October 18, 2007

S-CHIP Override Debate: Live Blog

The debate has just begun for the S-CHIP expansion veto override in the House. At the moment, the House is not expected to override the veto; vote counters have the Democrats coming up short.

10:00 am - John Dingell has gone on about how this is "health care for America's children". It's about health insurance subsidies for middle-class children. No one proposed shutting down S-CHIP, or even curtailing it. The White House wanted a modest expansion, but not the vast expansion the Democrats want.

10:02 - Nathan Deal (R-GA) says that federal money should be limited to actual children, not childless adults. The states should fund those adults through Medicaid. He also wants the limit to go up to 250% of the federal poverty level, and that an asset cap of $1 million should be implemented.

10:04 - Charles Rangel, "in the spirit of bipartisanship, especially to my Republican colleagues", says Bush will be on the ranch in 2008, not at the polls -- so why uphold his veto now? I guess that qualifies as "bipartisanship" in Rangel's mind.

10:07 - Jim McCrery (R-LA): This expansion uses a "budget gimmick" that will not provide the necessary funding. The bill assumes 6.5 million children will drop off of S-CHIP in the second five years, leaving only 1.3 million in 2017. The President's plan would fund 2.9 million children in 2017.

10:10 - Frank Pallone (D-NJ) says the tobacco tax is a "good way" to pay for the expansion. He also says that "most" of the children are in working families. "Most"? Even families making $83,000 are working families -- no one doubts that. And a tobacco tax is terribly regressive, something Pallone doesn't mention.

10:13 - Steve King (R-IA) says S-CHIP stands for Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents. It's a Trojan horse for socialized medicine. Dingell objects strenuously to the poster. "It doesn't even look like the Hillarycare proposal!"

10:15 - Pete Stark says that the Republicans will find enough money to fund the war and "kill kids". Nice. I can see in the Constitution where military resources and war fall under Constitutional responsibilities -- can Stark point out where it covers health care?

10:17 - "Bush just likes to blow things up." That gets an admonition from the Chair to Stark, and Kevin Brady (R-TX) calls Stark's comments "beneath contempt". Brady notes that Republicans created and support S-CHIP, but not federal subsidies to the middle-class. The Republicans paid for the entire ten years when they passed it -- the Democrats have not paid for it.

10:26 - Heather Wilson (R-NM), who wants to run for the GOP's open Senate seat, argues to override the Bush veto on the S-CHIP expansion. I suspect her primary challenger, Steven Pearce, will argue against the expansion of a block grant program into a middle-class entitlement.

10:32 - I'm seeing a pattern in these speakers. The Republicans, with the exception of King, use real data and the text of the legislation. The Democrats use hyperbole and at least on three occasions the Iraq war to argue for the expansion. They have mischaracterized the GOP position as intending to eliminate the program.

10:37 - Poster family alert! Rahm Emanuel trots out the Sweeneys -- but they already qualify for S-CHIP! Once again, the Democrats obfuscate the isse of S-CHIP expansion.

10:39 - Michelle Malkin is also live-blogging. Robert Bluey reports that Republicans have finally begun supporting the White House alternative. (via Memeorandum)

11:08 - Heath Schuler says his children pray for all kids -- so then why limit it to 400% of poverty level? It's an argument for exactly what the Republicans have accused the Democrats of doing -- establishing a precedent for universal government health coverage.

11:11 - Pete Stark continues his lunacy -- "You don't want to talk about spending $200 billion to kill innocent Iraqis." What an idiot.

11:13 - Kenny Hulsof (R-MO) - "I don't need to be lectured to by someone who didn't even support the original program."

11:20 - Want to see the Stark comments? Here they are:

11:22 - Stark started his personal attacks on President Bush again, and got shut down by the Chair ... finally. Republicans called the point of order, noting that it was the third offense.

11:32 - Stark said, "Under the Republican plan by 2017, we probably will have killed 20,000 soldiers in Iraq ..." Joe Barton demanded a point of order, and if the Chair rules Stark out of order, he can't speak in the House the rest of the day.

11:35 - The Chair doesn't rule Stark out of order. The Republicans had a better case on the first instance. (I edited the quote for accuracy since the last update.)

11:37 - "This bill does not cover adults." Really? Why are over 70% of Michigan's S-CHIP recipients childless adults?

11:43 - Finally coming to the end of this debate. John Boehner just finished by urging Congress to focus on poor children. Nancy Pelosi argues that we should follow every other industrialized nation in providing government coverage for all children -- once again revealing the real agenda behind this S-CHIP expansion.

11:50 - Pelosi, still speaking, does a bait-and-switch. She says that the Republicans are wrong about the expansion covering people at 400% of the poverty level -- by showing current statistics of S-CHIP. This isn't about who's on now, it's about who gets put on after the expansion. Talk about intellectual dishonesty!

11:56 - Voting begins. They need 2/3rds to override, which comes to 290 votes. If the GOP gets 144 or more, the veto gets upheld.

12:13 - Pending the final tally, the Democrats failed to overturn the veto. I don't think they even picked up 5 votes since they passed the bill.

