home

S-Chip Veto Overide Fails in the House

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:37:17 PM EST
Tags: S-CHIP (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The S-CHIP veto overide has failed. The roll call vote is here. Via Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), received by e-mail:

The House voted 273 to 156 to override the veto, however this was 16 votes short of the 2/3 necessary to override the President’s veto and pass this bill into law.

"I am disappointed the President is playing politics with our children’s health”, said Perlmutter. “As we saw with the vote on stem cell research, the President and many Republicans reject the will of the majority of Americans and the hopes and promise that basic health care services can provide to our children. Be assured, I will continue to fight to keep kids from hardworking American families ."

< Senator Dodd: Lead The Resistance To The Dem Senate Cave-In On FISA | Cops On Steroids >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    S-Chip Veto Overide Fails in the House | 43 comments (43 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    National Health Care (1.00 / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 04:35:52 PM EST
    Now that the Demos are done trying to score cheap political points...

    Perhaps they will try to do something that would benefit everyone...

    So the good is the enemy of the perfect (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 08:27:56 AM EST
    I gather you oppose SCHIP (good) but favor NHC for all (perfect).

    So on the Titanic when they said women and children first, you would have yelled "bleep that, get me in a lifeboat now!"

    No Republican politican of this generation will support NHC. Period. But you know that.


    Parent

    Actually, (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 09:30:50 AM EST
    and as I have noted, I see no problem with extending S-CHIP as it exists.

    But you know that.

    Just as the Demos knew that program could not be expanded into providing coverage for 25 year old "children."

    My daughter Kristen is 25 years old and lives in New York City. I don't know how much she maker, she's never told me. But it's possible, depending on how much she makes, that under the Democrats version of this bill, she could qualify for SCHIP.

    As for no Repub supporting NHC, prior to Medicare Rx insurance I would have agreed with you.

    That is no longer true.

    I again note that it was the DEMOS who opposed that. They suffered no political damage from the elderly over that, proving again that age does not always bring wisdom.

    NHC is very salable to the public. First you must keep it simple, straight forward and pay for it in a manner that everyone can understand. A national sales tax. This old "soak the rich" mantra isn't working anymore. The tax payers know there aren't enough of the "rich" and politicians have embarrassed themselves enough that "trust me" doesn't work anymore.

    Now, have a nice day, and go stand in front of a mirror and practice your ability to insult. You're getting rather tame.

    Parent

    Joe Barton's daughter?!! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:14:52 AM EST
    You need to find a more credible source than a statement by a Republican partisan congressman.

    But if you favor NHC, why would you care? If in fact this is true, it makes it easier to justify covering everyone with NHC- a goal you allegedly share.

    As for your medicare nonsense- many seniors have found the coverage inadequate. The fact that Democrats wanted better coverage (I've explained to you the problem before- you just go into ostrich mode and deny exists) should not be construed to mean they opposed any converage. This is known as the fallacy of hasty generalization.

    Of course the Democratic party suffered no damage among the elderly for their position- proving, if you didn't already know, that the elderly are capable of logical thought.

    The regressitivy and unfairness of a national sales tax has been explained to you before. Why do you hate working Americans?

    Parent

    heh (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    As for your medicare nonsense- many seniors have found the coverage inadequate.

    Could we have an example that shows that the plan is not a HUGE improvement over what they had?

    BTW - The last time you provided a primer on Medicare Part D I had to correct your many mistakes. Did you learn from that??

    You need to find a more credible source than a statement by a Republican partisan congressman.

    The Left is always shooting at the messenger. He is either correct in the "25 year old" part, or he is not.

    I again note that a National Sales Tax is the ONLY way to pay for NHC that will be acceptable to the public. Without it NHC can not and will not be enacted.

    So just keep mumbling "fair" while millions suffer.

    Parent

    This explains a lot (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 11:09:21 AM EST
    Shooting the messenger as you call it, is not necessairly bad. If done to show bias or to show the witness is not an expert in an area where an expert is needed, or does not have personal knowledge of which s/he speaks, then it is known as impeaching the witness on grounds considered to be reasonable. If done as a mere ad hominium attack- e.g. "s/he is a communist and you cannot believe a word they say" that is not reasonable.

    Here I show Barton has bias. That is reasonable grounds.

    I see now you concede the medicare plan with the doughnut hole has problems- this is a good start on your part. You are no longer playing ostrich.

    As for your national sales tax, keep studying the issue. Be sure to take into account the money spent by insureds today on insurance premiums will no longer be spent in that form.

    I am not mumbling about fair taxation. Its an important issue. Its what politics is all about. What do you have against fair taxation?

