Against wishes of country, congress, Bush vetoes healthcare bill for poor children - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 10-18-2007, 11:37 AM

You must have missed this:

"ace....Bush is on record, yesterday, lying about the income provisions of the bil that was actually passed....and, as you said....he himself controls the approval proxess for states asking for higher income limits wothout federal reimbursment penalties....if Bush or his HEW department reject an appeal for higher income eligibility, and a state approves aid to wealthier families, Bush has the power to limit federal reimbursment....so he deliberately distorted the reason for his veto and the terms of the actual bill passed by congress."

...and the quotes in the NY Times articke from two republican senators, and the other info in the article that indicates that Bush's veto has nothing to do with the reason he claimed....he's jsut playing politics.....he would have spun it the opposite way if it served his purpose. He never vetoed any bill in six years....he set a record in his dearth of vetoes. Now, he distorts the facts to veto this bill. The bill authorized his execiutive agency to cut funding to any state that exceeds HEW guidelines for income caps....he told the world that families with $83,000 income would be eligible....he made it seem as if that was a new provision of the SCHIP bill, and if he signed it, families with $83.000 income woild newly become eligible for assistance, and that would be that........ and.....it isn't true......

aceventura3 · 10-18-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

You must have missed this:

"ace....Bush is on record, yesterday, lying about the income provisions of the bil that was actually passed....and, as you said....he himself controls the approval proxess for states asking for higher income limits wothout federal reimbursment penalties....if Bush or his HEW department reject an appeal for higher income eligibility, and a state approves aid to wealthier families, Bush has the power to limit federal reimbursment....so he deliberately distorted the reason for his veto and the terms of the actual bill passed by congress."

...and the quotes in the NY Times articke from two republican senators, and the other info in the article that indicates that Bush's veto has nothing to do with the reason he claimed....he's jsut playing politics.....he would have spun it the opposite way if it served his purpose. He never vetoed any bill in six years....he set a record in his dearth of vetoes. Now, he distorts the facts to veto this bill. The bill authorized his execiutive agency to cut funding to any state that exceeds HEW guidelines for income caps....he told the world that families with $83,000 income would be eligible....he made it seem as if that was a new provision of the SCHIP bill, and if he signed it, families with $83.000 income woild newly become eligible for assistance, and that would be that........ and.....it isn't true......

This is Bush's actual quote from the link you provided:

Quote:

Their proposal would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070920-2.html

I don't know how he came up with $83,000, but he did not specifically mention a family of four constituting 2 adults and 2 children. And even the current program, there is coverage for children in households actually above $83,000. So if that is your big "gotcha", you "gottem". In either case Bush's comment is not specific, and seems wrong, but in theory is correct. For the sake of argument, I agree Bush mislead people who took him literally.

Way to go.

dc_dux · 10-18-2007, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

P.S. - Hey - DC, assume you live in NJ, have 3 children and have a household income of $60,000. Your employer offers coverage that would cost an additional $250 per month for your children with a $1,000 per year deductible and a $50 co-pay. Do you stay with your private employer plan for your children or do you opt for the NJFamilyCare?

ace....you demonstrated once again that you dont know how SCHIPs works. Perhaps it is too complicated for you, as you have said repeatedly.

If an employer in NJ provides health coverage, an employee cannot opt out for the NJFamilyCare (SCHIP in NJ.) The program may, on a waiver request, subsidize that employee's premium payments in the employer's plan, if qualified.

aceventura3 · 10-19-2007, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....you demonstrated once again that you dont know how SCHIPs works. Perhaps it is too complicated for you, as you have said repeatedly.

If an employer in NJ provides health coverage, an employee cannot opt out for the NJFamilyCare (SCHIP in NJ.) The program may, on a waiver request, subsidize that employee's premium payments in the employer's plan, if qualified.

Oh Mr. Master of the S-CHIP program...you demonstrated once again that you are naive in terms of how the real world works. Perhaps you are incapable of understanding that A) like I have repeated several times that this bill (and others like it) encourage ordinarily honest people to become "cheats" and B) the system gives people an incentive to move from the private sector to the public sector.

Oh, Mr. Master of the S-CHIP program do you honestly believe there are no people in NJ or any other state taking advantage of S-CHIP when they could have coverage for their children in the private sector?

Oh, Mr. Master of the S-CHIP program do you honestly believe there are no people in NJ or any other state who have decided to work for an employer not offering health care coverage over an employer who does because S-CHIP is available?

Oh, Mr. Master of the S-CHIP program do you honestly believe there are no people in NJ or any other state who have decided against, let's say marriage with their significant other, because they might loose coverage under the S-CHIP program?