12:16 - House fails to override, 273-156. The Democrats picked up 8 votes, and I believe the Republicans gained 11. This means that Congress will have to act quickly to maintain S-CHIP benefits to current qualifiers -- and that means some horse trading with the White House.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference S-CHIP Override Debate: Live Blog:

» The SCHIP OVERIDE.. WILL IT HAPPEN? from Right Voices
Michelle has great coverage: Update 11:26am Eastern. On the floor now…GOP Rep. Heather Wilson, who supports the entitlement expansion and is now one of the Dems’ favorite Republicans. New Mexico conservatives aren’t cheering. Update 11:17am Easte... [Read More]

» Live Blogging The SCHIP Debate In The House from Diggers Realm
I'm not liveblogging it because I find it all ridiculous. There are already poor families covered by this program. The debate is over whether it should be expanded even further to basically cover middle-class children who aren't poor at all.... [Read More]

» SCHIP Vote Thread******VOTE FAILS*******!! from Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense
Can’t get to the coverage, but it appears by the way Democrats are becoming unglued on the floor that there isn’t enough votes to override the veto. Stay tuned. Meanwhile those liveblogging the vote, Captain Ed, Michelle Malkin, have more... [Read More]

» House Sustains Bush’s SCHIP Veto from Bluey Blog
Republicans stood firm against moving American in the direction of socialized medicine today, voting 273-156 to sustain President Bush’s veto of the $35-billion expansion of SCHIP. Michelle Malkin has an excellent recap of today’s events an... [Read More]

» Fortney: The Forty-Second Fool from Stuck On Stupid
Remember the 41 Fools in the Senate that sent the letter to Rush Limbaugh’s Syndication Company demanding an apology for Rush’s phony phony Soldiers remark? That backfired when Limbaugh put the letter on E-Bay (the latest bid at the time... [Read More]

Comments (83)

Posted by Immolate | October 18, 2007 10:28 AM

Showdown at OT Corral

Posted by SouthernRoots | October 18, 2007 10:46 AM

10:13 - Steve King (R-IA) says S-CHIP stands for Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents. It's a Trojan horse for socialized medicine. Dingell objects strenuously to the poster. "It doesn't even look like the Hillarycare proposal!"

What a money quote.

S-CHIP for the poor kids. Not for adults, not for childless adults, not for illegals, not for families that choose not to get health coverage when they could afford it (but don't want to).

Posted by Mike | October 18, 2007 10:50 AM

You didn't include the full quote from Mr. Stark, whose reprehensible comment was that Bush continues to fully fund the Iraq war (which, actually Congress continues to fully fund) so that "kids can continue to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."


Posted by syn | October 18, 2007 10:54 AM

Okay, that's it, I've had enough. The next time I read comments that Republicans should watch their 'nasty language' I think I'll shed many tears for the loss of reason and common-sense in our formerly civilized society.

Emotionally blackmailing people to get their way is really beneath contempt.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 18, 2007 10:56 AM


I'd label Pete Stark "Worthless Lying Traitor Jackass" of the Year, but at this point and with a cast of Democrat scum of thousands, we're going to have to start doling this award out by the minute (soon to be by the second, if they continue at this pace).

So Rep. Stark (raving lunatic) wins the 10/18/2007 10:17 a.m. "Worthless Lying Traitor Jackass" award.

Congratulations Pete! You deserve it.

Now onto the 10/18/2007 10:18 a.m. award . . .

Posted by John Wilson | October 18, 2007 11:10 AM

10:13 - Steve King (R-IA) says S-CHIP stands for Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents. It's a Trojan horse for socialized medicine. Dingell objects strenuously to the poster. "It doesn't even look like the Hillarycare proposal!"

There's a boomerang quote there. So Hillarycare is considered socialized medicine. Save for future use, pulleazzze.

Posted by Snooper | October 18, 2007 11:11 AM

Pete Stark is a moron, by the way just in case you don't know.

Posted by Mike | October 18, 2007 11:15 AM

Rep. Hulshof (MO-9) just identified Mr. Stark as having voted against SCHIP when it was originally authorized in '97. "I don't need to be lectured to..."

Good work Rep. Hulshof.

Posted by The Florida Masochist | October 18, 2007 11:17 AM

$83,000 a year in South Florida.

Lets see

$5,000 a year for homeowner's insurance
$3,000 a year for property taxes
$11,000 a year for a mortgage
$2,000 a year for Auto insurance
Water and Electric- 2,500-3,000

SS tax runs lets call it 6,000
Federal withholding runs another 20,000.

That's almost 50,000 dollars for a family of three before health insurance even figures in(That's another 6,000) Then we're talking food on the table,

Aren't I rich?

Florida doesn't even have a state income tax.

Republicans, Democrats, and alot of t he blogosphere need a reality check.

Posted by Digger | October 18, 2007 11:21 AM

Kenny Hulsof was absolutely great in his pointing out Starks hypocrisy, it was a joy to watch!

Posted by Scrapiron | October 18, 2007 11:30 AM

It appears the majority of democrats are on welfare and should not worry about this program. Their insurance is second only to that provided to the 'idiots' in congress. Watching the democrats rant in congress makes me afraid, very afraid for the future of the country. Personal responsibility and pride in self is no longer the goal, every day life ran by the communist (aka democrats) is. I just hope the democrats remember you get what you pay for, and a miserable life for their children is what they are paying for, with our money.

Posted by Casey | October 18, 2007 11:34 AM

So, 27,000 dollars left isn't enough to cover food on the table after all your other expenses?


Posted by The Florida Masochist | October 18, 2007 11:47 AM


2,000 for homeowners association dues
2,000-2,500 a year for gas
How about auto maintenance
House maintenace(A brand new refrigerator and dishwasher plus maintenance agreements ran me 2,000 in the last year)
My internet connection so I can make sarcastic comments
Sattelite television so I can keep up with what's going on in the world
Maintaining two computers, especially when FPL fries one of them on a every other year basis via power surges.

As I said. Aren't I rich.

Give me enough time I can

Posted by Snooper | October 18, 2007 11:47 AM

Too bad about the "out of order ruling". Had they included the ENTIRE read-back, it would have been declared out of order.

Leftinistra. BAH!

Posted by Sue | October 18, 2007 11:49 AM

I think TFM is satire.

Posted by Digger | October 18, 2007 11:50 AM

"Aren't I rich"

We're not talking about rich, we're talking about middle class getting government health care when they can pay for it themselves. Which in your example above is clearly the case.

