To me this seems like a very bad move, politically. The samd GOP who brought us the Terry Shiavo case are now denying insurance coerage to kids? Really?

In Texas if you can't afford life support they take you off it. So maybe this is consistent, maybe this is what Bush stands for.

Doesn't Christianity preach helping the poor and healing the sick? Why did the GOP ever claim the mantel of morality?

Tax breaks for the wealthiest, no problem. Insurance coverage for children, big problem.

You know how to vote in 2008.

Those "Phony" little childrens,who are they anyway?

I was listening to "Hate" radio and Rush,who makes 34 mil per year,says this is wrong for a family that makes almost 80 g a year.

Hundreds of billions for death and destruction, but we save a tiny fraction of that amount by not aiding children to get decent healthcare.

What a barbaric nation we have become.

Welcome to the Culture of Death my friends.

There is only one way to solve this problem, among other things: a federal tax revolt. Let's pay our federal income taxes to our home states and fund our own state health care programs. The Bush Administration won't do it, so we'll have to do it ourselves.

Hard to imagine what goes through this guy's mind. A month's worth of Iraq would provide our childrens (sic) with needed healthcare over a five year period. Shame.....

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans FINALLY break ranks with this moronic President and do something that is actually good for the country.

It appears that this measure will carry the Senate, it's the House that's the concern.

Although it's futile, I have written Dennis Hastert about the issue.

The final nail in the GOP 2008 coffin -- save your money Repugnacants...you won't win a dog-catcher election with a lame-duck Prez undermining popular issues...

Nisleib, Bush and the GOP are not denying insurance coverage for kids.

What Bush is vetoing is an EXPANSION of the S-CHIP program. The expansion moves the program into the middle and upper middle class, even makes it so adults can partake in the program, and includes children of illegal immigrants.

There is nothing wrong with a program that helps truly needy children, and that still exists today, but Bush's veto is about expanding the program to beyond needy children.

Little Bushie has asked for 647 billion defense dollars for 08.

More than the next 20 countries combined spend on defense.

Think about it!

The childrens get sick. We're fighting sickness over there so we don't have to fight it here.

"Family Values" brought to you by Haliburton.

Typical "xtian lifestyle choice" behavior. THOSE people are ONLY interested in you before you come out of the womb. Once you're out, you are on your own. I wonder what Jesus would do?

John D. - I agree, Bush's veto was about expanding the program to kids that are not considered "needy", i.e. the middle class.

However I am a married woman - my husband and I both make professional salaries, and our current health care coverage is less than wonderful. I can only imagine how hard it would be if we added children to the mix.

I guess it doesn't occur to folks that many in the middle class - which constantly gets squeezed in the current economy - are one major issue (job loss, major health care, elderly parent care, etc) away from not being able to provide peroper health care for their kids. It would be nice if those kids had a safety net.

The solution is obvious;

Single payer national health insurance.

There is nothing wrong with a program that helps truly needy children, and that still exists today, but Bush's veto is about expanding the program to beyond needy children.

Posted by: John D | October 3, 2007 11:46 AM

11.7% of all US children lacked health insurance for ALL of last year. That's 9 million children.

Another 11.5 million children were not covered for some period of time last year.

Over 35% of US children are NOT covered by an employer provided health insurance program.

But John D says that the current system is just fine, and takes care of the problem.

A system that takes care of truly needy children doesn't exist today John. Not even close.

Why cant people that make $80,000 a year pay for their kids insurance?

They already get a $5000 tax deduction for each kid

Why should I have to pay for their little bastards?

Another family value lesson brought to you by the president who brought us the war, a failing infrastructure and about a gazzillion other issues during the last 6.5 years.

Remeber when he first got in and he basically gave every voter a $300 tax check/bribe. Can I please return mine and get him to crawl back in disgrace to Texas.

Not surprised by Bush, he really does not concerned himself with the issues that affect the citizens of this country. The next move is on the democrats, hopefully they will force a vote and make the republicans vote on this. Next year is not far away and a lot of republicans are hoping to get reelected. If they can vote to spend billions of dollars for death they certainly can support health care here, right?

John D

Point taken. But as Mel U points out the middle class is getting squeezed.

My wife and I make well over 80K and have no kids. My health insurance is okay, but to add a kid to the policy would cost around $420/month. That is a big chunk of change. I can’t imagine what it would be like to have four kids, make 80K per year and try to afford health insurance and a mortgage. Not only that, but college tuition has gone up drastically in the last few years. We may have kept the Federal Income tax rates down (at least for rich people) but many other little things (like college tuition and health insurance) have skyrocketed.