This is getting boring. I bet you think unemployment compensation doesn't affect how soon a person gets new employment. Perhaps you and a few of your buddies in Washington should go to NJ and talk to people to get an understanding of how a person can actually make a choice between the NJFamilyCare and private coverage.

You really should get out more. Spend some time away from pseudo-intellectuals and the ivory towers where you guys drink those chocolate chip double frappuchino lattes with light whip cream. Live a little. Take some risks. Have some fun.

The_Jazz · 10-19-2007, 07:41 AM

Civility. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

The consequences of the current level of discourse are . . . unpleasant.

dc_dux · 10-19-2007, 07:43 AM

ace....I've never claimed to be an expert on SCHIP, but I've taken the time to learn about the program in light of the ongoing debate between Congress and the WH because I think its an important public policy issue.

I'm sorry you are not interested in doing same and learning how the program works, including the safeguards to minimize (not prevent completely) cheats, frauds and abusers.

Using your NJ example, do you really believe that a person would quit a $60,000 job because the insurance premiums are $3,000/year in order to take a job at a lower salary with a company that offers no insurance....simply to quality for SCHIP? If the new job paid less than $57,000...it would be a net loss for that worker.

BTW, I know there are cheats and abusers of most government programs. Bu t there is no evidence that these cheats represent even a sizable minority of the participants.

I have to admit....this one from the floor of the House yesterday made me laugh:

Congress and the WH will negotiate a compromise SCHIP bill in the next few weeks, because the program, despite its shortcomings, has demonstrated proven success recognized by both sides of the aisle and by all those who have some personal connection with the program.

It will probably be in the range of $14-$15 billion, the amount the non-partisan CBO reported was necessary to maintain current level of program eligibility.

aceventura3 · 10-19-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....I've never claimed to be an expert on SCHIP, but I've taken the time to learn about the program in light of the ongoing debate between Congress and the WH because I think its an important public policy issue.

I'm sorry you are not interested in doing same and learning how the program works, including the safeguards to minimize (not prevent completely) cheats, frauds and abusers.

Are you saying you have taken the time time learn about the program but I have not?

Have you suggested that after all that I have posted that I know nothing about the way the program works?

Are these implications the basis of a civil/constructive exchange of ideas?

I don't expect answers to those questions and I simply point this issue out in case you ever want to know why a discussion with me or some others may deteriorate. As we have learned one major difference between you and me is you see things in shades of gray, including the way you make personal attacks and I see things in black and white, including the way I make personal attacks. And your last post was another personal attack.

dc_dux · 10-19-2007, 09:54 AM

ace...IMO, if you knew how the program works, you would not have posted this:

Quote:

P.S. - Hey - DC, assume you live in NJ, have 3 children and have a household income of $60,000. Your employer offers coverage that would cost an additional $250 per month for your children with a $1,000 per year deductible and a $50 co-pay. Do you stay with your private employer plan for your children or do you opt for the NJFamilyCare?

Because persons who have employer coverage cannot opt out in order to be eligible for SCHIP...there are no shades of gray.

If the manner in which I corrected that fallacy appeared uncivil to you or others, I apologize.

In any case, the SCHIP will be reauthorized in the coming weeks and I think its a good thing....until Congress gets their act together and focuses on a better long term solution and that certainly wont happen until after the 08 election.

So for now, its SCHIP or nothing. I prefer SCHIP.

aceventura3 · 10-19-2007, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...IMO, if you knew how the program works, you would not have posted this:

I also posted this #38:

Quote:

I don't think people understand the potential impact. It is much more complicated than it needs to be. It has the potential to turn otherwise honest people into "cheats" (look at the example above if $1 is going to mean the loss of coverage, many otherwise honest people will hide the $1).

And I posted this #50:

Quote:

Feel free to re-read what I wrote. In the State of Texas, there is a household asset test of $10,000. What assets are included? Who constitutes the "household"? What happens when a 17 year-old gets a job and saves money, but there are other children? Does the 17 year-olds assets cause the other children to lose coverage? What happen if granma moves into the household and has money in her checking account? What if the money comes in and goes out so that the average balance in checking and savings never exceeds $10,000, but the high was greater.

Now mulitply the above by 50 different states, then multiply that asset test by the other tests.

I am not saying people can't figure it out, I am just saying it is overly complicated.

I certainly don't know the detailed requirements in all 50 states or even one state. I am betting no one person does. But, like I said people can figure it out. So unless you understand, right now, how the program works in all 50 states, you help prove my point.