    Parent

    Quit dodging (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 01:17:02 PM EST
    Whether or not a 25 year old "child" is covered under SCHIP on steroids is pretty straight forward. Again. He is either wrong, or he is correct. Bias has nothing to do with it.

    You invent things better than Algore. I have never claimed it to be perfect,just a thousand times better than what we had, which was nothing. Where do you get such things??

    Wait, no one invents better than Algore, but you are in the top tier.

    As for your national sales tax, keep studying the issue. Be sure to take into account the money spent by insureds today on insurance premiums will no longer be spent in that form.

    And your point is? Are you saying that since they would no longer be paying that is unfair?? I posit that they will (are you ready????) SPEND the money and pay the National Sales Tax...

    And "fairness" is a very important point. If the public sees NHC as a means tested welfare program it is DOA.

    Parent

    I am not dodging anything nor inventing (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 02:45:18 PM EST
    You seem to be having a temper tantrum, however.

    Now calm down, count to 10 and then re-read what I wrote and apply it to the situation.

    Joe Barton is biased, he may be speaking the truth, he may be lying. If you have other evidence, you might convince me, but you will not on Barton's word alone.

    That is a legitmate criticism.

    As for premiums, they are all ready financing a health care insurance system- I'm sure you can figure out the implications for NHC.

    You've yet to overcome the objection to regressive taxation via a national sales tax. Nor have you answered why you prefer an unfair taxation method to a fair one. So stop, count to 10, think and try again. Or not.

    Parent

    Not to butt in, but (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    tobacco taxes can reasonably be described as regressive as well. No?
    Current smoking prevalence also was higher among adults living below the poverty level* (32.9%) than among those at or above the poverty level (22.2%). During 1983--2002, the gap in smoking prevalence between those living below the poverty line and those living at or above it increased from 8.7 percentage points to 10.7 percentage points (Figure 1). In addition, the percentage of ever smokers who had quit was higher for persons at or above the poverty level than for those below the poverty line. As with current smoking prevalence, this gap was larger in 2002 than in 1983 (20.0 percentage points versus 18.7 percentage points).


    Parent
    Yes but (none / 0) (#37)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 04:52:39 PM EST
    (Pun intended).

    raising the cost of tobacco does make an economic incentive to quit smoking. Cancer rates are down, but only because less people are smoking. That does have a positive effect on health care.

    Parent

    Yes No (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 04:58:04 PM EST
    does make an economic incentive to quit

    Then why do more of the poor smoke???

    Parent

    Gee Jim (none / 0) (#44)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 07:44:13 PM EST
    You don't think the rising price of cigarrettes has anything to do with the drop in smokers?

    Failure of logic to assume because poor people smoke in greater numbers means the price of cigarettes has no effect on smoking, especially in light of the undeniable drop in smoking overall. Or do you think only the well to do stops smoking?

    You really do have a probelm with the fallacy of false cause.

    Parent

    I agree with you, (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:06:15 PM EST
    although some might suggest that it sounds like you're saying that regressive taxation is bad, except when you say it's not...

    Parent
    I don't approve of it as a means of rasing revnue (none / 0) (#43)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 07:38:22 PM EST
    I don't object to it as a tool to reduce smoking.

    Its fiscally foolish to rely on it as the sole source of revenue.

    the some who

    might suggest that it sounds like you're saying that regressive taxation is bad, except when you say it's not...

    are probably the same ones who believe in supply side economics AND balanced budgets; or

    believed Bush when he said Iraq was an imminent threat; or

    believed Bush when he said he would fire the leakers.

    I don't worry about that group of people thinks.

    Parent

    In other words (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 09:09:16 PM EST
    you and facts are not well acquainted.

    Parent
    I am better acquainted with facts (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 08:10:33 AM EST
    than you are with intelligence.

    Parent
    Like Win in '08 (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 04:59:59 PM EST
    And gain at least 15% more control of congress.

    Parent
    Since the Demos (1.00 / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:45:58 PM EST
    opposed Medicare Part D, Rx Insurance I doubt they will do anything.

    As it took a Repub for that, it will likely take a Repub for NHC.

    But we can hope.

    However, based on their performance, my hope is likely in vain.

    Parent

    Thank you GW, you FINALLY did something right! (1.00 / 0) (#9)
    by concernedinPA on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 08:53:19 AM EST
    Thanks for the comment about the Dems just trying to make washington look bad. I've never heard a more truthful statement. They knew this wasn't going to be passed and further, they knew it was going to be vetoed. Yet they pushed it and continue to push it. You can thank the Dems for your children not having Health Insurance since they have to be "excessively" greedy in their lawmaking strategies.

