WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

 

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto."

 

"Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America. "

 

The White House sought little attention, with Bush casting his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage. He was discussing it later Wednesday during a budget speech in Lancaster, Pa.

 

Socialized medicine?

The State Children's Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

 

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

 

The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.

 

Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families.

 

Democrats deny that, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

 

Veto override considerations

Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But this was not the case in the House, where despite sizable Republican support, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override.

 

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far.

 

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's expected veto.

 

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out."

 

It took Bush six years to veto his first bill, when he blocked expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells last summer. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research.

 

In the case of the health insurance program, the veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public.

 

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.

 

And 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 issue.

 

Link

It's at least good to see that the Republicans may join with the Dems to fight this one.

 

Really bad move by the Prez.

It's a stupid veto. Who cares what the original intent of the program is? The goal of this country should be to eventually have health coverage for every legal resident within our borders. Children are a great place to start. I don't see why it matters that the original intent of the program was to cover the poorest children not covered by Medicaid. If there are still children who are too poor to get private insurance then why are we artificially drawing a line at some level that does not provide complete coverage of all children?

 

I'm all for fiscal responsibility and maybe this program covers thousands of kids who don't really need it, but a) the cutoff level was determined by a bipartisan compromise, and b) I figure its better to err on the safe side and provide too much coverage, rather than fall short. I'm not in favor of needlessly throwing away dollars, and I'm sure there is at least some excess here, but since we can't be sure where to draw the line, the fact the line was determined by both parties, and the fact that this bill passed both houses by a sizable majority...to me, that makes this a stupid veto. Yes, you need to prioritize spending, but health insurance for children is one of those things where you spend whatever you need to spend to make sure everyone is covered. I can think of at least one way to save $7 billion a year easily, but I won't get into that.

Bush vetoing something over cost.

 

 

Ironic.

$35 billion over 5 years for lower-middle class child health care in comparison to the $190 billion requested for the next year in Iraq?

 

 

 

Is there something I'm missing here?

$35 billion over 5 years for lower-middle class child health care in comparison to the $190 billion requested for the next year in Iraq?

 

 

 

Is there something I'm missing here?

 

Yep, the fact that it will be funded with a tax on tobacco, thereby making people less inclined to use an extremely unhealthy product. So not only does it help create healthy kids, who will cost less down the road, but it makes general society even healthier.

$35 billion over 5 years for lower-middle class child health care in comparison to the $190 billion requested for the next year in Iraq?

 

 

 

Is there something I'm missing here?

 

Yep, the fact that it will be funded with a tax on tobacco, thereby making people less inclined to use an extremely unhealthy product. So not only does it help create healthy kids, who will cost less down the road, but it makes general society even healthier.

 

hahaha. that is funny.

 

so the fact that i smoke, something i won't stop doing because i enjoy it immensely and adds to my quality of life, means i should pay for children's health care and you don't?

This is GREAT news! Now poor kids will die off sooner thereby being a much lesser strain on our economy in terms of food stamps, healthcare, education, and prison space. Well done, sir!

 

My only concern is; if all the poor kids die, who will volunteer to join our armed services? I sure hope this doesn't lead to a draft.

 

:mischief

$35 billion over 5 years for lower-middle class child health care in comparison to the $190 billion requested for the next year in Iraq?

 

 

 

Is there something I'm missing here?

 

Yep, the fact that it will be funded with a tax on tobacco, thereby making people less inclined to use an extremely unhealthy product. So not only does it help create healthy kids, who will cost less down the road, but it makes general society even healthier.

 

hahaha. that is funny.

 

so the fact that i smoke, something i won't stop doing because i enjoy it immensely and adds to my quality of life, means i should pay for children's health care and you don't?

 

Yes. Same reason that your immense enjoyment of such a useless product makes you so damn unhealthy, gives you such immense medical costs, and makes your health insurance company pump out so many dollars for you and people like you when you get lung cancer and other major ailments, that I pay for you via higher health insurance premiums. Thank you for increasing my costs.

$35 billion over 5 years for lower-middle class child health care in comparison to the $190 billion requested for the next year in Iraq?

 

 

 

Is there something I'm missing here?