Quote:

Because persons who have employer coverage cannot opt out in order to be eligible for SCHIP...there are no shades of gray.

We define "opt out" in different ways. A person making a choice where they could have private coverage compared to a choice where they don't have private coverage but qualify for S-CHIP has "opted out" of the private sector based on my definition. A couple deciding not to get married because they may not qualify for S-CHIP, has "opted out" of the private sector. There are thousands of other possible examples. Perhaps you can define what you mean when you say "opt out"

Quote:

If the manner in which I corrected that fallacy appeared uncivil to you or others, I apologize.

I apologize to you as well. However, I still wonder if you understand. I certainly understand my personal attack against you. I am not a sensitive person and like I said, I just point it out in case you desire an increased understanding. I often find it ironic how, as a conservative, I am expected to take personal attacks without response and how my response is considered out of line but not the initial attack. I saw a segment of a floor speech on the S-CHIP bill were a Congressman stated that Bush was sending children to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his amusement. Democrats say that and then expect civil discourse.

Quote:

In any case, the SCHIP will be reauthorized in the coming weeks and I think its a good thing....until Congress gets their act together and focuses on a better long term solution and that certainly wont happen until after the 08 election.

As I have stated many times, it could be better. If I were a leader in Congress I would send my ideal bill to be veto'd before sending a compromise.

Quote:

So for now, its SCHIP or nothing. I prefer SCHIP.

That is a false choice. There are other options.

dc_dux · 10-19-2007, 11:10 AM

Quote:

That is a false choice. There are other options.

In theory, there are always other options.

In practical political terms, there are no other options on the table or being contemplated by the WH or Congressional Republicans other than tinkering with the SCHIP funding level and other minor alterations.

For now, its some variation of SCHIP reauthorization or nothing....thats real politics, like it or not.

Rekna · 10-19-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I have to admit....this one from the floor of the House yesterday made me laugh:

To bad it is completely dishonest using a bunch of words to scare conservatives "Socialized" "Clinton" "Hilary" "Illegal's and their Parents". Of course it is not socialized medicine, Clinton really has little to do with this, and in order to qualify you have to PROVE you have legal status. Also legal immigrants aren't eligible until they have lived in the US for 5 years.

aceventura3 · 10-22-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

To bad it is completely dishonest using a bunch of words to scare conservatives "Socialized" "Clinton" "Hilary" "Illegal's and their Parents". Of course it is not socialized medicine, Clinton really has little to do with this, and in order to qualify you have to PROVE you have legal status. Also legal immigrants aren't eligible until they have lived in the US for 5 years.

What was the intent of this comment? Is it honest?

Quote:

WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Pete Stark launched a shocking one-man assault on the Bush administration Thursday, interrupting floor debate before a failed attempt to override President Bush's veto of the so-called SCHIP bill to suggest that U.S. troops in Iraq are getting their heads "blown off for the president's amusement."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303119,00.html

Rekna · 10-22-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What was the intent of this comment? Is it honest?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303119,00.html

That seemed to me like a comment by someone who had gotten so frustrated that he snapped and just went off. Should he have done it? No. Do I think people took him seriously and believe what he said? No. I don't think our president is amused by the deaths of Americans but I do think the priority of the troops lives is below keeping his friends in power, making his friends and himself richer, and his own pride.

aceventura3 · 10-22-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

That seemed to me like a comment by someone who had gotten so frustrated that he snapped and just went off. Should he have done it? No. Do I think people took him seriously and believe what he said? No. I don't think our president is amused by the deaths of Americans but I do think the priority of the troops lives is below keeping his friends in power, making his friends and himself richer, and his own pride.

What friends? Bush has almost had a complete turnover in his Cabinet. The current crop of Republican candidates are keeping an arms length from him. Bush was not helpful in keeping his party in control of Congress. On the world stage, especially if you believe his critics, he has no respect from other world leaders. Haliburton is moving its world headquarters to the Middle East, not that he was ever directly involved with the company. Regardless - if what you say is true, our nation has truly reached a low point - to think one man can take us to war for his own benefit or the benefit of his "friends" and in a way you seem to agree with Rep. Stark.

