Not listening to Public again: Bush veto for child health bill

[Praxius]

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush veto for child health bill

US President George W Bush has vetoed a bill to expand a children's healthcare insurance scheme, after it was passed with a large majority in the Senate. Mr Bush argues it takes the programme beyond its original purpose of insuring children from low-income families. The vetoed bill proposed higher tobacco taxes to provide an extra $35bn (£17bn) to insure some 10 million children. Children's health insurance is set to be a campaign issue in next year's elections, analysts say. Eighteen Republican senators joined Democrats last week in passing the legislation by a 67-29 vote. But the House of Representatives, which approved the bill by 265-159, was well short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. It is only the fourth time Mr Bush has used his veto power in the course of his presidency. Public support The State Children's Health Insurance Programme (SCHIP) currently subsidises health care for some 6.6 million people, most of them children. It is directed at families who earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid programme for the poor but cannot afford private health insurance cover. Mr Bush had said he wanted only a $5bn increase in funding for the scheme. He argued that expanding its coverage further would encourage people currently covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage - and that the proposal was too costly. His decision to veto the bill is likely to prove unpopular with many people, however, correspondents say. A Washington Post/ABC News poll suggested that more than seven in 10 Americans supported the $35bn increase proposed in the bill. Congressional battle Democrats in the House say they will seek to persuade sufficient Republican congressmen to change sides to be able to override Mr Bush's veto. But House Republican leader Roy Blunt said he was "absolutely confident" that he would be able to prevent that happening. Republican Senator Trent Lott is quoted by the Associated Press news agency as saying that the two parties should be able to reach a compromise once the bill has been vetoed. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults," he said. "This is about poor children." Many Republicans are likely to feel the pressure of public opinion ahead of congressional elections in November next year. Mr Bush has previously used his veto twice to block legislation that would have eased restrictions on federally funded stem-cell research and once to halt a bill linking war funding to a timetable for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.

So 7/10 americans wanted this to pass..... Democrats and 18 Republicans voted it in, the House of Representatives approved the bill as well..... yet Bush doesn't like it because it's a higher amount of money then previously mentioned of 5 billion?

Of course if this was going towards the war, he wouldn't have anything to complain, but money towards the US public for medical purposes?

My Heaven's no! we can't have money be wasted on that.

And his reason:

He argued that expanding its coverage further would encourage people currently covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage - and that the proposal was too costly.

So once again, Capitalist profits beat out the medical well-being of the country's population. Just like their defense for using Mercs in Iraq. It always boils down to the buck first, human second.

[Osborn F Enready]

I fully and totally applaud Bush on this ONE THING, maybe the ONLY THING he has done since being in office.

This bill was crap, the funding was biased and discriminatory, and outside the scope of the Constitution.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush veto for child health bill So 7/10 americans wanted this to pass..... Democrats and 18 Republicans voted it in, the House of Representatives approved the bill as well..... yet Bush doesn't like it because it's a higher amount of money then previously mentioned of 5 billion?

Seven out of 10 Americans don't understand that the legislation is unconstitutional.

Of course if this was going towards the war, he wouldn't have anything to complain, but money towards the US public for medical purposes?

No, it's going toward expanding an unconstitutional program that would have defined 25 year-olds as children and people making 82,000 a year as poor!

My Heaven's no! we can't have money be wasted on that. And his reason:

No, we can't have the government taking taxpayers' money and spending it on things that are unconstitutional.

So once again, Capitalist profits beat out the medical well-being of the country's population. Just like their defense for using Mercs in Iraq. It always boils down to the buck first, human second.

The medical well being of the population is the responsibility of the individual and his family and not the federal government!

[Milton Bradley]

I'm wondering if Praxius knew where they were trying to steal the money from?


Well, now I can't say I never approved of a single thing this President accomplished.

[Osborn F Enready]

Aside from the previously listed or mentioned problems with the funding bill, I would like to point out another obvious "flaw" they have overlooked.

How many people that would have benefitted "from this bill" are smokers?