    It is not a game, there are children everyday going without proper health care and the Dems know it. BUT...raising cigarette tax $1 per pack and cigar tax to some $3 per cigar is NOT the way to "fix" the problem and they also know that.

    Lets consider this...statistics show that the poorest of the poor people smoke. This bill was to help to pay for children's health insurance for families who make TOO MUCH money to qualify for medicaid.

    Now, that means that we want to raise taxes on the DESPERATELY poor to pay for health insurance for the children of MODERATELY poor families. WHERE IS THE REASONING?
    How about...let's raise taxes on the FILTHY RICH to pay for the health insurance for the MODERATELY poor families. Or even better...raise taxes on the WEALTHY to pay for health insurance for EVERYONE? Now THAT is a novel idea!

    Come down off your cross, washington and stop trying to fool us, we aren't as stupid as you would like us to be...well at least I can speak for myself on that one and hope that many more will follow suit.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#1)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 01:15:09 PM EST
    This has to be wrong:

    "Be assured, I will continue to fight to keep kids from hardworking American families ."

    I hope the congressman doesn't want to take kids from their parents...

    Not for nothing.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 01:20:01 PM EST
    You would be hard pressed to find a politician in Washington who doesn't play politics with our children's health....be it in the arena of healthcare or war and occupation.

    I'm so shocked (none / 0) (#3)
    by garyb50 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 04:00:57 PM EST
    by this unexpected outcome.

    If it's true... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Patrick on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:10:18 AM EST
    That it would cost 35-50 Billion dollars to cover an additional 10 million children then hell yes I'm against it.   You could give them each a million dollars cash and save a whole lot of money.  Or invest the million on their behalf and let the interest pay for their whole family's health care.  There are better ways to spend this money.  

    And the half a TRILLION spent in Iraq? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 11:17:21 AM EST
    SCHIP is a drop in the bucket -- a drop, however, that actually gains us something -- as opposed to the billions wasted EVERY DAY in Iraq that has gained us nothing and lost us more than we can honestly face right now.  The right's protest of SCHIP on financial grounds is empty and beyond not credible.  But par for the course for folks who care about no one besides themselves and their own wallets.

    Parent
    Patrick, I think you missed some 0's: (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 12:35:47 PM EST
    10,000,000 new enrollees x $1,000,000 = $10,000,000,000,000 or $10Trillion.

    In actuality, I think the estimates are 3,400,000 new enrollees, so giving them each 1,000,000 would cost $3.4Trillon.

    The bill would have cost an additional 35B over 5 years, or an additional 7B/year.

    So the cost to cover the estimated additional 3,400,000 kids would have been a little over  $2,000/year/enrollee.

    Not that I am supporting the expansion, but $2,000/year is probably about what I pay for my kids health insurance per year.

    (Of course, neither of them has even approached $2000/year in actual health care consumed, but that is another topic all together.)

    Why it costs 5B/year to cover the 6,600,000 enrollees SCHIP covers now - ie., $760/year/enrollee - but over $2000/year/enrollee for the new enrollees had the bill passed, I can't explain.


    Parent

    Politicians can't add (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 01:20:46 PM EST
    much less divide or multiply...

    Parent
    I knew I should (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 02:57:21 PM EST
    have done the math instead...Thanks.

    Parent
    No biggie. (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 03:26:44 PM EST
    I do find it funny that it seems that the standard response to anyone questioning that cost of SCHIP (or just about any other gvt spending) these days gets the "Hey. Look over there. Iraq." response.


    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Peaches on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 03:38:10 PM EST
    Sheezus,

    Its a pretty good response. Complaining about the cost of S-Chip when you take into account Iraq (not mentioning the cost of the entire military budget -including secret and unaccounted costs -) is like me worrying about my annual cost of toothbrushes, while trying to get out from under debt of my mortgage and graduate student loans.

    Parent

    Fair enough, (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 03:44:19 PM EST
    some have the "Hey. Look over there. Iraq." response, and others have the "Hey. Look over there. The Clenis." response.

    To each his own, I guess.

    How long have been out of grad school, how many years left on your loans?

    Parent

    four years out (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peaches on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    26 left.

    Parent
    I'll be 70, but (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peaches on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 04:01:17 PM EST
    I'm pretty good with savings and spending, I'll get em paid off much sooner.

    Parent
    Good for you. (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 04:07:07 PM EST
    We're the same age. I too paid down my college debt quickly.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peaches on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 04:15:30 PM EST
    you know, I use the same toothbrush for a whole year. Stuff like that. It adds up ;)

    Parent
    Use the free ones your dentist gives you. ;-) (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 04:36:25 PM EST
    I did w/o all the stuff my classmates got when they got there first real jobs - new cars, big apartments, trips to exotic locales, divorces, etc. I'm still a cheap bastard...