Rekna · 10-22-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What friends? Bush has almost had a complete turnover in his Cabinet. The current crop of Republican candidates are keeping an arms length from him. Bush was not helpful in keeping his party in control of Congress. On the world stage, especially if you believe his critics, he has no respect from other world leaders. Haliburton is moving its world headquarters to the Middle East, not that he was ever directly involved with the company. Regardless - if what you say is true, our nation has truly reached a low point - to think one man can take us to war for his own benefit or the benefit of his "friends" and in a way you seem to agree with Rep. Stark.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. After 9/11 he saw his chance so he blamed 9/11 on Saddam and went in. I don't know all of the reasons he went in but we do know that every reason that he gave us was a lie. Saddam did not have WMD, Saddam was not linked to Al Qaeda or responsible for 9/11. Saddam was not a threat to the US. We know that he purposefully lied and cherry picked evidence in order to push the US into war (remember the 16 words). Now thanks to the Neocon's war the middle east is less secure, Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, our military is breaking, our economy is crashing, and we are debt has grown at ridiculous rates.

The world and specifically the US would have been better off if we had never invaded Iraq. Sure we killed a bad guy but at what cost? How many more bad guys have we created?

Did Bush do this alone? No he had the help of the Neocon's, complicit Republicans, and the Necon news network (Fox News). They used fear to drive the US into a war that was unnecessary and keep us there. Was it for oil? Was it because of an irrational fear of muslims? I don't know but we are there and it all rests squarely on the shoulders of one man. George W Bush. He was the decider and he decided poorly. In the end he was the boss he made the mistakes and in my view he violated the damned piece of paper (ie constitution) over and over. He is the worst president this nation has ever had and I pray that the next president and congress will work together in order to limit the ability of one man to destroy this nation.

JohnBua · 10-22-2007, 04:16 PM

What is to stop families from opting out of their job's health care so they can pocket that money and then using this government plan? Is there any reason for personal accountablity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Bush wanted to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. After 9/11 he saw his chance so he blamed 9/11 on Saddam and went in. I don't know all of the reasons he went in but we do know that every reason that he gave us was a lie. Saddam did not have WMD, Saddam was not linked to Al Qaeda or responsible for 9/11. Saddam was not a threat to the US. We know that he purposefully lied and cherry picked evidence in order to push the US into war (remember the 16 words). Now thanks to the Neocon's war the middle east is less secure, Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, our military is breaking, our economy is crashing, and we are debt has grown at ridiculous rates.

The world and specifically the US would have been better off if we had never invaded Iraq. Sure we killed a bad guy but at what cost? How many more bad guys have we created?

Did Bush do this alone? No he had the help of the Neocon's, complicit Republicans, and the Necon news network (Fox News). They used fear to drive the US into a war that was unnecessary and keep us there. Was it for oil? Was it because of an irrational fear of muslims? I don't know but we are there and it all rests squarely on the shoulders of one man. George W Bush. He was the decider and he decided poorly. In the end he was the boss he made the mistakes and in my view he violated the damned piece of paper (ie constitution) over and over. He is the worst president this nation has ever had and I pray that the next president and congress will work together in order to limit the ability of one man to destroy this nation.

Wow people still saying Bush lied about WMDS? I guess all the Democrats, especially the ones like Kerry in the Senate Intellegence comittee that approved the information saying Saddam had WMDs. And can you please quote were Bush said Saddam was linked to 9/11 and Al Queda? Thank you.

Rekna · 10-22-2007, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

What is to stop families from opting out of their job's health care so they can pocket that money and then using this government plan? Is there any reason for personal accountablity?

Wow people still saying Bush lied about WMDS? I guess all the Democrats, especially the ones like Kerry in the Senate Intellegence comittee that approved the information saying Saddam had WMDs. And can you please quote were Bush said Saddam was linked to 9/11 and Al Queda? Thank you.

Do you live in a box? The reason the senate said saddam had WMDs is because they were presented false and missleading evidence saying there was WMDs. They were not shown the entire picture as that was reserved for Bush and his croneys. As for the 9/11 Al Qaeda link look at the following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun17.html

Cheney lies on Iraq-Al Qaeda ties

or how about from the horses mouth:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

Quote:

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

JohnBua · 10-23-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Do you live in a box? The reason the senate said saddam had WMDs is because they were presented false and missleading evidence saying there was WMDs. They were not shown the entire picture as that was reserved for Bush and his croneys. As for the 9/11 Al Qaeda link look at the following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun17.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=3

or how about from the horses mouth:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

So you mean the Houe Intellegence committee, the one who's job it is is to oversee our integence was tricked by the great dummie Bush? Come on.... You do realize that Saddam was leading the weapon's inspectors on a wild goose chase while flouting the Food for Oil program AND illegally selling weapons to half the security council of the un? Saddam was a bad person that needed to be taken out. My only problem is that it took so long to acheive results. This should have been happening from the moment the major bombing stopped.

Did you read your own links?

Quote:

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

Officials with the Sept. 11 commission yesterday tried to soften the impact of the staff's finding, noting that the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, agrees with the administration on key points. "Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States."

Rekna · 10-23-2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

So you mean the Houe Intellegence committee, the one who's job it is is to oversee our integence was tricked by the great dummie Bush?

I wouldn't say tricked i'd say they were lied to and misslead. America was being pushed via a dangerous level of patriotism to not question anything Bush said and we paid for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

You do realize that Saddam was leading the weapon's inspectors on a wild goose chase while flouting the Food for Oil program AND illegally selling weapons to half the security council of the un? Saddam was a bad person that needed to be taken out. My only problem is that it took so long to acheive results. This should have been happening from the moment the major bombing stopped.

Sure Saddam was bad, no one is saying he wasn't. I'm just not sure if Iraq or the world is better off now. And while were taking out bad people I think we should look at Saudi Arabia, Darfur, Burma, and many other nations. Why aren't you pushing to invade those countries?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

S
Did you read your own links?

again i'll quote the horses mouth and not Bush's back pedaling:

Quote:

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

listen to any number of Cheney videos he is still saying it today.

dc_dux · 10-24-2007, 06:44 AM

A report to be released today by the Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of the Iraq (and Afghanistan) war at $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years, including $750 billion in interest.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...terstitialskip

Yet, $35 billion over seven years ($5 bil/yr) to provide insurance for children of working class families is too much?

How fucked are those priorities?

JohnBua · 10-24-2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I wouldn't say tricked i'd say they were lied to and misslead. America was being pushed via a dangerous level of patriotism to not question anything Bush said and we paid for it.

Sure Saddam was bad, no one is saying he wasn't. I'm just not sure if Iraq or the world is better off now. And while were taking out bad people I think we should look at Saudi Arabia, Darfur, Burma, and many other nations. Why aren't you pushing to invade those countries?

again i'll quote the horses mouth and not Bush's back pedaling:

listen to any number of Cheney videos he is still saying it today.

Still the intellegence was deemed solid. And the article says the opposite of what the poster implied. Bush did not lie, nor did the article say that Bush said that Saddam was involved in 9 11. And the article confirmed that Bush didn't say that Saddam was involved with Al Queda. The article said that they had met. I am really getting tired of the people that hate Bush and calling him a liar lying all the time. For the last time, Bush did not lie. And he never said Saddam was involved in 9 11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

A report to be released today by the Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of the Iraq (and Afghanistan) war at $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years, including $750 billion in interest.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...terstitialskip

Yet, $35 billion over seven years ($5 bil/yr) to provide insurance for children of working class families is too much?

How fucked are those priorities?

The Constitution gives our government the power to wage war, not to provide health care for people. If you want it to say that, then push for an admentment to the Constitution. Until then, its unConstitutional. I wonder why some people scream and say Bush is bypassing the Constitution but then scream and yell when he DOESN't bypass the Constitution?

aceventura3 · 10-24-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

A report to be released today by the Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of the Iraq (and Afghanistan) war at $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years, including $750 billion in interest.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...terstitialskip

Yet, $35 billion over seven years ($5 bil/yr) to provide insurance for children of working class families is too much?

How fucked are those priorities?

For a President who is no longer significant, he sure does have the Congressional panties in a bunch.

Given, the clarity in the above logic you would think it would be easy to get the support needed to pass the bill and de-fund the war given the presumption the money would be better spent. Have you given any thought to what the problem is - other than Bush's fucked up priorities?

JohnBua · 10-24-2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

For a President who is no longer significant, he sure does have the Congressional panties in a bunch.

Given, the clarity in the above logic you would think it would be easy to get the support needed to pass the bill and de-fund the war given the presumption the money would be better spent. Have you given any thought to what the problem is - other than Bush's fucked up priorities?

Other than it being unconstitutional?

dc_dux · 10-24-2007, 01:28 PM

ace.....we've been through the numbers games on both the war and SCHIP....vetoes and cloture votes by republicans. It doesnt change the facts that the public overwhelmingly supports SCHIP (75%) and underwhelmingly supports Bush's war policies in Iraq (25%).

john....please read the discussion on the general welfare clause in the Ron Paul thread. THere is nothing unconstitutional about SCHIP.

You might also read the letter from the Chair of the House Commerce and Energy Committee to the Secretary of HHS asking the Secretary to explain all the misrepresentation (lies?) of the SCHIP bill by Bush.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres....SCHIPveto.pdf

aceventura3 · 10-24-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.....we've been through the numbers games on both the war and SCHIP....vetoes and cloture by republicans.