How many more people would become classified as poor due to increased spending on exorbitantly priced, over-taxed goods both at the local, state and federal level?

Why are smokers being singled out for funding support, since we are trying to curb smoking? Is it not obvious that if smoking decreases, SO WOULD THE FUNDING?!? Are they setting up the funding to end itself so the only blame to lay is on smokers?


The entire S-Chip funding idea is absurd, ridiculous and RIDDLED with logical flaws.

[butterbut]

Congragulations on your second veto in seven years Bush.

[Praxius]

My only point is the great democracy. If it was an uneducated and flawed bill, why did it get as far as it did in the first place? Where was Bush's smart decision making in past bills which gone completly over looked? Why did the rest of the government believe it was a good idea?

And I realize where the money was coming from, which I have yet to touch on.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Praxius My only point is the great democracy. If it was an uneducated and flawed bill, why did it get as far as it did in the first place? Where was Bush's smart decision making in past bills which gone completly over looked? Why did the rest of the government believe it was a good idea? And I realize where the money was coming from, which I have yet to touch on.

If you look at the general consensus, you'll find that the posters here disagree with every decision Bush has made except for this one.

He decided against increasing reliance on government handouts at the expense of the taxpayer.

The fact that people agree with this one decision doesn't mean we have to go through and defend each and every one of them.

[johnwk]

President Vetoes Children's Health Insurance Bill

Today President Bush vetoed a proposed $35 billion increase expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) proposing to cover approximately 10.5 million children, and 700,000 adults. The President stated

"The intent of the program was to focus on poorer children, not adults or families earning up to $83,000 a year. It is estimated that if this program were to become law, one out of every three person(s) that would subscribe to the new expanded SCHIP would leave private insurance. The policies of the government ought to be to help poor children and to focus on poor children."

But this is not a legitimate reason for our President vetoing the bill. The real reason to veto S-CHIP is because Congress has not been granted authority by the Constitution to tax Mary and Joe Sixpack living in Idaho, to pay for the health care needs of children and adults living in New York City. If there are children and adults living in NYC who need such help, the State of New York has retained the power to help them by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution’s plan is one of federalism, and the assigned powers involved in that system may be summed up as follows:


"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."___ FEDERALIST NO. 45

Unfortunately, if our President stated his is vetoing the bill because Congress is not authorized to tax the people of Idaho for the health care needs of people living in NYC, such a statement would be a direct assault on the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum jobs holders who administer the redistribution of federal revenue, and, who have excessive salaries, top of the shelf medical plans and outrageous pension plans, which Mary and Joe Sixpack living in Idaho can only dream of having but are taxed to finance, in addition to being taxed to provide the revenue which will be redistributed by these political plum job holders.

Keep in mind these political plum job holders double as Congress’s foot solders during federal election time___ e.g. as political campaign workers ___ to help prop up the Washington Establishment, and, in return their reward is a financially secure future with the federal government, while Mary and Joe Sixpack become their tax slaves.

In response to the President’s veto, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. Stated "President Bush is a one-man axis of evil…" But the real axis of evil is the Washington Establishment which has made Mary and Joe Sixpack its personal tax slaves.

For those who do not think they have been made a tax slave for the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders. Maybe this will get your attention.


FEDERAL EMPLOYEE OVERVIEW

Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,715,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or stop working for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's civilian work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries.

Imagine that! While the average salary for a Washington Establishment political plum job holder is $ 67,000, Mary and Joe Sixpack, who is the employer of the Washington Establishment, has an average annual wage of only $40-45 K

In addition, here are other federal employee ``benefits``:

Life insurance plan___ Mary and Joe Sixpack get to pay 1/3 of a government workers federal life insurance plan.

Federal Employees Dental & Vision Program is a full coverage plan and federal employees get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for their vision and dental premiums while Mary and Joe are forced to use after taxed dollars to fund their Dental & Vision plan..


Under the federal employee retirement system, there is a tax-deferred savings plan known as the ``Thrift Savings Plan``. Under this plan, federal workers may contribute up to 10% of their salaries to the plan, with Mary and Joe Sixpack being taxed to match up to 5% of a federal employees contribution.