 

Yep, the fact that it will be funded with a tax on tobacco, thereby making people less inclined to use an extremely unhealthy product. So not only does it help create healthy kids, who will cost less down the road, but it makes general society even healthier.

 

hahaha. that is funny.

 

so the fact that i smoke, something i won't stop doing because i enjoy it immensely and adds to my quality of life, means i should pay for children's health care and you don't?

 

Yes. Same reason that your immense enjoyment of such a useless product makes you so damn unhealthy, gives you such immense medical costs, and makes your health insurance company pump out so many dollars for you and people like you when you get lung cancer and other major ailments, that I pay for you via higher health insurance premiums. Thank you for increasing my costs.

 

Bitch slapped.

$35 billion over 5 years for lower-middle class child health care in comparison to the $190 billion requested for the next year in Iraq?

 

 

 

Is there something I'm missing here?

 

Yep, the fact that it will be funded with a tax on tobacco, thereby making people less inclined to use an extremely unhealthy product. So not only does it help create healthy kids, who will cost less down the road, but it makes general society even healthier.

 

hahaha. that is funny.

 

so the fact that i smoke, something i won't stop doing because i enjoy it immensely and adds to my quality of life, means i should pay for children's health care and you don't?

 

Yes. Same reason that your immense enjoyment of such a useless product makes you so damn unhealthy, gives you such immense medical costs, and makes your health insurance company pump out so many dollars for you and people like you when you get lung cancer and other major ailments, that I pay for you via higher health insurance premiums. Thank you for increasing my costs.

 

that my friend you take it up with your insurance company.

 

if they unjustly charge you more for your premium that's what should be fixed. we all engage in activities that are harmful to our health, yet smoking, something that to the contrary i find to be rather healthy, is the one that gets targeted.

we all engage in activities that are harmful to our health, yet smoking, something that to the contrary i find to be rather healthy, is the one that gets targeted.

:blink:

 

Did I read that right? You think smoking is HEALTHY?

we all engage in activities that are harmful to our health, yet smoking, something that to the contrary i find to be rather healthy, is the one that gets targeted.

:blink:

 

Did I read that right? You think smoking is HEALTHY?

 

:lol

we all engage in activities that are harmful to our health, yet smoking, something that to the contrary i find to be rather healthy, is the one that gets targeted.

:blink:

 

Did I read that right? You think smoking is HEALTHY?

 

 

yes. I think that when I'm on the palmetto at 5 pm in the afternoon, in the middle of very stressful bumper to bumper traffic, with people honking at, cutting off and flicking each other in the middle of south florida's summer it is very healthy to pull out a cigar and relax. believe me, stress will kill you a lot faster than any cigar would.

I do not agree with the discriminatory aspect of this bill against smokers. Actually it f***ing pisses me off.

This is GREAT news! Now poor kids will die off sooner thereby being a much lesser strain on our economy in terms of food stamps, healthcare, education, and prison space. Well done, sir!

 

My only concern is; if all the poor kids die, who will volunteer to join our armed services? I sure hope this doesn't lead to a draft.

 

:mischief

Unfortunately you're all too right....

 

Since this is a generational thing, according to the President, they better start getting those kids ready for Baghdad soon.

I do not agree with the discriminatory aspect of this bill against smokers. Actually it f***ing pisses me off.

Which raises a legitimate point. I'm not a smoker but I don't think the federal government should be allowed to regulate tobacco usage unless it infringes upon the rights of others. People need to make their own choices and take personal responsibility. And quite frankly the way our society is right now with respect to the rest of the world, in the interests of public health, a Baconator tax makes a hell of a lot more sense than a tobacco tax does.

holy crap, something we agee on...i am a smoker(but light one at that...i have like 4 cigarettes on the average day)...but here in massachusetts it costs 5.50 a pack...which is utterly ridiculous...and it doesnt deter me from smoking...it just makes me want to strangle anyone who thinks taxing cigarettes is a good idea...

I do not agree with the discriminatory aspect of this bill against smokers. Actually it f***ing pisses me off.

Which raises a legitimate point. I'm not a smoker but I don't think the federal government should be allowed to regulate tobacco usage unless it infringes upon the rights of others. People need to make their own choices and take personal responsibility. And quite frankly the way our society is right now with respect to the rest of the world, in the interests of public health, a Baconator tax makes a hell of a lot more sense than a tobacco tax does.

holy crap, something we agee on...i am a smoker(but light one at that...i have like 4 cigarettes on the average day)...but here in massachusetts it costs 5.50 a pack...which is utterly ridiculous...and it doesnt deter me from smoking...it just makes me want to strangle anyone who thinks taxing cigarettes is a good idea...

 

Of course you are for a million and one government programs as long as YOU don't have to pay for any of them. That's what the rich are for.

I do not agree with the discriminatory aspect of this bill against smokers. Actually it f***ing pisses me off.

Which raises a legitimate point. I'm not a smoker but I don't think the federal government should be allowed to regulate tobacco usage unless it infringes upon the rights of others. People need to make their own choices and take personal responsibility. And quite frankly the way our society is right now with respect to the rest of the world, in the interests of public health, a Baconator tax makes a hell of a lot more sense than a tobacco tax does.

holy crap, something we agee on...i am a smoker(but light one at that...i have like 4 cigarettes on the average day)...but here in massachusetts it costs 5.50 a pack...which is utterly ridiculous...and it doesnt deter me from smoking...it just makes me want to strangle anyone who thinks taxing cigarettes is a good idea...

 

Of course you are for a million and one government programs as long as YOU don't have to pay for any of them. That's what the rich are for.

no...i believe our government needs to be as small as possible...but helping the poor and youth is one of the needed responsibilities of government...but hey, at least you didnt put words in my mouth...when you assume, you are only making an ass out of yourself

I do not agree with the discriminatory aspect of this bill against smokers. Actually it f***ing pisses me off.

Which raises a legitimate point. I'm not a smoker but I don't think the federal government should be allowed to regulate tobacco usage unless it infringes upon the rights of others. People need to make their own choices and take personal responsibility. And quite frankly the way our society is right now with respect to the rest of the world, in the interests of public health, a Baconator tax makes a hell of a lot more sense than a tobacco tax does.

holy crap, something we agee on...i am a smoker(but light one at that...i have like 4 cigarettes on the average day)...but here in massachusetts it costs 5.50 a pack...which is utterly ridiculous...and it doesnt deter me from smoking...it just makes me want to strangle anyone who thinks taxing cigarettes is a good idea...

 

Of course you are for a million and one government programs as long as YOU don't have to pay for any of them. That's what the rich are for.

no...i believe our government needs to be as small as possible...but helping the poor and youth is one of the needed responsibilities of government...but hey, at least you didnt put words in my mouth...when you assume, you are only making an ass out of yourself

 

I'll put my balls in your mouth, how about that?

I'll put my balls in your mouth, how about that?

 

:lol

Is this the first disciminatory tax in history? I may be wrong, but isn't a good chunk of the new Marlins stadium coming from TOURIST tax money, which is even more counterintuitive economically than a tobacco tax? What about taxes on alcohol taxes? Porn taxes(not that I have extensive knowledge of this or anything)?

 

Regardless, even if it was a general tax, vetoing it is really dumb.

Porn taxes(not that I have extensive knowledge of this or anything)?

 

I do, and it pisses me off!

I'm not in favor of the cigarette tax, either. I meant to mention that in my original post, but I guess I forgot. And believe me, I'm all for cutting smoking out of most places, but this doesn't sit right with me. Smokers shouldn't be singled out as the funders of this program. And anyway, is this really supposed to help prevent smoking? Hell, it almost makes me want to pick up a cigarette. Every time you light up and someone bitches at you, you can say you're doing it for the children.

Is this the first disciminatory tax in history? I may be wrong, but isn't a good chunk of the new Marlins stadium coming from TOURIST tax money, which is even more counterintuitive economically than a tobacco tax? What about taxes on alcohol taxes? Porn taxes(not that I have extensive knowledge of this or anything)?

 

Regardless, even if it was a general tax, vetoing it is really dumb.

 

 

Sure, let's keep giving the government more money, they really manage it well.