Some people just never learn...

[thatcrazycajun]

House Fails to Override Bush Veto of Children's Health Care Bill
On behalf of all those of us yearning to see the Democrats win again next year, thank you, Mr. Bush and House Republicans—especially those of you facing the voters next fall. You just gave your opponents a club to beat you over the heads with, again and again and again, between now and November 4th, 2008. That's right, suckers: for the entire next year. And just practically guaranteed another Dem majority (even larger than the one gained last year). Don't you know better than to vote against poor kids' health care in an election season? Silly, silly conservatives. Snicker.

Comments

Asked and answered

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

The SCHIP funding is a perfect example of this. The right doesn't oppose children being taken care of medically, The complaint in this case is that by including families who are OBVIOUSLY not poverty stricken, the effort amounts to a de facto step towards universal health care instead of an honest effort to help those being left behind.

While the left tries to shoehorn this past a veto that they knew was coming, and that they know they don't have the override votes for despite a big media campaign, the children who really do need it are twisting in the wind and waiting for a reasonable bill that both sides can sign off on.
----------------------------------------------
To which shellybear gleefully replies:
Knowing something about medical costs, and the essential idea that many families can be a single major illness away from bankruptcy I see nothing wrong with expanding SCHIP.
I also see nothing wrong with universal health care.
For example, we have an auto industry that cites medical costs as their reason for being unable to compete.
And they are not the only ones.
Yes, Bush is quite right, SCHIP is the first step towards socialized medicine.
And it's about friggin' time.
Oh, and Bush "The Jerk" is pretty much out of touch with reality (the "emergency room" comment is an excellent example).
--------------------------------------------------------

First of all, if it weren't for the g'vmnt creating programs like BC/BS and forcing physicians to participate, there wouldn't be such high costs. Making it possible for anyone to demand not only medical miracle surgery, but medically unnecessary surgery as well, and forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill through such programs is what has caused health care costs to get beyond reason. First they drove general practitioners out of business with ridiculous lawsuits which hold them to an impossible standard, then they destroyed individual private practices by burying them in paperwork. Now that prices have been forced into the stratosphere because hospitals charge what insurance will bear, the people who want everything to be free to them, no matter who else pays for it, are shouting for UHC as if it too is somehow a God given right.

Get rid of the medical insurance industry and put compassion back into the individual's and the community's hands where it belongs, and not only will costs come down again, but Dr.s may once again come to your house when your child has a fever, instead of you having to go to the heartless emergency room.

Anybody from Canada reading this want to stick up for UHC using your personal experience as an example? How about from the UK?

One more thing. It was the Dems who insisted on trying to force upper middle income families into the legislation, not the Reps. And also as I pointed out, they did it knowing that it would be vetoed for that reason. Its called a poison pill. They did it as I pointed out before, so that you could say EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID HERE.

Remember this?...
"And for what? So the backers of the bill can go back to their constituents and say "We tried, but that jerk Bush hates kids.""

It was the Dems plan to sink this legislation all along, not the president's. In fact, he's the one trying to reach a compromise that will actually help poor kids without furthering shellybear's agenda.

Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>It was the Dems plan to sink this legislation all along, not the president's. In fact, he's the one trying to reach a compromise that will actually help poor kids without furthering shellybear's agenda.<<

Show me so much as one scintilla of evidence that the Democratic House leaders had no real intent to help these children and pass this bill. Or that they haven't sincerely worked very hard to convince some GOP Reps to change their votes, as claimed. You assume venal intent rather than acknowledge that the Dem leaders have ALREADY compromised on SCHIP by drastically lowering their amount request from what it was originally.

This program needs to be expanded to cover more people than it does, and the GOP won't allow it in the name of feeding that old "socialized medicine" or "government health care" bugaboo that raises funds for them so well. Just because they knew the veto was coming doesn't mean the veto in itself was what they wanted, i.e., a wedge issue rather than actual legislation that would accomplish meaningful change. You can argue about income ceilings until the cows come home, but it doesn't alter the verifiable fact that children and families who genuinely and legitimately need help aren't getting it.

Re: Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

-You can argue about income ceilings until the cows come home, but it doesn't alter the verifiable fact that children and families who genuinely and legitimately need help aren't getting it.

First, remember I said, "While the left tries to shoehorn this past a veto that they knew was coming, and that they know they don't have the override votes for despite a big media campaign, the children who really do need it are twisting in the wind and waiting for a reasonable bill that both sides can sign off on", way back in my first post.

Second, I agree completely that we can argue income ceilings ad nauseum, so why did the Dems insist on raising the ceilings knowing that it would kill the legislation? I agree that you can argue the motivations, but if you're gonna help me paint my neighbors house, but I add the condition that you must paint my house too or nobody's house gets painted, which one of us is queering the deal; me for adding a condition I know you won't accept, or you for refusing to do things my way?