schip Veto Threat
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
The John Edwards Healthcare Plan Falls Short
I was reading through John Edward's healthcare proposal recently, and I realized how much it left the private (for profit) structure in place. Private, for profit health insurance companies, employers, drug companies and hospitals will remain in control of our healthcare. Is this Edward's idea of Comprehensive Universal Healthcare coverage? Edwards doesn't seem to understand that the fundamental underlying problem with the American healthcare system is the concept of for profit entities making healthcare decisions rather than doctors. When decision-makers stand to make windfall profits, the best interests of the patient takes a back seat.
The Edwards plan appears to be a fancy way of maintaining the status quo. His "Universal Healthcare" does not = a national system that we need. The Edwards plan keeps the HMO's in the drivers seat. Over time, they would be able to wiggle out of their responsibilities, through their lobbying efforts in Washington.... and within a few years, we would right back in this same position again. As savvy as the insurance industry is, I don't think they would have a problem gaming the system for their own advantage. See the Edwards Healthcare plan (pdf). The Edwards plan would still require workers to have money deducted from their wages for part of the premium costs and there would still be some out of pocket expense.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate that I know of who has a truly Universal, National Healthcare plan that would take the control away from the private, for profit health industry - an industry that is primarily concerned about making money rather than the health of Americans. The Kucinich Plan more closely mirrors the health systems of Canada and Europe.
Kucinich is the co-sponsor of House Bill H.R. 676, which would create this National healthcare plan. The Bill is currently circulating through Congress and has considerable support. The Kucinich plan puts patients and Doctors in charge of making healthcare decisions. There would also be little out of pocket costs for hospital/office visits. This would be a taxpayer supported system, like the systems that exist in the UK and Canada, but such a plan would eliminate the vultures from the system, making services more efficient. More of the money that is spent would go towards healthcare instead of filling the pockets of a middle man. The U.S. already spends twice and three times the money on healthcare as other countries that have better not-for-profit systems. If they can do it, why can't we- the richest nation on earth?
It is unfortunate that the man with the best Healthcare proposal doesn't have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination, let alone a General election. American voters are motivated more by style than substance. Ignorance about the issues and about the candidates has become a way of life for the American voter.
Unfortunately, despite significant support in Congress and from medical professionals, the Bill stands little chance of becoming law. The lobbyists who work for the insurance companies and the drug companies are working overtime in an effort to kill the Bill. And even if it passes in the House, it will not likely get through the Senate. If it ever reached Bush's desk, it is no secret that the Bill would be vetoed.
Watch as Kucinich briefly discusses his health proposal.
The Edwards plan appears to be a fancy way of maintaining the status quo. His "Universal Healthcare" does not = a national system that we need. The Edwards plan keeps the HMO's in the drivers seat. Over time, they would be able to wiggle out of their responsibilities, through their lobbying efforts in Washington.... and within a few years, we would right back in this same position again. As savvy as the insurance industry is, I don't think they would have a problem gaming the system for their own advantage. See the Edwards Healthcare plan (pdf). The Edwards plan would still require workers to have money deducted from their wages for part of the premium costs and there would still be some out of pocket expense.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate that I know of who has a truly Universal, National Healthcare plan that would take the control away from the private, for profit health industry - an industry that is primarily concerned about making money rather than the health of Americans. The Kucinich Plan more closely mirrors the health systems of Canada and Europe.
Kucinich is the co-sponsor of House Bill H.R. 676, which would create this National healthcare plan. The Bill is currently circulating through Congress and has considerable support. The Kucinich plan puts patients and Doctors in charge of making healthcare decisions. There would also be little out of pocket costs for hospital/office visits. This would be a taxpayer supported system, like the systems that exist in the UK and Canada, but such a plan would eliminate the vultures from the system, making services more efficient. More of the money that is spent would go towards healthcare instead of filling the pockets of a middle man. The U.S. already spends twice and three times the money on healthcare as other countries that have better not-for-profit systems. If they can do it, why can't we- the richest nation on earth?
It is unfortunate that the man with the best Healthcare proposal doesn't have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination, let alone a General election. American voters are motivated more by style than substance. Ignorance about the issues and about the candidates has become a way of life for the American voter.
Unfortunately, despite significant support in Congress and from medical professionals, the Bill stands little chance of becoming law. The lobbyists who work for the insurance companies and the drug companies are working overtime in an effort to kill the Bill. And even if it passes in the House, it will not likely get through the Senate. If it ever reached Bush's desk, it is no secret that the Bill would be vetoed.
Watch as Kucinich briefly discusses his health proposal.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Bush To Veto Child Health Insurance Bill
Well well well....
It looks like compassionate Conservatism is rearing its head once again.
Coming on the heels of Michael Moore's Sicko, Bush & Co. gives the middle finger to America's children- pledging to veto a new child healthcare Bill. They supposedly believe in "Family Values", but apparently they don't value the idea of healthy families. Interesting irony indeed.
Bush & Co. does not support an increase of a few billion dollars per year over the next few years (to total $35 billion). The increase would expand the existing Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) which is scheduled to expire at the end of September. The proposed increase would provide insurance for an additional 4 million uninsured children. But Bush & Co. advisors are encouraging George W. to veto the Bill....it is just not worth the investment. Yet the U.S. wastes $10 billion EVERY MONTH on the unneccesary war in Iraq. (1) Even Republican members of Congress are challenging Bush & Co. on this Bill and are not happy about the planned veto.
Meet Susie Flynn, a 10 year old running for President as a way to put pressure on the 2008 Presidential candidates to make healthcare for children a priority. The above Bill is the legislation that she was promoting. This just illustrates how screwed up America's priorities are.
It looks like compassionate Conservatism is rearing its head once again.
Coming on the heels of Michael Moore's Sicko, Bush & Co. gives the middle finger to America's children- pledging to veto a new child healthcare Bill. They supposedly believe in "Family Values", but apparently they don't value the idea of healthy families. Interesting irony indeed.
Bush & Co. does not support an increase of a few billion dollars per year over the next few years (to total $35 billion). The increase would expand the existing Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) which is scheduled to expire at the end of September. The proposed increase would provide insurance for an additional 4 million uninsured children. But Bush & Co. advisors are encouraging George W. to veto the Bill....it is just not worth the investment. Yet the U.S. wastes $10 billion EVERY MONTH on the unneccesary war in Iraq. (1) Even Republican members of Congress are challenging Bush & Co. on this Bill and are not happy about the planned veto.
Meet Susie Flynn, a 10 year old running for President as a way to put pressure on the 2008 Presidential candidates to make healthcare for children a priority. The above Bill is the legislation that she was promoting. This just illustrates how screwed up America's priorities are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