The real issue is the incredible increase in the cost of insurance. Something needs to be done to bring it under control. Do I have an answer, a solution to this dilemma? No. I don't like the idea of Government run health care, but I also don't like the idea of insurance companies bilking me for thousands of dollars every year even though I never go to the doctor (I hate hospitals, if possible, I avoid them.) I especially don’t like the idea that the insurance companies that I get my insurance from can tell a doctor not to do a procedure because it would cost too much. Too many people that ARE insured are going broke because they need help the insurance companies refuse to provide for no other reason than cost.

Something needs to be done; I think we can all agree to that. What that something is I can't say. I can say the Medical Savings Account is a stupid idea that would only benefit the upper class.

Um, someone please tell President Bush that he needs all the healthy kids he can get so they can go to Iraq in a few years!

Glad to see the President remains committed to his ideals. This is just one more step in his ongoing, worldwide, "No Child Left Alive" project. Given how successful this project has been it's really surprising how low his approval ratings have sunk.

"Bush Vetoes Children's Health Insurance Program"?

The GOPer's continue to shoot themselves in the foot, unfortunatly they're bringing the rest of the country down with them.

They already get a $5000 tax deduction for each kid

Why should I have to pay for their little bastards?

Posted by: tbone | October 3, 2007 12:18 PM

Thats a deduction for the little bastards, tbone. What that means in dollars doesn't cover the cost for the little bastards, tbone.
How much did you pay for your little bastards health insurance?

This is just par for the course for the idiot with the veto pen. As normal Americans do not matter; the working class do not matter. All that matters to this dictator is his war and his agenda. Wake up America - it is time to force an impeachment of this little dictator and his cohorts. There will be no America left for our children and grandchildren if he is allowed to stay in office.

President Bush's comments on SCHIP are dead wrong. His SCHIP proposal of an increase of $5 billion a year is not enough to sustain all of the kids currently enrolled in the program. The Congressional Budget Office reports that his proposal would cause thousands of kids to lose coverage. When allowing for population growth and inflation an additional $14 billion is needed just to cover the children already in the program. To reach the millions of uninsured children already eligible, which Bush says he supports, will demanded increased resources which is provided in the bill the he just vetoed!

As for the charges that middle to upper class children would be enrolling, again the data shows the 90% of the children enrolled in the program live in families earning less than $41,000 a year.

The undocumented immigrant children issue again is false as the bill requires states to document citizenship before enrollment.

I would suggest Judith Graham's Tribune article dated 9/23/07 about the myths vs the reality of SCHIP.

All of our children deserve to have a healthy start in life and SCHIP is a means to get them there.

Bush says there is no money for the children of America.. But there is Billions of $$ for his war in Iraq and soon in Iran.. Bush get your priorities correct.. IF the Democrats had "BALLS" they should have impeached Bush!!! Every Soldier that gets killed in Iraq, the blood is in Bush's hands.. It is not a WAR it is a killing..

But we can spend half a billion dollars chasing King George's desert fantasy. I wonder what Cheney will tell him to do next?

HHhmmmm....he's got no problem dropping another 180 billion into next years budget for a war which we are supposedly bringing our troops home, but can't spend half that amount to care for children of the United States. Maybe citizens of the United States should start wearing Burkhas and Turbins, that would make him support our needs.

Steve, That's half a TRILLION (so far).

Would anyone care to cite the funding source for the $35B increase over the next 5 years? Might as well go after the tobacco industry.

The legislation as presented by Congress mandates a 3000% increase in the tax on cigars. Would you be amenable to paying a 3000% tax increase on a bottle of wine or gallon of gas? If this legislation were to pass with its current mandates, 1,000,000 people in the tobacco industry would be unemployed within 12 months...1/2 here and 1/2 in developing nations in Central and South America. These developing nations, who already have considerable anti-American sentiment, would see their economies destroyed and would likely be willing to provide assistance to those wanting to attack us in the homeland.

Bottom line - while all the soapbox liberals are portraying Bush as an evil, uncaring and dastardly villain, no one has ever once stopped to consider the source of funding for this initiative.

Last thought - when the tobacco industry goes under and the tax revenue dries up, where does the money come from then?

Anonymous, please provide some backing for your stats. with what you provide, you are indicating that nearly half the kids in this country are lacking in health coverage.