Also under the Civilian Service Retirement System a federal employee contributes 7% of their paycheck to retirement while Mary and Joe Sixpack are forced to match that 7 % out of their paychecks.

And, with reference to health insurance, which is in addition to the above mentioned dental and vision plan, see Federal Employees to See Moderate Rise in Health Insurance Premiums

Health insurance premiums for federal employees and retirees will increase by an average of 2.1 percent next year, the Office of Personnel Management announced this afternoon. <Snip> The federal program will offer 283 plans next year and will provide insurance coverage to about 8 million Americans: civil service and postal workers, retirees, and family members. The government picks up about 70 percent of premium costs in its role as employer.

What the article meant to state is, Mary and Joe Sixpack, who can barely meet their own health care needs for their children, get to pick up about 70 percent of the premium costs to provide health care to federal employees and their families.

And you think Mary and Joe Sixpack have not been made a tax slave for the Washington Establishment and its political plum job parasites?

S-CHIP is just another gimmick of the Washington Establishment to bribe millions of voters, seize control over the economic resources of Mary and Joe Sixpack via taxation, which will then be used to expand the Washington’s Establishment’s strangle hold over the health care needs of millions of people and make them dependent upon the Washington Establishment for their health care needs, which thus creates another massive voting block with a vested interest to vote for tyrants such as Rep. Pete Stark, Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and the rest of the socialistic con artists on Capitol Hill.

Make no mistake, any Republican on Capitol Hill voting for the expansion of the Washington’s Establishments power via the S-CHIP Bill, must be viewed as not only violating their oath of office, but acting in the best interests of the socialistic infestation which is fast seizing control over the American People’s government.


JWK

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chancellor Seven out of 10 Americans don't understand that the legislation is unconstitutional.

The constitutionality of the bill is not at issue. Even Bush supports the originial SCHIP program. He just doesn't want the middle class covered.

Praxius made the valid point about Bush's commitment to democracy if he vetoes a bill supported by 7 out of 10 Americans.

Congress should override the veto. The votes are there in the US Senate. The House is 15 votes shy of an override at present.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I fully and totally applaud Bush on this ONE THING, maybe the ONLY THING he has done since being in office. This bill was crap, the funding was biased and discriminatory, and outside the scope of the Constitution.

I agree and support Bush's veto. But my reason is that it would be paid for with new cigarette taxes. I do not mind helping out poor children but blaming smokers for their health problems is wrong, being that they have no evidence of that based on real science. I mean if a kid breaks his arm riding a bike, are the smokers to blame and responsible?

If someones smoke causes harm to your kid and you can prove it, then fine, sue that person. But do not tax smoking products. That is like taxing guns as product to pay for the police department. Hmm? (ya, see what bad ideas that can give me?)

A fair, and a uniform and equal tax on eveyone is one thing, but to discriminate and tax only one group of people is taboo in my book.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul I agree and support Bush's veto. But my reason is that it would be paid for with new cigarette taxes.

If the government collected $21 billion in cigarette excise taxes in 2006 alone, how much more do they need?

Grandpa h.

[Praxius]

About it coming from tobacco taxes, in a sense I don't see anything wrong with it, considdering most who smoke are in the middle/lower wage classes of society anyways, and statistically, lower income families tend to have more health concerns overall. If the most smokers are in the middle/lower class parts of society, then taxing their smoking to goto a health care plan which would come back to them seems to kinda cancels out the whole issue.

But the logical thing would be to only allow smokers who are being taxed to be able to claim this assistence. Why should others be able to get it?

Since those taxes were claimed to go back to some kind of health care, it's a gray area with me..... if the taxes were gonna goto roads or fattening the poloticians pockets, then I would find something wrong with it.

But on the other hand, I also feel they should put some of the current taxes on smokes to some kind of health care, rather then hiking it.

I do agree that isolational taxation, such as this one isn't fair.... but if it's going to be done, then the end results should remain somehow fair, where those being taxed, get to see some of that money come back to them in some manner.

---------------------------------------------------------

But as it goes for the original points I wanted to make about this situation, what I feel is irrelevent to how they vote and what bills they pass..... my concern is that the majority of them voted for this and passed it.... they decided to set the course and direction their communitues would go, yet Bush once again decided to trample all over the democratic process.

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: My only point is the great democracy.

Which one is that?

Prax said: If it was an uneducated and flawed bill, why did it get as far as it did in the first place?

Partisan fingerpointing, hackery, and under-handed smear tactics. (in other words, typical actions by the bi-partisan monopoly on power in the U.S.)

Prax said: Where was Bush's smart decision making in past bills which gone completly over looked?

Thank goodness his past experiences were overlooked, and he actually did the RIGHT thing this time.

Prax said: Why did the rest of the government believe it was a good idea?

The dems liked the idea because it would allow them to bash Republicans for "hating poor children". Republicans liked the idea because they get to veto it in the name of "fiscal responsibility" and the accurate assesment of it being one more step toward socialist/communist/universal healthcare.

Prax said: And I realize where the money was coming from, which I have yet to touch on.

Well, that is some of the best parts of the story.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius My only point is the great democracy.

The United States of America is not a democracy.

If it was an uneducated and flawed bill, why did it get as far as it did in the first place?

Because Congress is run by Democrats and Republicans.

Where was Bush's smart decision making in past bills which gone completly over looked? Why did the rest of the government believe it was a good idea?

Even Bush is entitled to get something right once in a while. The rest of the government believes it's a good idea because they have an interest in promoting the big government socialist nanny state.

And I realize where the money was coming from, which I have yet to touch on.

Yes, well, it's not just the 20,000 percent tax increase on cigars, it's also the expanding of the definition of "children" to adults up to 25 years of age and the expanding of "poor" to families making 82,000 dollars a year.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor The United States of America is not a democracy. Because Congress is run by Democrats and Republicans.

That's why voters won't hold Congress accountable for letting bureaucrats make law--the American people are also largely Democrat/Republican.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: The Decider The constitutionality of the bill is not at issue. Even Bush supports the originial SCHIP program. He just doesn't want the middle class covered.

Constitutionality is always an issue!

Praxius made the valid point about Bush's commitment to democracy if he vetoes a bill supported by 7 out of 10 Americans.

The United States of America is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. It doesn't matter if 10 out of 10 Americans support added funding for SCHIP if it isn't constitutional. If you people (the stupid sheeple that seem to have no understanding of what it means to be governed by a constitution) want government providing all these damned socialist services for you from cradle to grave, AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!

Congress should override the veto. The votes are there in the US Senate. The House is 15 votes shy of an override at present.

Congress should get back within its constitutional bounds and stay there!

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor Constitutionality is always an issue! The United States of America is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

For a while, I've interpreted this as a system of tyranny, "constitutional" or otherwise. Its tyrannical features are bandied about quite freely, and rigorously defended in this forum and elsewhere.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well gramps, those who cling to ideas of no rights to property, no individual rights, etc, don't get paid much attention to, since their views are pretty much against every founding ideal of this country.

Not saying, you can't get what you want..... just not at the state or federal level, in this country, as you have NO RIGHT to.

Live happy, form a co-op, start a commune and explore your "lawless" ideas. New Harmony Indiana did.....

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Well gramps, those who cling to ideas of no rights to property, no individual rights, etc, don't get paid much attention to, since their views are pretty much against every founding ideal of this country. Not saying, you can't get what you want.....

You keep saying I don't support "individual rights." That's nonsense. I just don't think they come from the state, or from authority titles. It's no surprise that you hide behind this line of argument, because you were obviously raised to believe as you do.

In every possible situation, I refuse to to give the government the benefit of the doubt. I put people above abstraction. If you believe this nation as we know it was founded on anything but the selfish whims of aristocratic and conquering interests, you are sadly mistaken.

As Prax said, human health and interests are being placed second to profits. These social programs too are funded unjustly, through theft. But, apparently, few people think that could be changed, and that people could operate healthcare and education systems in a more humane, more rational way.

Grandpa h.