It doesnt change the facts that the public overwhelmingly supports SCHIP (75%) and overwhelmingly opposes Bush's war policies in Iraq (25%).

john....please read the discussion on the general welfare clause in the Ron Paul thread. THere is nothing unconstitutional about SCHIP.

I guess that is the point. If the poll numbers are true, why isn't SCHIP getting passed at the funding levels originally proposed and why isn't the war being de-funded? Like I said the clarity in your logic is compelling. There must be a reason, other than Bush.

dc_dux · 10-24-2007, 01:39 PM

ace...the reason is simple....Republican members of Congress who sustain SCHIP veto in House and use cloture tactics on alternatives to Bush's war strategy in the Senate....against the wishes of the American people

As a result of both positions and tactics, the Republican party is very likely to lose even more seats in both houses in 08.

JohnBua · 10-24-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.....we've been through the numbers games on both the war and SCHIP....vetoes and cloture votes by republicans. It doesnt change the facts that the public overwhelmingly supports SCHIP (75%) and underwhelmingly supports Bush's war policies in Iraq (25%).

john....please read the discussion on the general welfare clause in the Ron Paul thread. THere is nothing unconstitutional about SCHIP.

You might also read the letter from the Chair of the House Commerce and Energy Committee to the Secretary of HHS asking the Secretary to explain all the misrepresentation (lies?) of the SCHIP bill by Bush.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres....SCHIPveto.pdf

Where does it say in the Constitution that the Federal Government is to pay for your health care?

dc_dux · 10-24-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

Where does it say in the Constitution that the Federal Government is to pay for your health care?

The same place it says the federal government can tax workers to provide income security for older americans...or use tax dollars to provide subsidies to farmers to not grow particular crops....or use proceeds of the federal gas tax to give grants to private institutions for alternative energy R&D....or to give federal tax dollars back to local governments (who in turn give those tax dollars to local organizations) for community development projects...or to use federal tax dollars to promulgate and enforce environmental regulations, etc. ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes....and provide for the....general Welfare of the United States").

Again, please read the discussion on the general welfare clause in the Ron Paul thread....start here and work you way back.

Your argument that SCHIP is unconstitutional has no basis in constitutional law. In fact, in 200+ years, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down as being unconstitutional because it did not serve the general welfare.

Rekna · 10-24-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

I am really getting tired of the people that hate Bush and calling him a liar lying all the time.

16 words=lie

The unconstitutional argument is really weak and not even worth responding to.

The_Jazz · 10-24-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

The Constitution gives our government the power to wage war, not to provide health care for people. If you want it to say that, then push for an admentment to the Constitution. Until then, its unConstitutional. I wonder why some people scream and say Bush is bypassing the Constitution but then scream and yell when he DOESN't bypass the Constitution?

The Constitution does not take the right to provide health care away from the Federal Government. Please point to the clause that says that they do not have this right, duty or ability, however you want to phrase it.

aceventura3 · 10-24-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...the reason is simple....Republican members of Congress who sustain SCHIP veto in House and use cloture tactics on alternatives to Bush's war strategy in the Senate....against the wishes of the American people

As a result of both positions and tactics, the Republican party is very likely to lose even more seats in both houses in 08.

Now you confuse me. If Bush is no longer significant and the poll numbers are true, why would Republican members of Congress give into Bush's wishes? Also, Bush and the Republicans need Democrats to fund the war. Wouldn't it be logical for Democrats to de-fund the war given higher priorities domestically like SCHIP? Is that going to be their up coming strategy given the point you made so clearly? Or, is there more to it than Bush's screwed up priorities?

JohnBua · 10-24-2007, 05:30 PM

The term welfare as used in the Constitution means welfare of the United States. Not the CITIZENS of the United States.

Here it is in context

Quote:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The framers were talking about raising monies for defence and ablity to keep the United States afloat. No where does it imply health care of the people in any way shap or form.

dc_dux · 10-24-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

The term welfare as used in the Constitution means welfare of the United States. Not the CITIZENS of the United States.

Here it is in context

The framers were talking about raising monies for defence and ablity to keep the United States afloat. No where does it imply health care of the people in any way shape or form.

You obviously dont want to read the different opinions of the framers on the intent of the general welfare clause....or the subsequent interpretations and rulings by the Supreme Court. If the Court held that Social Security (and Mediicare) for seniors was within Congress' power to tax and spend under the general welfare clause, it is reasonable to assume the same would apply to health care for children of uninsured working class families.

Baraka_Guru · 10-24-2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

The framers were talking about raising monies for defence and ablity to keep the United States afloat. No where does it imply health care of the people in any way shap or form.

But what better indicator of the well-being of a nation than the well-being of its people? If the United States wants to keep "afloat," she'd best keep her crew healthy and able-bodied.

JohnBua · 10-24-2007, 06:12 PM

The whole sentence is about raising money to run the govenment. It does not mention its people. Why would the sentence be about the government, then switch its subject in them middle, then go back? Had it been about the people, it would have said so.

Baraka_Guru · 10-24-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

The whole sentence is about raising money to run the govenment. It does not mention its people. Why would the sentence be about the government, then switch its subject in them middle, then go back? Had it been about the people, it would have said so.

Apparently, that depends on whether you are a Madisonian or a Hamiltonian.

JohnBua · 10-24-2007, 07:18 PM

Which one thinks it unconstitutional for the government to steal my money to pay for illegal aliens' health care?

dc_dux · 10-24-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Apparently, that depends on whether you are a Madisonian or a Hamiltonian.

It also depends on whether he accepts the Supreme Court interpretation of the general welfare clause or continues to insist on his own interpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

Which one thinks it unconstitutional for the government to steal my money to pay for illegal aliens' health care?

Not really relevant since the SCHIP program excludes illegals and has a 5 year waiting period for legal immigrants.

In any case, the Democrats will introduce a new bill tomorrow with minor technical adjustments to mollify the Republican concerns (even though those concerns were false) and Bush has indicated a willingness to expand coverage to 300% of the poverty level, with some conditions.

There is still the issue of the funding level, but that too will be resolved because all sides recognize the past success and current value of the program in meeting the health insurance needs of working Americans whose employers do not offer coverage.

The_Jazz · 10-25-2007, 05:10 AM

"General Welfare of the United States".

Keeping citizens alive seems to fit that definition pretty nicely. The Supreme Court has upheld similar arguments for the last 75 years or so for similar programs.

As DC pointed out, there's no provision in SCHIP to pay for illegals. To the contrary, there's language excluding illegals, and it's being refined further.

aceventura3 · 10-25-2007, 06:11 AM

Hey DC - Looks like some people in Congress are against SCHIP because they think the cost outweigh the benefits and not because of Bush. Go figure, who would ever think such a thing - a few in NC?

Quote:

I support SCHIP but ...
Boosting cigarette tax to fund it would devastate N.C. economy

Robin Hayes

From U.S. Rep. Robin Hayes, R-N.C.:

In September, the House and Senate voted on the final version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill. At that time, I joined the majority of members from the North Carolina delegation -- Republicans and Democrats -- in voting against this bill because its costs fell disproportionately on North Carolina farmers and workers. Shortly after this bill passed, the president issued a veto.

Last week the House voted to uphold the president's veto of the SCHIP bill. I voted to support the veto because the bill continues to hit North Carolina harder than any other state with a tax that will hurt our economy and cost us jobs.

First of all let me say this. I support the SCHIP program, which was created in 1997 to reduce the number of uninsured children by providing subsidized insurance to children of the working poor. As it stands right now, the burden to pay for this particular reform falls squarely on the North Carolina tobacco industry. SCHIP proposes a 61-cent increase on tobacco -- a 160 percent increase. This will have grave consequences on the growers, manufacturers and workforce left in the industry, and would be detrimental across the state's economy.

How much will this tax hit North Carolina?

A study was done by Dr. Blake Brown, an economist at N.C. State University and an expert on the state's tobacco economy. He estimates the economic impact of the increase on North Carolina at about $540 million -- more than $200 million above North Carolina's expected allotment for the SCHIP expansion. This information was also included in the News & Observer on October 17, 2007:

• $15.6 million loss in production value.

• $10.3 million loss in annual payments under the Master Settlement.

• $12.5 million drop in N.C. cigarette tax revenue.

• $540 million drop in the value added by tobacco manufacturing.

• As many as 1,800 farm jobs lost.

In fact, a letter issued by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services states that the negative impacts from the SCHIP bill outweigh the benefits.

Proponents of the increase stress that it would be used to expand the State Children's Health insurance Program, which provides health care to children and families across the country. An analysis by the Tax Foundation demonstrates that North Carolina households would be net losers, ultimately paying more in taxes than they would receive in SCHIP benefits.

It is my hope that we can get a bill that strengthens SCHIP without hurting North Carolina's economy. I have co-sponsored legislation called the SCHIP Extension Act of 2007. The legislation extends the authorization of the program for the time necessary to allow Congress to work in a bipartisan manner in order to craft a bill that will provide benefits to those low-income, uninsured children. It also increases the level of funding available to the states in order to ensure that every state's SCHIP program will be fully funded during this reauthorization period.

http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/333207.html

10-19-2007, 07:41 AM	#85 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Civility. Learn it. Live it. Love it. The consequences of the current level of discourse are . . . unpleasant. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

10-19-2007, 07:43 AM	#86 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....I've never claimed to be an expert on SCHIP, but I've taken the time to learn about the program in light of the ongoing debate between Congress and the WH because I think its an important public policy issue. I'm sorry you are not interested in doing same and learning how the program works, including the safeguards to minimize (not prevent completely) cheats, frauds and abusers. Using your NJ example, do you really believe that a person would quit a $60,000 job because the insurance premiums are $3,000/year in order to take a job at a lower salary with a company that offers no insurance....simply to quality for SCHIP? If the new job paid less than $57,000...it would be a net loss for that worker. BTW, I know there are cheats and abusers of most government programs. Bu t there is no evidence that these cheats represent even a sizable minority of the participants. I have to admit....this one from the floor of the House yesterday made me laugh: Congress and the WH will negotiate a compromise SCHIP bill in the next few weeks, because the program, despite its shortcomings, has demonstrated proven success recognized by both sides of the aisle and by all those who have some personal connection with the program. It will probably be in the range of $14-$15 billion, the amount the non-partisan CBO reported was necessary to maintain current level of program eligibility. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-19-2007 at 08:50 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

10-24-2007, 06:44 AM	#100 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	A report to be released today by the Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of the Iraq (and Afghanistan) war at $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years, including $750 billion in interest. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...terstitialskip Yet, $35 billion over seven years ($5 bil/yr) to provide insurance for children of working class families is too much? How fucked are those priorities? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-24-2007, 01:28 PM	#104 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace.....we've been through the numbers games on both the war and SCHIP....vetoes and cloture votes by republicans. It doesnt change the facts that the public overwhelmingly supports SCHIP (75%) and underwhelmingly supports Bush's war policies in Iraq (25%). john....please read the discussion on the general welfare clause in the Ron Paul thread. THere is nothing unconstitutional about SCHIP. You might also read the letter from the Chair of the House Commerce and Energy Committee to the Secretary of HHS asking the Secretary to explain all the misrepresentation (lies?) of the SCHIP bill by Bush. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres....SCHIPveto.pdf __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-24-2007 at 01:35 PM..

10-24-2007, 01:39 PM	#106 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...the reason is simple....Republican members of Congress who sustain SCHIP veto in House and use cloture tactics on alternatives to Bush's war strategy in the Senate....against the wishes of the American people As a result of both positions and tactics, the Republican party is very likely to lose even more seats in both houses in 08. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-24-2007 at 02:01 PM..

10-18-2007, 11:37 AM	#81 (permalink)
host Banned	You must have missed this: "ace....Bush is on record, yesterday, lying about the income provisions of the bil that was actually passed....and, as you said....he himself controls the approval proxess for states asking for higher income limits wothout federal reimbursment penalties....if Bush or his HEW department reject an appeal for higher income eligibility, and a state approves aid to wealthier families, Bush has the power to limit federal reimbursment....so he deliberately distorted the reason for his veto and the terms of the actual bill passed by congress." ...and the quotes in the NY Times articke from two republican senators, and the other info in the article that indicates that Bush's veto has nothing to do with the reason he claimed....he's jsut playing politics.....he would have spun it the opposite way if it served his purpose. He never vetoed any bill in six years....he set a record in his dearth of vetoes. Now, he distorts the facts to veto this bill. The bill authorized his execiutive agency to cut funding to any state that exceeds HEW guidelines for income caps....he told the world that families with $83,000 income would be eligible....he made it seem as if that was a new provision of the SCHIP bill, and if he signed it, families with $83.000 income woild newly become eligible for assistance, and that would be that........ and.....it isn't true......

10-24-2007, 06:12 PM	#115 (permalink)
JohnBua Banned	The whole sentence is about raising money to run the govenment. It does not mention its people. Why would the sentence be about the government, then switch its subject in them middle, then go back? Had it been about the people, it would have said so.

10-24-2007, 07:18 PM	#117 (permalink)
JohnBua Banned	Which one thinks it unconstitutional for the government to steal my money to pay for illegal aliens' health care?

10-25-2007, 05:10 AM	#119 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	"General Welfare of the United States". Keeping citizens alive seems to fit that definition pretty nicely. The Supreme Court has upheld similar arguments for the last 75 years or so for similar programs. As DC pointed out, there's no provision in SCHIP to pay for illegals. To the contrary, there's language excluding illegals, and it's being refined further. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo