Thread: Showdown Looms on Child Health

Showdown Looms as Child Health Bill Passes
Many GOP Senators Back Measure Bush Vows to Veto

By Jonathan Weisman and Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 28, 2007; Page A01

The Senate, with an overwhelming bipartisan vote yesterday, sent President Bush a $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, setting up the biggest domestic policy clash of his presidency and launching a fight that will reverberate into the 2008 elections.

Bush has vowed to veto the measure, but he has faced strong criticism from many fellow Republicans reluctant to turn away from a popular measure that would renew and expand an effective program aimed at low-income children. Democratic leaders, while still as many as two dozen votes short in the House, are campaigning hard for the first veto override of Bush's presidency.

They secured a veto-proof majority last night in the Senate, with the 67 to 29 tally including "yes" votes from 18 of the 49 Republicans, including some of the president's most stalwart allies, such as Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.) and Ted Stevens (Alaska). Democratic leaders are likely to send the measure to the White House next week, giving advocates a few more days to pressure Bush to sign it.

For Republicans, the issue is politically perilous. Every Senate Republican facing a difficult reelection bid bolted from Bush yesterday. Most House Republicans in swing districts abandoned him Tuesday when the House approved the bill 265 to 159. Those Republicans "took the vote that was easiest to explain," said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

Even conservative Republicans pleaded with Bush to relent.

"I am very disappointed that before the administration even received the final language, their minds were apparently made up and a line was drawn in the sand opposing this compromise," said Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.).

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, vowed to make Bush's supporters pay a price at the polls next year, and he will have his share of targets. Republican Reps. Thelma Drake (Va.), Sam Graves (Mo.), John R. "Randy" Kuhl Jr. (N.Y.) and Joe Knollenberg (Mich.) all voted against the bill and are in the Democrats' cross hairs. In total, the DCCC will be targeting 25 Republicans over the issue, said spokeswoman Jennifer Crider.

"Anyone who votes in lock step with the president and against children's health, they are going to hear about it back home," Van Hollen said.

Already, advocates are mounting advertising and grass-roots campaigns to pressure Republican supporters of the president. Two advertisements -- one on television, another on the Internet -- castigate Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for standing against the program's expansion. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a key backer, promised yesterday to mount his own campaign to persuade House opponents to change their position ahead of a vote to override a veto.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the bill's opponents have nothing to fear. "Good policy is good politics, and if members stand on principle, they'll be just fine," he said.

The House GOP offers the president his best chance to uphold his veto. There the bill attracted 45 Republicans, including reliable conservatives such as Don Young (Alaska) and Denny Rehberg (Mont.). But it still fell about two dozen votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a rejection by Bush.

Leading up to a possible veto, the DCCC is preparing advertisements, automated phone calls and e-mail blitzes aimed at Republicans who might change their votes on an override, said a Democrat familiar with the campaign.

But Democrats, and their Republican allies on the issue, made it clear that Bush's veto will not be the last word. [size=7]They said that they will keep coming back to the bill every six weeks to three months until the White House relents or Republican opposition collapses. [/size]"If the president refuses to sign the bill, if he says, with a veto, 'I forbid 10 million children in America to have health care,' this legislation will haunt him again and again and again," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Yesterday's vote put Bush in a position he has never faced. The president has used his veto for only two issues in seven years in office: federal funding for stem cell research and constraints on his Iraq war policies. But on those issues, Bush retains strong Republican support and a coalition that unites social, economic and national security conservatives.

The children's health bill, in contrast, has the support of moderate Republicans and conservatives, business interests and even abortion opponents such as the Roman Catholic Church. The measure has the backing of the health insurance industry and children's and disease-control advocates, most of the nation's governors, AARP and the American Medical Association.

The compromise would expand the $5 billion-a-year program by an average of $7 billion a year over the next five years, for total funding of $60 billion over the period. That would be enough to boost enrollment to 10 million, up from 6.6 million, and dramatically reduce the number of uninsured children in the country, currently about 9 million, supporters say.

Bush and GOP leaders say that the measure would push millions of children already covered by private health insurance into publicly financed health care. They say it would also create an "entitlement" whose costs would outstrip the money raised by the bill's 61-cent increase in the federal tobacco tax.

The coalition backing the bill could also face risks after a veto. House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he would push Democrats to come back at Bush with a new version that adds vision-care coverage to the expanded coverage for dental and mental health and restores benefits for the children of legal immigrants.
But by adding benefits, especially for immigrant children, Democrats could lose support in the Senate.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), one of the compromise measure's strongest advocates, suggested that he would like to see Congress look for a compromise with the White House after a veto. "If we want to cover these kids and we've got a stultification of that effort, then we're going to have to do the best we can," Hatch said.

Democratic leaders are convinced that no such compromise is necessary. Health care is again rising as a concern among voters, they say, citing Democratic polls that show overwhelming support for expansion of the children's health insurance program. Bush's unpopularity will affect sentiment among those against a veto, they say.

Republicans facing tough reelection bids appeared to agree.

"It's the White House that needs to give," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... newsletter

This bill is nothing more than another liberal program to take care of the irresponsible by using responsible people's money. People can afford child healthcare, they just don't want to. They would rather buy alcohol and illegal drugs. Ever wonder what keeps them in so-called poverty.

GSO7 wrote

People can afford child healthcare, they just don't want to. They would rather buy alcohol and illegal drugs.

GSO7, I find your statement highly irresponsible, short-sighted and immature. Granted, there are those small numbers of irresponsible parents who don't take their kids' health seriously enough, but by and large, parents making under 45,000 in combined salaries are really having a hard time keeping their kids healthy if they don't have coverage by their employers. It has been said that the cap would be $80,000 a year. This cap is way too high.

I am for some kind of universal health care system in this country simply because we never should let money come between someone and their health PERIOD. What about the ederly, the mentally retarded, those who cannot sustain on their own due to things beyond their control? Should we take the attitude of "Oh well, too bad" and just let them suffer or die just because they were born a 'have-not'?

As some of you may know, I recently landed in the hospital with an infection surrouding my heart. I am unemployed and have no benefits after being layed off from a job after 5 years that paid 50,000 a year. I have had a rough time trying to land work. If Medicad had not been available, I would have died. I have a wife and 3 kids. It wouldn't have surprised me if a few of you would have said "To bad".

I believe everyone should pay into a system that will provide for basic health care for everyone. Our society is not perfect and will never be. There will always be those in need. THAT'S A FACT THAT SOME CANNOT ACCEPT. For those who would suggest I should go vote for Hillary, I say to you "Go take your sorry selfish butt and toss it off a cliff."

What I am dead set against is allowing illegals and their children to be a part of this. These people should not even be here. Mexico should be force to deal with their problems and not be able to place that burden on us here in the U.S. We have far too many problems here at home and we should not be forced to carry the burden of any one country's misfortunes..or be conned into feeling responsible for them.

Sorry, I am not as conservative, or in other words, as SELFISH as some conservatives are. Heck, if it was up to some hard-core conservatives, our communities wouldn't even have trash pick up. Some conservatives don't want to pay for anything but the Pentagon. This "To heck with everyone and everything else, I'm fine" attitude that some conservatives have makes me want to puke. Then again, this attitude of "It doesn't pay enough for me to work, the government can support me" makes me just as sick. I'm on the fence folks, neither left or right..just a common sense guy who uses good judgement without waivering back and forth. Being registered as Independent is the way to go and it is the suggestion of Lou Dobbs. Now there's a real hero!

I heard that this bill was brought up purposely by the Dems so that they could point fingers at the Republicans in the 2008 elections and say, "The Republicans took health care away from CHILDREN!!"

But then again this bill was due to expire or something in October.....so that might negate what I said above.

The bottom line is that those who are against it should and need to stand up and say that this health coverage would have covered people who are non-citizens and also would have been a magnet for more illegal immigration.

If they come out and say that then people will understand and the majority of people will agree.

I think the American people know what is going on more than they give us credit for and recent polls have indicated that.

Of course it's all politics.

None of them care about the Country and citizens...they have one thought, how they can get more votes & $$$.

Everything the Dems are doing now though, is a direct attack on US tax payers to provide for people that broke our laws....illegals!

Everything the Dems are doing now though, is a direct attack on US tax payers to provide for people that broke our laws....illegals!

For sure, Moosetracks.

With the exception of Senator Dorgan, the Dems haven't done a SINGLE THING that I can think of to help U.S. citizens to stop illegal immigration.

If it were up to them entirely, I'd hate to see where we would be right now.

Talk about being irresponsible..........the Democrats win by a landslide.

Rockfish wrote:

GSO7, I find your statement highly irresponsible, short-sighted and immature.

Rockfish, there is simply too much abuse of the welfare system here in the U.S. (Please see my post "Simply W-R-O-N-G"). I strongly believe that only a very very small percentage of families receiving free healthcare actually deserve it based on their neediness. Many many families, in my earnest, but humble opinion, take the free healthcare and then use the money they save to go on vacations and buy luxuries. I'm not talking out of my nose on this...I've witnessed it countless times.

I am for some kind of universal health care system in this country simply because we never should let money come between someone and their health PERIOD. What about the ederly, the mentally retarded, those who cannot sustain on their own due to things beyond their control? Should we take the attitude of "Oh well, too bad" and just let them suffer or die just because they were born a 'have-not'?

It seems your idea of Universal healthcare is to make it free for those who don't want to pay for it. We are not talking about the disabled, we are talking about families that had kids THEY KNEW THEY COULDN'T OR DIDN'T want to take care of. BEFORE ALL THESE SOCIAL PROGRAMS, PEOPLE TOOK CARE OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES!

Who do you think the majority of these so-called poor families in the California Central Valley are. They are illegal aliens and their generations of illiterate children who now live off of taxpayers.

rockfish- I believe you have the same confusion about this program that liberals have when calling illegal aliens, "Immigrants".

I've worked in health care many, many years. I've seen it ALL. I've seen people who have no insurance not able to have the surgery they need. I've seen people who can not speak a word of english get the same surgery FREE. I"ve seen people who speak good english, have rent houses, new cars and they have Medicaid. It always makes me feel good when an American gets they temporary help they need.

Originally Posted by Rockfish

GSO7 wrote

People can afford child healthcare, they just don't want to. They would rather buy alcohol and illegal drugs.

GSO7, I find your statement highly irresponsible, short-sighted and immature. Granted, there are those small numbers of irresponsible parents who don't take their kids' health seriously enough, but by and large, parents making under 45,000 in combined salaries are really having a hard time keeping their kids healthy if they don't have coverage by their employers. It has been said that the cap would be $80,000 a year. This cap is way too high.

I am for some kind of universal health care system in this country simply because we never should let money come between someone and their health PERIOD. What about the ederly, the mentally retarded, those who cannot sustain on their own due to things beyond their control? Should we take the attitude of "Oh well, too bad" and just let them suffer or die just because they were born a 'have-not'?

As some of you may know, I recently landed in the hospital with an infection surrouding my heart. I am unemployed and have no benefits after being layed off from a job after 5 years that paid 50,000 a year. I have had a rough time trying to land work. If Medicad had not been available, I would have died. I have a wife and 3 kids. It wouldn't have surprised me if a few of you would have said "To bad".

I believe everyone should pay into a system that will provide for basic health care for everyone. Our society is not perfect and will never be. There will always be those in need. THAT'S A FACT THAT SOME CANNOT ACCEPT. For those who would suggest I should go vote for Hillary, I say to you "Go take your sorry selfish butt and toss it off a cliff."

What I am dead set against is allowing illegals and their children to be a part of this. These people should not even be here. Mexico should be force to deal with their problems and not be able to place that burden on us here in the U.S. We have far too many problems here at home and we should not be forced to carry the burden of any one country's misfortunes..or be conned into feeling responsible for them.

Sorry, I am not as conservative, or in other words, as SELFISH as some conservatives are. Heck, if it was up to some hard-core conservatives, our communities wouldn't even have trash pick up. Some conservatives don't want to pay for anything but the Pentagon. This "To heck with everyone and everything else, I'm fine" attitude that some conservatives have makes me want to puke. Then again, this attitude of "It doesn't pay enough for me to work, the government can support me" makes me just as sick. I'm on the fence folks, neither left or right..just a common sense guy who uses good judgement without waivering back and forth. Being registered as Independent is the way to go and it is the suggestion of Lou Dobbs. Now there's a real hero!

Here's what I think. Bad things can happen to good people and for our government to help U.S. citizens who find themselves in those situations is good and important. HOWEVER, it should not be in the form of a "hand-out".

For example, if a person gets layed off from their job and needs help from the government on a temporary basis, that's fine, BUT that person should pay the government back by working for the government while searching for another job.

What I don't like is that people who are getting financial help from the government don't have to get out of bed in the morning like people who are working have to. We should have a program where they "report" to work Monday-Friday at 8AM and do something "to earn their pay". I don't care if they rake leaves, sweep the sidewalk, computer entry, make phone calls, mail letters, help at the post office, wash and wax police cars, help the fire department.....ANYTHING. I don't care but GET UP and REPORT somewhere and be accounted for.

We cannot have people snoozing warm and cozy their beds and enjoying their morning coffee for two hours in the morning and getting welfare while the rest of us get out of bed at 6AM, gulp down a cup of coffee and scramble out the door every morning to go to work.

If that person has an interview for a job, great.....let them have 4 hours off in the afternoon to go to the interview. Give them the whole afternoon off......but make them report at 8AM or they do not receive benefits for that day.

Obviously this would not apply to someone who is physically bedridden or in a wheel chair.

In other words, when bad things happen to good people.....the government helps. But the person helps too. It cannot be a one way street because that's when people begin to take advantage of the situation.

Companies could be given tax breaks by signing up to give some of these people temporary jobs too.

The people should be treated with respect because there is nothing to be ashamed of for working in this type of program while being paid and getting back on your feet after being layed off or something.

The lazy ones or those who are taking advantage of the situation would soon be identified AND they'd be off the program.

The legitimate cases would be grateful and would probably find new jobs faster.

Does anyone have any problems with this program?