    Parent
    Iraq will go away, but SCHIP never will. (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:04:23 PM EST
    But that's not the problem.

    The problem is that it expands into the middle class, and will allow people and companies to drop coverage and make the tax payer pick it up. In addition it is different state to state.

    If we really believe the mantra "It's for the children," then let's do NHC.

    Parent

    Let's do NHC (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 06:52:51 PM EST
    tell the guys you've been shilling for for six years.

    Btw, Whens Iraq (and it's parent co "the WOT") "going to go away"?

    Parent

    Meanwhile 9 billion dollars (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 04:37:24 PM EST
    gets "lost" in Iraq and not even a plaintive peep is heard from the amen corner on the right.

    How many kids would that 9 billion have taken care of?

    Dont tell me, the money lost was money well spent.
    Dont talk to me about your phony Jesus, you people are beyond pathetic.

    Parent

    Meanwhile (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 07:00:00 PM EST
    Info is steadily coming out about the pigs at the Iraq trough (who never needed oversight) and how much they stole and skimmed and kicked back on the "fiscal conservatives" watch.

    They considered it a duty and an honor, no doubt.

    Parent

    The info in the link is inacurate (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:16:50 AM EST
    and when you go to your link you find:

    The neutrality of this article is disputed.

    This article's representation of one or more viewpoints about a controversial issue may be unbalanced or inaccurate.

    The MMA establishes a standard drug benefit that Part D plans may offer.[5] The standard benefit is defined in terms of the benefit structure and not in terms of the drugs that must be covered. In 2007, this standard benefit requires payment of a $265 deductible. The beneficiary then pays 25% of the cost of a covered Part D prescription drug up to an initial coverage limit of $2400.

    Once the initial coverage limit is reached, the beneficiary is subject to another deductible, known officially as the Coverage Gap but referred to more commonly as the "Donut Hole," in which they must pay the full cost of medicine.

    There are many different policies... For about $80 a month a person can purchase a plan that has no deducts and pays for drugs up to approximately $2400, co-pays plus cost. Generic co-pays are in the $4.00 range, non-generics co-pays range from $35 to $55.

    At the $2400 level, the "donut hole," the plan stops covering non-generics until the total cost of ALL co-pays and non-generic purchases reach about $3800 in out of of pocket payments.

    Generic co-pays remain the same.

    At the $3800 level the plan keeps covering generics and restarts covering non-generics. The co-pay is 5% of the purchase. A $1000 worth of drugs is $50.00.

    Certain drugs, such as those listed in your link, are not covered... I guess someone figured that Grandpa's sex life was his and Grandma's business, not the public at large.

    Is the plan perfect? No.

    Is it good? It is very good.

    Was it better than what us old folks had??

    Do I hope NHC improves it?

    You bet'chum Red Ryder...

    As an example, I have a friend who has the big "E." Her drug bill without the insurance program would be around $1,000 a month. With it her bill is about $400 a month.

    Tell me the program shouldn't have been passed.

    Hmmmmm. My ankle is hurting... I bet I know why.

    tehe

    You are wrong (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 02:17:44 PM EST
    Donut hole calls to mind "nothing"

    That is incorrect. As I wrote:

    At the $2400 level, the "donut hole," the plan stops covering non-generics until the total cost of ALL co-pays and non-generic purchases reach about $3800 in out of of pocket payments.

    Your problem is that you drink the kool aid and read the Demo propaganda, but since you haven't actually had to set down and purchase a plan you really don't know what you are talking about.

    BTW - I get a print out once a month that gives a YTD summary...

    Through 8/31 without the insurance our drug costs wold have been in the $8500. range.

    Our cost was a little over $3,000.

    Yeah, I know. Insurance no good. Bush evil. Demos wornderful. America bad. Stop the war...(sarcasm alert)

    DA, you are so full of beans that they must be falling out your nose.

    hehe


    Parent

    Do you think the co-pays would have been lowered? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 02:25:02 PM EST
    Perhaps your friend would pay even less for her prescriptions if that had been part of the final bill signed into law.

    And how can a non-generic be "negotiated" outside of saying to the drug companies, "This is all you can have." That isn't negotiation, that is a fiat.

    The issue of government price controls, and that is what you speak of, has been examined time and again.

    The result is always the same. Shortages and reduced service and innovation.

    If that is what you want, then you are welcome to it.

    Parent

    Since I don't smoke (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    the price of tobacco is of no interest to me personally..

    But since smokers tend to be at the lower side of wage earners, then the tax increase would hurt them.

    S-Chip Veto Overide Fails in the House | 43 comments (43 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment