House Fails to Override Child Health Bill Veto

House Fails to Override Child Health Bill Veto


By DAVID STOUT and ROBERT PEAR

Published: October 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 — Supporters of a bill to provide health insurance for 10 million children failed this afternoon, as expected, to muster enough support in the House to override President Bush’s veto.

The vote to override the veto was 273 to 156, or 13 votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority of those present and voting; the bill was originally approved by a 265 to 159 vote on Sept. 25.

The main suspense before today’s vote was over how many Republicans would side against President Bush. Forty-four House Republicans voted for the bill today, compared to 45 on Sept. 25.

Democrats had anticipated defeat, and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, immediately issued an angry statement.

“Each Republican who voted to uphold President Bush’s heartless veto should be embarrassed that he chose to stand in the way of improving the lives of millions of America’s poorest children,â€

Well. at least Bush did something right. Now if he would step up to the plate on other important issues!

Quote:

---

Eighty-one percent of respondents, including 70 percent of Republicans, supported expanding the program. Three-quarters of those who supported expansion said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to finance it. The poll was conducted nationally by telephone Oct. 12-16 with 1,282 adults, and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

---

Okay, this is what really bothers me about these "polls". They are taking a population sample of 1282 adults, which in my opinion hardly represents a population sample, and determine that the results are the "pulse of the nation."

Gimmie a break! 1282 adults? who did they call, poor illegal alien adults? 1282 doesn't even represent 1%, of the total population. Now granted it wouldn't be practical to take a statistical anaylsis of the total US population, but how about these poll makers take a much larger sample which represents at least 10% of the population? Say a minimum of 100,000? I completely understand the logic behind statistics, but when you are representing a total population of 300 million, YOU NEED TO HAVE LARGER SAMPLE SIZES!!!
Just another crap poll.

Getting back to the topic, the Dems hardly "negotiated" on this. They are classifying "poor" people with salaries of $82K a year?
If one cannot afford health coverage on this salary then people are obviously engulfed in the "Keeping up w/ the Jones'" syndrome. If this is the case, the taxpayers should not be penalized for this by higher (much higher I might add) taxes because consumers can't live within their means, or they simply have to have the BIGGER BETTER DEAL (BBD) than their neighbor or family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sippy

[
Okay, this is what really bothers me about these "polls". They are taking a population sample of 1282 adults, which in my opinion hardly represents a population sample, and determine that the results are the "pulse of the nation."

---

They probably just called people in Boston and San Francisco.