Nisleib and Mel U: you do make valid arguments. There are problems in the current system. It certainly isn't perfect. Fixing the current system is a lot better for all than to continue expanding government-run health care. Throwing more government, i.e. taxpayer money, at it isn't going to fix the problems, just compound them.
The complete system, from insurance companies to hospitals to doctors to TRIAL LAWYERS to consumers will all to have to figure out a way to improve the system and begin making it more affordable for all again.
You don't like insurance companies telling a doctor what they can or can;'t do, well thst already happens in the Medicre/Medicaid field. Originally Medicare denied another mamogram for my mom, which was asked for by her doctors because she's been battling bone cancer for the past year and that disgnosis occurred just a couple of months after a mamogram. Medicare did eventually back down, but not without a fight from my mom and her doctors.
Just don't think everything will be rosy under government-run health care. It won't and costs will continue to skyrocket. Shoot, the Dan Ryan project was to only cost us $500 million. Now, it's more like a $1 billion.

Aw, boo hoo, you make 80 grand and can't afford the health insurance premium for your kids without having to give other things up! Like what? Your BMW, the time-share, the dinners at trendy restaurants? You boomer parents make me sick - you want kids to show how accomplished you are but the rest of us are supposed to subsidize your fasmilies. I don't have kids and I'm tired of being taxed to support those that do. Go Bush - the truly needy kids are still taken care of - the boomer brats aren't.

If you make $80,000 a year BEFORE TAXES in California for instance, you may very well be living on the edge. Have you ever seen how much housing costs out there? You can't go anywhere in most areas without a car. Deduct yearly $12-20,000 for health insurance premiums. How much is left for a family of four? It not only should be based on need but cost of living where you are.

My other beef is NCLB. If the childrens are sick, how do they learn?

Not that many years ago 100% of children lacked health insurance. You know what, health care was affordable because people weren't bilking insurance companies. You all are just dying to get another program like medicaid that doesn't work, costs the country millions, & is an easy mark for con artists & criminals. It is always packaged "for the children".
Let me get this straight, the government is responsible for you until your eighteen, then picks you up again right around 60. I hate to tell you, but us people that make slightly over 80k a year have all the tax money and most of the guns. We will eventually get tired of packing you all around on our backs!!!

The president says that the program costs too much and is creeping into the middle class. But here are the facts:

1. The cost of covering 10 ’million kids for five years is less than the cost of the Iraq War for seven months.

2. The bill actually makes it harder, not easier, for states to expand the program to higher-income families.

3. If their parents could get - and could afford - private insurance, these kids would already have coverage.

I work with Families USA and I want to encourage all of you to join us this important fight. Visit http://www.familiesusa.org to learn more about how you can help. Let's get to work and get Congress to override this deplorable veto!

Posted by: John D | October 3, 2007 1:01 PM

John D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", DEMANDING that people provide supporting links to back up their facts.

YET he still hasn't been able to provide any links to support his allegation that John Edwards pays as much as Bush does for his suits.

THAT'S JUST TOO FUNNY!!!!

Pot, meet the Streamwood kettle.

"The legislation as presented by Congress mandates a 3000% increase in the tax on cigars. Would you be amenable to paying a 3000% tax increase on a bottle of wine or gallon of gas? If this legislation were to pass with its current mandates, 1,000,000 people in the tobacco industry would be unemployed within 12 months...1/2 here and 1/2 in developing nations in Central and South America. These developing nations, who already have considerable anti-American sentiment, would see their economies destroyed and would likely be willing to provide assistance to those wanting to attack us in the homeland."

the constant targetting of marginalized groups with "sin taxes" to fund broad programs has to stop. There are probably more non-smokers with kids out there than smokers with kids.

Here is a better idea for funding this program: $0.10/gallon of milk sold. Offer a $50.00 EIC to families below the poverty line to offset this. You get a much wider/shallower swath, but the revenue stream is more equitable.

Creates an SCHIP Funding Cliff to Hide $41 Billion in Deficit Spending. The
Majority’s bill language is manipulated to hide the true cost of this massive entitlement
expansion – by pushing enrollees over a precipitous funding “cliff.”
- The Bait-and-Switch. It dramatically increases Federal funding to enroll new
children in SCHIP for the next 5 years, and then – six months into 2012 – it
abruptly cuts SCHIP funding by 72 percent, which is below current levels.
- The Funding Amounts. Specifically, the bill authorizes $14.25 billion during the
first 6 months of 2012; then slashes the amount to $1.75 billion for the second 6
months of that year; and then assumes the lower level for the duration of the
program. The likelihood of all this happening is, roughly, zero.
R Misleads Either Taxpayers or Children. This spending gimmick truly constitutes a
reckless entitlement expansion, both fiscally and morally. It will lead to one or the other
of the following outcomes:
- Option 1: Deceive Taxpayers About the Cost of the Plan. The bill purposely
misleads American taxpayers by “fudging” the actual 10-year cost of its
entitlement expansion plan by $41 billion. Without the gimmick, the true cost of
the bill will likely be more than $112 billion over 10 years.
- Option 2: Force 5 Million Children Off of SCHIP and Onto Medicaid – and Hike
Medicaid Spending. With its front-loaded spending, the bill draws millions of
children into the SCHIP program – though many of them already have health
insurance today. Then by cutting the funding in 2012, the Majority yanks the rug
out from under these children, depriving them of any health coverage at all.
States will respond by moving those children into Medicaid – adding to the
$42.3-billion Medicaid spending increase already contained in the bill.

I think the liberals in this discussion need to get off John D - I am a single mother and make about 35K/year. My son has health insurance...paid for completely by me...and it's damn good insurance. If you make 80K and can't afford insurance for your kids then your priorities are more than a little screwed up. Maybe a few less credit cards and a vehicle that is paid for instead of having to "keep up with the Jones'" would solve that issue for you. President Bush isn't perfect...but there is not one of you out there that is. This country is full of money hungry, irresponsible people that want the government to take care of the most important thing to them...THEMSELVES. Maybe it's time you step up to the plate, educate yourself, and take care of your own self rather than expecting the government to do it. He was right to veto that bill...if you couldn't afford health care for your own kids...how do you expect to pay for health care for millions of illegals...OR...for THEM to get care before the needy children? Hmmm...didn't think that through did you?

lets look at what we have lined up so far this election season;

1. $35B Federal Health care program- per year, forever.

2. $110B Hillarycare- per year, forever.

Thats $145B/ year FOREVER.

Lets double the amount - because after all these are only election year dollars- which are actually 1/2 to 1/4 of REAL after i am elected and the "efficiency" of the FED government is applied..

So now we are realistically asking to increase spending by +/- $300B /year FOREVER.

Thats a lot of money -

And we still have another YEAR before the election...hang on sports fans this is going to be expensive!

Posted by: BC | October 3, 2007 1:44 PM

Your fixation on the price of Edward's or Bush's suits is odd.

"Anonymous, please provide some backing for your stats. with what you provide, you are indicating that nearly half the kids in this country are lacking in health coverage."

Certainly:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/02/eveningnews/main2755159.shtml

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/29/47_million_americans_are_uninsured/

http://www.forbes.com/health/feeds/hscout/2007/08/28/hscout607734.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20896355/

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/09/17/gvl10917.htm

There's a real problem out ther. George W. Bush just acted to make sure it gets worse.

Last thought - when the tobacco industry goes under and the tax revenue dries up, where does the money come from then?
Posted by: KD | October 3, 2007 1:00 PM

The best thing that could happen is for the tobacco industry to dry up. The healthcare costs it creates would most likely offset its loss. Not to mention the government subsidies to the tobacco industry. One million people in the tobacco industry? How do you back that figure up? Another more beneficial crop could be growing in those farms.

This bill was a setup by Democrats for the next election. They knew it was never going to get passed, because it is unneccessary. They could tack the work Childrens on there and all the dummies out there would say that Bush and the Republicans voted against kids. Not to mention it was funded by a rediculous $10 tax on cigars. It would expand governmental healthcare coverage and bring us one step closer to socialist medicine, which if the Democrats get elected you will see. Look forward to paying 50-70% in taxes if the Democrats win, but you will have socialized medicine to look forward to, so there you go.

Oh, also nice to see that the junior senator from IL who has been running for president basically since he was elected was too busy to show up to vote.

I hate all you liberals.

This bill was a setup by Democrats for the next election. They knew it was never going to get passed, because it is unneccessary.
Posted by: IHateLiberalScum | October 3, 2007 2:57 PM

Thats quite funny. Mr. Bush in the 2004 election himself said that he thought s-chip was great and planned on expanding in the coming years. You may hate liberal scum, but can you spell flip-flop?
Of course you hate all liberals...you're a member of the moral party imbedded deep in your religious beliefs. Why you're at it, can you spell hypocrite?

This country is full of money hungry, irresponsible people that want the government to take care of the most important thing to them...THEMSELVES.

And you can put the Bush family at the top of that list!!!!!

SGK

A deserved veot of bad legislation.

Heartburn, it isn't so much BC's fixation on the price of suits Bush and Edwards are willing to pay that is odd, basically BC is just plain odd. He ALMOST makes John E look normal.

Heartburn, it isn't so much BC's fixation on the price of suits Bush and Edwards are willing to pay that is odd, basically BC is just plain odd. He ALMOST makes John E look normal.

Posted by: John D | October 3, 2007 4:01 PM

You're the LAST PERSON on here who should be defining what "normal" is, you freak.

We all know that George "Let Them Eat Cake" Bush. Is the worst president in the history of America. And now it's clear that he is a despicable, and terrible human being, and person too. I hope the war crimes tribunal will issue an arrest warrant for him soon. So we can get him out of here. I know the US military is sick of him. And will be glad to hand him over to the world court.

For the first time in the history of America. The life expectancy of American children is less than that of their parents. Catastrophic. And this stupid man. Vetoed the children's health care. Because it might cost the insurance companies some profits. This has got to be the most stupid corrupt act ever committed by a US president in history.

George Bush is a murderer of American children for profit. I hope God gets him good. And I hope that the American people see to it that his name is reviled for all of history.

Hmmm, never had a "Kimi Welsh" post here before. Could it be John E? Dumb Dumb Janet? BC, itself?

Anyway, Anonymous, your one post, if you add up all those numbers you gave make it seem like nearly half of all kids have no insurance. Your links say otherwise, with about 25 percent being the highest. Reality is much lower than that.

From one of your links is this news:

"The number of people without health insurance coverage increased from 44.8 million in 2005 to 47 million in 2006," David S. Johnson, chief of the bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, said during a teleconference Tuesday.

The percentage of Americans without health insurance rose to 15.8 percent in 2006 from 15.3 percent in 2005, Johnson added. "This is the second consecutive year of increase," he said.

At the same time, the number of people with health insurance increased to 249.8 million in 2006, from 249 million in 2005. The number of Americans covered by private health insurance and government insurance remained about the same, according to the report, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006.

The problems of the uninsured are particularly acute among children. The percent and the number of children under 18 without health insurance increased to 11.7 percent from 10.9 percent from 2005 to 2006, and to 8.7 million from 8 million, respectively.

So of a population of approximately 300 million, approx 47 million don't have health insurance. We also know that some of those are folks in their 20s who CHOOSE to not have health insurance. Even Hillary admits that.

I won't argue that folks shouldn't have health insurance. Everyone should and there are a variety of programs available with a variety of coverages and cost. Folks always can have less expensive insurance to at least cover themselves during a catastrophic instance, whether it be by accident or disease.

earboy's motto - Life begins at conception, and ends at birth.

Heartburn,

I say take that 145B right off the top of the 700B Military Industrial Complex budget.

America needs single payer national health insurance.

"Anyway, Anonymous, your one post, if you add up all those numbers you gave make it seem like nearly half of all kids have no insurance. Your links say otherwise, with about 25 percent being the highest. Reality is much lower than that."

You came up with the number half, not I.

From my fisrt post:

"11.7% of all US children lacked health insurance for ALL of last year. That's 9 million children.

Another 11.5 million children were not covered for some period of time last year."

9 million is 11.7% Of children.

11.5 million then would be 14.9 % of children.

Total the two and you get 26.6 % of children, just as the articles say.

Don't blame me that you can't add.

1 in 4 children is more than bad enough in my opinion, I don't need to exagerate it to half.

Care to back up your claims that reality is much lower? I provided information from a wide variety of sources. Where's your support?

If you are for national health care you are socialist. If you are against it you don't care for poor people and children. The main concern is 1) how will the government afford to pay for it, and 2) what kind of controls/limits will they put on it. I have an individual health plan with a $5000 deductible. I'd rather have that than a plan that is pie in the sky. Not saying Hilary's plan is but I need more facts and details. We've seen little of either so far.

"I hate all you liberals.

Posted by: IHateLiberalScum | October 3, 2007 2:57 PM"

It's called veto bait, you idiot.

Newt the Hoot was an expert at it.