Posted by Jeff from Mpls | October 18, 2007 11:57 AM

Florida Masochist, just think how much your life will suck when the social democrats tax your ass off to pay for their communist-style takeover of health care.

Time to cancel that cable TV and that includes the pr0n channels, my friend.

Posted by Casey | October 18, 2007 11:59 AM

I really, really hope it's satire...

Really hope.

Posted by always right | October 18, 2007 12:05 PM

I think the guy can recuperate everything from the insurance paycheck he gets every (other)year a hurricane hit.

Dude, time to seek an alternative.

Why do you want people living in other parts of the country to support you and yours?

Posted by quickjustice | October 18, 2007 12:07 PM

The entire notion that the government should provide health benefits, except to indigent persons, is bankrupt and not sustainable. For the indigent, a voucher system would work better than all current government-operated alternatives, including Medicaid.

Expansion of S-CHIP (and government control over the health care system) is precisely the wrong direction for American health care. We need to reduce government involvement with consumer-based solutions such as those proposed by Regina Hertzlinger.

Posted by Mike | October 18, 2007 12:10 PM

Regarding the votes needed to defeat the override.

They need 2/3rds to override, which comes to 290 votes. If the GOP gets 144 or more, the veto gets upheld.

I thought the final vote count depends on the number of members actually present in the House at the time, not on total membership.

A staff member of my Rep's office, who will vote to override for political reasons involving reelection, just sent an e-mail that indicates the vote shold fall 7 short. We'll see.

Posted by The Florida Masochist | October 18, 2007 12:15 PM

It isn't satire.

My house gets $2,800 worth of roof damage but the 9,000 I pay in homeowners insurance since then equals out. Someone has a funny sense of math.

Oh and I forgot, even with health insurance, the three members of my household have had major hospitalizations every year going back to 2002(Cancer, Hospital Pregnancy bedrest, Pulmonary embolism) all that costing if I totalled it with co-pays, hospital bills etc 3,000 a year. At least.

I'm writing a long reply at my blog. Stop being ostriches, this is not a winning issue for republicans.(It isn't socialized medicine, which I DON'T advocate)

Posted by daytrader | October 18, 2007 12:16 PM

154 nays right now and zero left on the vote clock.

Posted by foston | October 18, 2007 12:17 PM

Providing for health care - according to many posts here - not the job of government because it will cost too much (even though your private rates are skyrocketing because of uninsured people)

But - posts on this blog OFTEN support an unnecessary war, which will cost a trillion dollars (at least) when it is all said and done.

But you love to call us whacky. And you wonder, you WONDER! why the polls show contempt for the "no health care for those SLACKERS!" position.

Maybe it's common sense that is clouding your judgement.

All your leaders are "retiring" folks - their hey day is done. They haven't reduced spending, they've just appropriated it away from the people who pay it, and the cracks in that strategy have started to show.


Posted by The Florida Masochist | October 18, 2007 12:18 PM

Jeff from Mpls wrote-

"Time to cancel that cable TV and that includes the pr0n channels, my friend."

Pron, I have never subscribed to. That goes for porn too.

I do get NHL Center ICE. Got to be up to date on the Minnesota Wild for when the Florida Panthers kick their butts in the Stanley Cup final next spring.

Now that's satire.

Posted by Snooper | October 18, 2007 12:18 PM

Another defeat for the defeatists. They were defeated so they should be happy, correct?

Posted by Monkei | October 18, 2007 12:20 PM

Another simple case of how neither party wants the other to achieve anything of substance or to be successful in anyway ... this will come back to haunt the GOP as if they need anything else!

Posted by hermie | October 18, 2007 12:22 PM

Those who supported the Pelosi plan must like the idea of paying massive additional taxes to pay for the health insurance of some upper management-type's 25 year old slacker kid.

Posted by chaos | October 18, 2007 12:27 PM

Florida Masochist,

Just where did it enter your head that the government should pick up the tab for your family's healthcare simply because you apparently can't cover the costs of it easily? I don't see you saying anywhere that you couldn't afford it. Just that your finances would look much better if the government was paying for it.

That's not an argument socialism, it's an argument for you to find a way to make more money to provide for your family like everyone else.

Posted by daytrader | October 18, 2007 12:29 PM

Foston echos the talking points of many dems in the debate this morning casting it as guns v butter.

How about talking about the merits of the bill or is that forgotten territory?

Posted by Jaded | October 18, 2007 12:39 PM

Good riddance to bad rubbish...

Horsetrading with the President how sweet that sounds..heh

Oh and Monkei..this is a win for Republicans not a loss, it is exactly what it is described to be a defeated bill for a defeated party.

Posted by D | October 18, 2007 12:48 PM

"Congress will have to act quickly to maintain S-CHIP benefits to current qualifiers -- and that means some horse trading with the White House."

This will be fun to watch; Nancy and Harry going to the WH, hat in hand, looking to cut a deal. The PR finessing of the coming capitulation (take #171) will be well worth a few bowls of popcorn.

Posted by daytrader | October 18, 2007 12:49 PM

The left wing blogs reaction to the defeat of the bill are to say the least interesting.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 18, 2007 12:51 PM

"Nancy and Harry going to the WH, hat in hand"

Shouldn't that be "Nancy and Harry going to the WH, burqa and kuffiyeh in hand?"


Posted by Immolate | October 18, 2007 12:57 PM

It won't be fun to watch D because the deal will be made quietly. Bush isn't interested in rubbing Pelosi's nose in it. When the compromise is struck to keep SCHIP tooling along at its current level, you'll have to dig to find much honest coverage of that deal. What coverage you do see will try to spin it as a defeat for Bush.

I might be wrong on that and hope that I am.

If it is going to cost +12B to cover the same category of kids that it cost before, then compromising to +12B instead of +5B is a punt, and therefore a reasonable position to take, assuming you consider the original SCHIP to be reasonable. Anything over that is creep. Anything below is a relative cut.

Personally, I think that the original SCHIP is far too flexible for the states and allows them to pervert the intent of the bill. Just once I'd like to see a state return money to Washington and say "Well we didn't need it all, here you go."

Posted by anonymous coward | October 18, 2007 12:58 PM

Throughout this debate a thought has struck me. I've read that in other countries with socialized health care that it is a budget buster. It rapidly ends up commanding the largest share of the national budget. It also has two other effects:

-The increased cost reduces the amount spent on the military.
-The Health Department, since it commands the largest bucks, also eclipses the military in terms of power and prestige- further eroding the national ability to defend itself.

I've wondered if this is part of the 'unintended consequences' as planned by those who push socialized health care.

Posted by foston | October 18, 2007 1:12 PM

>>Those who supported the Pelosi plan must like the idea of paying massive additional taxes to pay for the health insurance of some upper management-type's 25 year old slacker kid.

Guns vs. Butter.

No, I'd much more let my child pay for this war. This trillion dollar war is NOT being paid for. Thats responsible government. Wait - lets wait 30 years to pay for this war so we can all be on social security. Oh yeah, and that will be in 2037 dollars, with interest.


The bill absolutely makes sense. People without insurance are costing us a mint a day. Extend this basic health insurance program to meet the working class poor.

I actually have people in my family who provide services to you. Loggers, miners, and other self employed people, people working in small businesses who cant keep their employees because those employees need health insurance that the employer can't afford. This creates an environment where small business STAY small because they cant keep their employees.

You need to cover the working poor to be competitive. My point about the war is that it is a complete and utter waste of our national resources and the expansion of Shcips IS SMALL FRY compared to the waste in IRAQ.

Like the 8 BILLLION in CASH, that just disappeard. For christ's sake at least take some ownership over your fiscal responsibility and stop depending on my child to pay for your support of the damn war.

There should be a war tax and everyone should pay. That is substantive fiscal responsibility.

Posted by Neo | October 18, 2007 1:22 PM

There should be a war tax and everyone should pay.

Why not the "draft" ?

Yet another scheme by Democrat Rangel to divide America.

Posted by Immolate | October 18, 2007 1:25 PM


It was OUR support of the damned war, not mine. The majority of Americans, not to mention the majority of congressional representatives, approved it. I agree that the costs should be better controlled by a huge margin and that accountability should be enforced aggressively.

When congress starts introducing bills to fairly and intelligency protect America's tax dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I will support them, regardless of their affiliation.

But we committed to the war when we started, and we must see it through to the last sacrifice of blood and gold because our honor and our integrity depends on it. You may disagree now, and you may have disagreed back in March of 2003, but you were overruled. As an American, you should understand the necessity of keeping your word and honoring your commitments, even if some before you failed to do so.

Posted by Sam Pender | October 18, 2007 1:27 PM

Yawn, same old "Bush Lied" "X would be so much better if it weren't for Bush's War in Iraq" yada yada yada

meanwhile, for all the finger-pointing from the left, nothing gets done because they're too egotistical to work with Republicans and get anything done. It's the Dems way, or no way at all, and that means no way at all. Republicans have sought compromise, and gotten nowhere. Democrats have gotten nowhere because they haven't sought compromise.

The party in power cannot get RE-elected if they don't have something to show for having been elected, and unless they work WITH Republicans instead of pushing their own agenda...they won't pass anything, they won't have any merit badges to wear for RE-election, and they will not be RE-elected.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 18, 2007 1:31 PM

"This trillion dollar war is NOT being paid for."

Not true. And a good bit of the dollars are for active duty military salaries, which have to be paid whether or not those individuals are in a war zone, or they are sitting here at home.

"People without insurance are costing us a mint a day."

The cost for uncompensated care is less than 3% of all health care outlays. This bill won't even dent that small percentage.

I'd rather pay to defend the nation in Iraq, which is one of the things the federal government is supposed to do (according to the Constitution), rather than pay some bureaucracy so that a group of people who can well afford their own health insurance, can get a free ride.

"There should be a war tax and everyone should pay. That is substantive fiscal responsibility."

Then there should be a "harebrained and counterproductive liberal social program" tax as well. Or how about the "leftwing special interest group subsidy tax"?.

If the federal and state governments would stop meddling in health care, the price for services would drop dramatically.

Once again, government IS the problem, not the solution.

Posted by mrlynn | October 18, 2007 1:31 PM

Exactly where in the Constitution is it written that the Federal Government may take money from one citizen's pocket and give it to another citizen for his medical needs, or for any other reason other than goods and services legitimately received?

/Mr Lynn

Posted by god help us | October 18, 2007 1:34 PM

Viewing these radical right-wing comments is utterly astounding.

Someone told me just hit here and read...well, it is difficult to acknowledge, but, yes, our country is filled with not just ostriches but absolute self-interest menial uninformed Ann Coulters' of the world. The lack of grasping the reality of the S-CHIP program and it true design is LOST among the ignorant. The real problem is, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I truly believe what one of my professors once said:

"Unfortunately, you will find that this country is filled with joe-six-packers..."

to say the least. god help us.

Posted by Neo | October 18, 2007 1:37 PM

The players in the SCHIP debate have all the characteristics of Senator Greg "I have had a vision that I am going to be President of the United States someday. And nobody, and I mean *nobody* is going to stop me!" Stillson in the 1983 movie, The Dead Zone. Right down to holding up the child to protect themselves.

Posted by daytrader | October 18, 2007 1:38 PM

The false guns and butter arguments only have linkage in the both cost funding to operate in their respective zones. The only linkage is political rhetoric of choice to create a false logic.

It would be just as valid to say you support a SCHIP v Space Program funding issue.

Both positions are simply not valid reasons for political justification.

Posted by daytrader | October 18, 2007 1:44 PM

Foston ducks with the debunked 8 billion dollar issue without admitting it's genesis.

That was money under freeze due to sanctions under the Iraq policy.

We only released the money back to the country government who owned it.

What they did with it is their responsibility and in no way belongs to us.

All the usual spin tactics for all the same reasons.

Posted by chaos | October 18, 2007 1:49 PM

We understand the true nature of the SCHIP bill that was defeated just fine, that's why we oppose it. Bye now troll.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 18, 2007 2:36 PM

"I truly believe what one of my professors once said . . ."

Well, there's your problem in a nutshell.

Once you're out of college for awhile, perhaps you'll learn (as I did), that professors are generally unaccomplished dopes with no conception of the real world. Because they've never lived in it.

Kind of like Hillary Clinton.

There is no problem so terrible, that government intervention cannot make it worse. Particularly problems caused by the government in the first place. Like this one.

Posted by dwightkschrute | October 18, 2007 3:21 PM

Wow not sure who's putting out more disinformation and distortion - Capt Ed or the Republicans speaking.

First off this covering adults nonsense. The Bush administration gave states the waiver to do so . And this bill makes it harder for adults to be covered under SCHIP. Funny nobody points out that this legislation phases out any state expansions of SCHIP that include adults other than pregnant women. Sorry but prenatal care for the mother and fetus should be covered even though she may technically be a "childless adult".

The $83,000 is a canard as well. Not one state is currently covering children in families making $83,000 and the SCHIP bill does not call for coverage of children in higher income levels. In fact, the bill lowers federal funds for future coverage of children in higher income levels and even includes incentives to states that prioritize lowest-income children. Oh how about the fact the bill puts in a new performance review and accountability measure to track the number of low-income children covered in each state.

Spin, spin, spin all you want. You got the veto. Have fun with it. Always great getting all high and mighty about something that is overwhelmingly popular in the polls. By ignoring the 60 to 70% that are against this veto you're well on your way to seeing the same kind of success Republicans had in the 06 elections.

Posted by MattHelm | October 18, 2007 3:28 PM

"Unfortunately, you will find that this country is filled with joe-six-packers..."

That statement, in a nutshell, is what is wrong in academia today. It reveals for all to see the smug elitism and ivory tower detachment combined with a self-loathing nihilism combined with an almost child-like belief that should "the Other" triumph in their "glorious struggle against oppression", they would be welcomed as the natural leaders instead of stood up against a wall and shot.

The person making the above comment--along with his/her professor--needs to get their rear ends out of the protected confines of their university and get out into the 'real world'. Get a job...support your family instead of your family supporting you...pay the rent...the power...the garbage...etc. Worry about the schools your children are going to and the stuff that they're being force-fed in the name of 'education'.

It's the "joe-six-packers" who keep this country going through their hard work, common sense, love for family, friends, the community, and this country. If I had my druthers, give me one "Joe-Six-Packer" over a thousand smug ignorant professors any day.

Posted by Monkei | October 18, 2007 3:58 PM

Oh and Monkei..this is a win for Republicans not a loss, it is exactly what it is described to be a defeated bill for a defeated party.

amazing ... more talk from someone who obviously has not noticed that his party has lost control of both houses, will lose more in 2008 and probably the WH.

thanks for not noticing! it's GOP backers like you who will keep your party in the minority for DECADES to come!

Posted by carol h | October 18, 2007 4:10 PM

Monkei, I come here just to see how the 24% of the country that still support Bush think. They're like lemmings following him right off the cliff.

Posted by edh | October 18, 2007 4:15 PM

Can anyone tell me why the Democrats have been unable to put forward as a "poster child" someone who should have been covered by the SCHIP program but wasn't.

What they've done with their selection of poster children -- all covered by the current SCHIP program -- is convince me that nobody has ever been excluded from the SCHIP program.

Posted by edh | October 18, 2007 4:24 PM

carol h,

Did you know that "lemmings of the cliff" is a myth, a fabrication staged in a Disney film called "White Wilderness"?

"White Wilderness" won the Academy Award in 1958 for Best Documentary, just like Moore's "Bowling" and Gore's "Inconvenient".

Posted by Kevin | October 18, 2007 4:25 PM

Posted by carol h | October 18, 2007 4:10 PM

"Monkei, I come here just to see how the 24% of the country that still support Bush think. They're like lemmings following him right off the cliff."

Am I to assume that you're part of the 11% of "likely" American voters who approve of the job Congress is doing?

Posted by Trumpy | October 18, 2007 4:30 PM

"Unfortunately, you will find that this country is filled with joe-six-packers..."

As a son of a "Joe six-pack" who built quite a life for himself and his family basically from nothing, I would kick that professor's a** all around the classroom.

Joe-six-packs contribute more to this country than all professors combined.

Posted by sashal | October 18, 2007 5:00 PM

I actually know how we can help people without our money being stolen ( barring me quitting smoking). Anybody who works at the jobs with no health insurance and does not make enough money to cover for child’ sickness or catastrophic accident is not allowed to have kids, not unless they can get better job or insurance and if they can’t get it, too bad, stay childless…

Posted by Burford Holly | October 18, 2007 5:02 PM

Paying for the war?

We borrowed the money from China! You are going to be mailing your taxes straight to China, paying for the Chinese health care, and the Chinese universities, and the Chinese army.

Oh, and Dubai which also lent us the money, so they will use your taxes and loan payments to buy up our infrastructure, power grid, internet, and water supply. Yah, while you worry about the Caliphate (boogity boogity!), the GOP has cut the deal to make the Arabs your landlord.

Posted by eaglewings | October 18, 2007 5:10 PM

Let's hear it for the "Joe six packers" who built this country. I thought the leftwingnuts were all about supporting the 'proletariat', i.e. "Joe sixpack". Guess that went out the window decades ago, when the 'proletariat' saw the libnuts wanted to give them and their country the shaft.
We shall eagerly await the results of the next election, as they say a year is a lifetime in presidential politics; and that the voters in interim Congressional elections do not often match up with the voters in presidential elections. So far the college boy superior brilliant leftwingnuts have been outflanked, outmaneuvered and outvoted by the doofus of doofuses (according to these same intelligentsia).
How does that feel libtard, to be defeated time and again by such STOOOOOPID Republicans?

Posted by right4us | October 18, 2007 5:11 PM

I wonder if the Dems will now enlist Ellen DeGeneres for the next episode of "heartless people on the right"?

re: "god help us" is the right phrase if the Democrats are in control of this counrty. (open boders - everybody just come on in and vote, we don't care where your from, as long as (1) you vote democrat - we'll even take you to the polling booths (2) you vow to sign up for every imaginable handout that we can usurp from hard working, tax paying Americans (3) you vow to stand with "anyone" (illegal, terrorist, ect.. is OK - just no right winger!!
Is the right phrase for our education system that's been controlled by the democrats for decades, from grade school to college. (Let's go ahead and start giving contraceptives to 1st graders, why wait till their 11 - my goodness how can anyone object to that? Is the right phrase for our judical system, which is too full of left wing idiots that let off child predators, killers and rapists, think we should use other country's court decisions to interpret "our" constitution, take land from us to dispense to others (Kelo vs New London). Is the right phrase for the party that doesn't want us to evesdrop on terrorists' communications, but, want to with right wingers like Limbaugh, Hannity, or Levin - "they are the dangerous ones". Is the right phrase in that the democrats are not content with having practically all the major media sources (CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, NY & LA Times - vs FOX, and talk radio. But. of course, that needs to change - talk radio needs "fairness" and Fox needs discrediting - or better still - both shut down. And, is the right phrase for any religious democrat who continues to help empower the very kind of leftists controlling their party, who tears down the all they should hold dear.

Posted by fulldroolcup | October 18, 2007 5:18 PM

I'm amused by the Dhimmicrats who claim to be part of nation-wide majority favoring....Democrat policies.

If that were the case, the Dems should have been able to pass all sorts of agenda-forwarding legislation.

Yet they keep losing, and losing, and losing.

Why IZZAT, Fellow Travellers?

Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 18, 2007 6:38 PM

The Florida Masochist,

Since you complain so much about the costs of living, I would think that you would like to at least lower the property, federal, FICA, sales, gas, and other sundry taxes before you support a program that, while allowing you to get cheap health insurance, will actually ADD to your taxes. It would be a lot better for everyone if the tax burdens of middle income people are lowered.

BTW, why haven't you taken advantage of the HCTC federal tax credit?

The Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) is a federal tax credit that can pay for 65% of health insurance premiums for you and your family. Congress established the HCTC with the goal of making health coverage more affordable for people who otherwise might not be able to have it.

You should take advantage of that credit. That will go a long way to affordable heath insurance for you and your family since you are apperently unable to get health insurance through your employer.

Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 18, 2007 6:47 PM

"amazing ... more talk from someone who obviously has not noticed that his party has lost control of both houses"

If the Republicans have "lost control" of both houses, why hasn't the party "in control" been able to pass this and other partisan bills? The truth is, nether party has "control" of ether the House or the Senate as nether party has a large enough majority to pass any bill the other party, or the President, opposes. The Democrats may have a slight majority, but they are by no means in control.

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | October 18, 2007 7:00 PM

The Democrats may have a slight majority, but they are by no means in control.

I don't know about that. There is a serious infestation of RINOs in both houses of Congress. Perhaps they were too busy preening for the MSM's adoring journalists to take time to cast a vote.

I suspect that if Pelosi & Co. had 70% or more of all of the seats, the MSM and their Democrat pets would still whine about "Republican obstructionism".

Posted by The Florida Masochist | October 18, 2007 7:56 PM

Ray in Mpls wrote

"You should take advantage of that credit. That will go a long way to affordable heath insurance for you and your family since you are apperently unable to get health insurance through your employer."

I'm self employed. My wife works for The Diocese of Palm Beach. That's where we get our health insurance. It costs $119 a week. or about 6000 a year.

Dear wife and I have two children, but they're angels in heaven. Its VERY unlikely we'll have more. So I have nothing at stake in this legislation.

Today's S-Chip is dumb politics by the Republicans. Pick and choose your fights, and this is the wrong one. The Democrats will use this to hammer republicans in certain races in 2008 and it will cost House seats.

Posted by old trooper | October 18, 2007 8:59 PM

Steve King called it right.

Pete Stark exhibited his backside again.

The Veto stands.

The basic moral lesson here is simple
* Do not have more children than You have the means to feed, clothe, house, educate or provide care for.
* Do not assume that those who observed the above will be willing to pay additional Taxes to fulfill Your Responsibilities to Your Family.
* When the Government assumes fulfillment of Your Responsibilities, expect costs to skyrocket, level and quality of care to drop to Third World Country status and Mortality Rates to increase.
* SChip was intended to be a Safety net, not the Treshold for Socialized National Health Care, which is an abomination, not a blessing.
( How do You know when a Democrat is lying? Whenever they open their Pie Holes!)

Thanks for asking!

Posted by get it? | October 18, 2007 9:24 PM

fooldrollcup - hey stupid, it's because Bush plays his power card--it's called VETO and his numskull Republican lap boys follow his crusade--thats been why he's never been held accountable. duh?
is that basic enough for you Republicans...we see college has never been your card. no wonder none of "ya all" get any smarter

Posted by chaos | October 18, 2007 9:41 PM

Yes yes yes this will have negative repercussions for the GOP 12 months from now blah blah blah.

We'll see where we are in 12 months, not now. The amount of hubris displayed by Lefties right now is staggering. You better hope that the Democratic Party leadership is not as blindly arrogant as you are or you're heading for trouble next November.

Posted by Michael | October 18, 2007 10:54 PM

The Florida Masochist,

You pay $20K in taxes and self-employed? Thats garbage. How much do you make total income? I made over $100K/yr and never paid $20K being self-employed. All major expenses are a write-off.

How much are you putting into retirement before taxes?

Insurance is a write-off, as well as vehicles, travel, mileage, office, computers, telecom, phones, etc., etc. You are not being honest about some issues here I suspect. Or you have a bad CPA.

Asking for give me, give me handouts when you obviously don't deserve it. Cut back. Like any normal person must do in life. According to you I'd be subsidizing your TV viewing habits.

Kiss off.

You live in Florida. Expect high insurance rates. Move if you don't like it. But don't expect me to pay for your healthcare. When you are able bodied, have a job, a home, and obviously choices in which you can save money, but refuse to do so or have no clue how to.

You are just deciding not to, that instead, We the People must now pay for your bad choices. You are blaming "republicans" when in fact it is you who are to blame. You refuse to take any responsibility.

This is getting ridiculous. You're a namby pamby man. Get over it, suck it up and stop whining.

Before I became self-employed, making $20K/yr I never needed the government to take care of me. Moving up to $50K, I never needed it. My father before me never needed it. My grandparents did not need it.

Our country is raising a bunch of wussie losers. And the Democrats want to reinforce this victim mentality.

1) We cant stop sex, pay for sex education
2) Sex education does not work, pay for abortion
3) Abortions don't work, pay for sex change
4) Sex change does not work, pay for pyschiatry, prozac, downers, uppers and my doggies doctor too.
5) Force other peoples children in public schools to except my sex change as normal.
6) Tax people to pay for education to force other people to think that sex changes are normal
7) when in doubt, democrat whiney babies say tax, tax, tax, tax hardworking, uncomplaining, get it done, never quit type repubicans and independent conservatives or libertarians.

Democrats teach envy, jealousy, covetness and irresponsible behaviors. They institutionalize bad behavior in our children and the public at large. And when it all tumbles down, they point the finger at everyone but themselves.

This is the evolution of democrat self-absorbed baby boomers today. They've been "victims all their lives" and now force their mental disease on everyone else.

The truth is you have outstretched your means to pay for healthcare if what you say is true. You're making bad choices in life and expect "We the People" to pay your poor choice burden in life.

How many TVs, cars, ipods, tech, clothes, and other things do you buy a year? Things you can obviously do without? How much money do you waste on trivial junk?

Get a grip on your whiney life. I grew up and had a few pair of shoes, a few jeans, living in an apt and we never once complained. Without a father. My Mom never taught me to whine like you're whining now. She taught me to be independent in life. We took care of our own healthcare bills and never looked back. I started woring in 7th grade summer.

The SCHIP as designed is working obviously just fine. Yet the Dems now want to raise it to a level never intended for people that do not deserve it.

It sounds like you are living far beyond your means like so many people today who buy off too much in life because they buy into TV you can have it all fake reality. Wake up. Settle down. Eliminate wasteful spending. Cut back on items that are not necessary.

And stop pointing the finger at republicans. I'm an Independent. This is a matter of responsibility in life. And it appears the democrats all want to foster grandiose schemes of entitlement programs, hoisted upon others backs.

Thank God there are a few good men that stand up to socialist like Billary Care.

They have not even fully funded SS and they want to add to our tax burden, promises they cannot keep. Its a bag of lies.

Posted by jms | October 18, 2007 11:05 PM

What no one seems to be talking about is how S-CHIP is going to screw over its recipients.

If you purchase private catastrophic health insurance for your family while you are all healthy, you can get into an insurance program that will potentially protect your children you for their entire life at an affordable rate. If your children remain healthy, they can then easily switch insurance policies as desired when they become adults, and still enjoy low, affordable rates.

However, if one of your children were to have a medical catastrophe -- cancer, or organ failure for instance -- their strategy would completely change. They would then choose to retain their current medical coverage -- because if they were to cancel their coverage and try and obtain new insurance, they would be unable to find it at an affordable rate. That's how insurance works. You don't buy insurance after you get sick, you buy it before you get sick.

However, SCHIP expansion turns this on its head. Under SCHIP expansion, middle class families that could otherwise afford to purchase medical insurance for their children are given incentives to not do so and use the "free government program" instead. Now what if your child has a medical catastrophe. Sure, SCHIP will pay for their medical bills while they are a child, but what happens when they grow up and lose their SCHIP coverage. They are going to have to look for medical coverage in the private market and are going to find out that, with their pre-existing medical condition, they cannot find or afford the medical insurance that they would have had if their parents had not been given a government incentive to not insure their health.

Posted by Michael | October 18, 2007 11:06 PM

Check out story below of government healthcare scams...

Person is unrelated....

This story will pull at your heartstrings.

When the government gets its greedy hands on anything, lines get blurred, or the inept and incompetent bureaucratic nightmare begins...

South Florida healthcare fraud...

This is our runaway government today. The Congress should clean up house first!

Simply renew the SCHIP as is, this time cutting off the Adult freebies. No more waivers. If any were honest in Congress, this would've been a no brainer. Instead they play dangerous political games and seek to demonize well intentioned people.

Government healthcare solutions are utter failures and tax boondoggles. Why anyone trust government systems is beyond human intellect today. Throwing more money does not solve the problem. The checks and balances are to weak and not enough investigatory services to stop fraud from wasting billions in taxpayor dollars today.

Posted by Michael | October 18, 2007 11:14 PM

35 Billion Dollar Fraud BoonDoggle, "particularly acute in South Florida."

Ha! NPR!

If National Public Radio is reporting on 35 Billion dollar scam and crime in Healthcare shams in Medicare, etc., then the problem is indeed out of control.

$35 billion. Clean that up first.

What a scam.

FloridaM, what are your full assets? How much is your house worth? Retirement funds? Stock? 401K?

Please, get real. I'm not paying for more 35Billion Dollar BoonDoggles by Congress! Or the Democrats!!!!

Posted by Math_Mage | October 18, 2007 11:19 PM

If this turns out to hurt the GOP in 2008, one of the major reasons will be misinterpretation of the debate. So many people talk about Republicans wanting to cut the SCHIP bill, without ever noticing that Bush supported a $5 billion increase and is willing to negotiate a higher price.

Also, before we talk about expanding public programs, how about pressuring private companies to cut fluff like preventative-care policies from their health care plans so they'll actually be affordable? Preventative care has no business being in an insurance policy in the first place, being a foreseeable cost that will only be more expensive if made part of your insurance rather than paid on a checkup-by-checkup basis.

Myself, if I'd seen some credible stories about people who weren't covered by SCHIP, would be covered under the new expansion, and really needed the insurance, I'd have some incentive to vote for the program. The Frosts and the Wilkersons were covered by SCHIP, so there was no reason to even talk about them.

Finally, there's the issue of how we'd have paid for this expansion. The proposed increase in cigarette taxes is, according to a perfunctory Google search, highly regressive (i.e. you'll be taxing the poor to give them care), and debatably requires an increase in the number of smokers. Besides, the idea of taxing smoking to provide health care is ironic: "Hey, kids, smoke so we can give you SCHIP!"

So because nobody's shown me how the additional $30 billion is useful (they prefer to talk about why SCHIP is a good idea to begin with, but that's not the point), because I feel that doing something about private insurance policies (like removing all the preventative care graft attached to emergency insurance these days) would be more productive than expanding this public program, and because the method of paying for the expansion is ridonk, I'm with the right on this one. If government's going to hand out health insurance, they should do it right.

@get it? - it's "y'all". At least do it right if you're going to mock. And I'm planning on going to college at the usual age, thank you very much. I'm already taking college-level classes, too.

Posted by RogersUmp | October 19, 2007 3:38 AM

In Minnesota 92% of all SCHIP money is spent on adults. This plan is NOT for the children here. Our state government covers insurance for many that would be covered by SCHIP so to keep our state's SCHIP chunk of money we are allowed to use it for what it was not intended. What a scam!! Our local media will not tell us the truth about SCHIP and instead shills for the democrats and lies to us.

Posted by FloeidaWorker | October 19, 2007 5:55 AM

To the Florida Masochist with $6,000 SS taxes and $20,000 Fed. withholding your gross is in the 250K area. YES, you are rich! Home onwer's insurance in south Florida (maybe in the beach area?)for 5K is a steal.

Posted by AA | October 19, 2007 8:35 AM

Nancy Pelosi argues that we should follow every other industrialized nation in providing government coverage for all children -- once again revealing the real agenda behind this S-CHIP expansion.

I could only add, "Nancy, your slip is showing".

Posted by Dave H | October 19, 2007 1:26 PM

As a professor (with nearly 20 years of real world experience before I started "professing"), I'd have to say America is great because of its Joe Six-Packs, and not because of its professors. Of course, most of my fellow professors don't think America is great, since it doesn't measure up to the utopia in their "never worked a day in the real world" minds.

And as for Charlie Rangel's "Bipartisanship": this behavior is perfectly consistent with accepted Washington definitions: Bipartisanship is when I want you to agree with me. When you want me to agree with you, that's called "divisiveness."

Posted by Mary in LA | October 19, 2007 1:46 PM

Posted by god help us | October 18, 2007 1:34 PM

I truly believe what one of my professors once said

And that's your problem right there! :-)

Posted by Mary in LA | October 19, 2007 1:55 PM

Posted by The Florida Masochist | October 18, 2007 7:56 PM

Dear wife and I have two children, but they're angels in heaven.

FL Masochist --
Oh, dear, I am so sorry. None of mine lived to be born, and I'm 45 now... Sending you hugs, tears, and prayers.

Everybody else, sorry for the off-topic. Please feel free to go back to beating up moonbats now...

Posted by John | October 22, 2007 8:30 PM

To the Florida Masochist:
Wow after food and clothing you can probaby still swing a nice cruise. And at 11000 a year for a mortgage, you are obviously living in a nice 200,000 home. And obviously just moved to FL in the past 4 years. Otherwise that home would have been one third of that. Perhaps you should consider relocating? But you think some poor sucker in PA who makes 15k a year and scrapes his pennys to buy his bag of roll your own tobacco should pay for your kids health insurance. Granted smoking is bad, but smokers are not bad people and they should not be obliged to provide for YOUR needs. SHAME ON YOU!

Posted by John | October 22, 2007 8:41 PM

God help us, can you please say something of fact to show us how us RIGHT WINGERS are wrong? You are a dopey brainwashed college student. As I was when I graduated with a soc degree. Once you get out in the real world, IF you join the real world, you will realize what a dope you are being.

Posted by John | October 22, 2007 8:45 PM

EDH, they would have to put up THE FLORIDA MASOCHISTS kids, sitting in their $30000 car sitting in front of their Florida Resort Condo.

Post a comment