House expands children’s health insurance program.
By on Aug 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 am
House expands children’s health insurance program.
The House defied a veto threat from President Bush today and passed SCHIP legislation that would give 6 million children health insurance, “while making deep cuts in federal payments to Medicare HMOs.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
62 Responses to “House expands children’s health insurance program.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
What!?
Spending money on saving people rather than shooting, throwing bombs at them?
Pres Bush and his minions will make sure that this good deed doesn't go unpunished!
Quick, Bush loyalists, bring out the "But... but.. Clinton!" lame excuse book!
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 amAnd this is the "Do Nothing Congress" that Limpdick and the rest of the thugs on the right so gleefully denigrate?
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:50 amMemo to the Wingbats.
Subject:The Do Nothing Congress.
The reason why you are able to label this Congress as such is because your obstrutionist friends, aka, the Repug Minority in the Senate will not let any legislation that would benifit the American People or the Troops go to a up or down vote in the Senate. What is it exatcly that you hate about your Country, People, and the Military?
Thats okay though. Because, your day is coming. January 20, 2009. After that date, it will be a long time (God Willing) before you will be able to do to this Country what you have done these past 7 years. A VERY long time
'Give'?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:04 amIs it a veto-proof majority?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:58 amIf not, it is just posturing.
Bush will veto it, because he hates children, but loves unborn fetuses.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:06 amYea great. More promises we can't keep. JUST USE THE CREDIT CARD.
I guess the kids getting this health care will have a chance to pay it off later when they inherit our massive debt.
lucky little rascals.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:08 amJay Randal
don't forget he loves stem cells too!
but hates scary clones. even just the cloned organs, ya know... that are created to save lives.. saving lives goes against God's Will!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:12 am#3 ‘Give’?
Comment by Frank J — August 2, 2007 @ 2:04 am
Don't hesitate, children are forced to sign a contract, and, when they turn age 6, they must go to work to carbon mines, steel mills and textile industries, to return the money 'given' to them thru 'free' healthcare.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:38 amComment by Evil Spaniard — August 2, 2007 @ 6:38 am
Oops, make *carbon mines* *coal mines*
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 amGood!
Let Bush become the poster boy for the obstructionist Republican Party.
Give the American people an easy choice in 2008.
Right now Bush with his intractable 28%er agenda is campaigning for the Democrats.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:25 amYea great. More promises we can’t keep. JUST USE THE CREDIT CARD.
I guess the kids getting this health care will have a chance to pay it off later when they inherit our massive debt.
lucky little rascals.
Comment by old hack — August 2, 2007 @ 4:08 am
How can we possibly afford another tax cut for the wealthy if we keep spending money like this? That could've paid for two months of interest payments on the money we borrowed for the Iraq occupation!
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:50 amWe must reject this frame of a "veto-proof majority"; it is being trumpeted by the crew that whined about "up or down votes" for everything. We need to resign ourselves to the fact that nothing good can come from legislation passed during this administration; the use of signing statements will effectively negate anything desireable that is passed. The only good that we can hope for with the 110th congress is to highlight the real agenda of the Republicans by making Bush veto popular programs and making regressive Republican congressmen stand with him in the spotlight.
We must also aggressively push for impeachment to highlight and repudiate the crimes and excesses of the neocon agenda.
We can live for another 18 months without the benefits of good legislation. We cannot accept the unconstitutional precedents set by the Bush Administration.
We must stop pretending that bi-partisanship is possible with people who so catagorically rejected it when they held all the power.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 am"Is it a veto-proof majority?
If not, it is just posturing.
Comment by SKdeA"
So asshat, are you saying that the Democrats should not try to pass any bill that would not have a veto proof majority? If so, then the Democrats should just stop trying to pass legislation and spend all their time on investigating the crimes committed by the Bush Crime Family. The new Republican canard is that the Democrats are a "do nothing" congress because they haven't successfully passed any legislation that has made it past a Republican filibuster or a Bush veto. That is hardly a "do nothing" congress. That is a Republican obstructionist congress. Don't see where the blame falls on the Democrats here.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 am"Yea great. More promises we can’t keep. JUST USE THE CREDIT CARD.
I guess the kids getting this health care will have a chance to pay it off later when they inherit our massive debt.
lucky little rascals."
Gee, is that like Bush using the Credit Card to fund the occupation of Iraq. Bush's balance on that credit card is 100 times larger than any increase in our credit card debt that would be the result of this bill.
It's Ok to mortgage our children's future to fund the occupation of a country but it is not ok to mortgage our children's future to make sure that they have a future. Go figure.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 amI eagerly await the explanation George will give when he denies this program for children because he is spending so much US treasure on killing others.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 amI clearly remember an apt phrase that Sister Joan Chitister spoke during a Moyers interview - "These people aren't pro-life, they're pro-birth." That is, intent on bringing a child into this world but not providing the programs to help that child.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:46 amI clearly remember an apt phrase that Sister Joan Chitister spoke during a Moyers interview - “These people aren’t pro-life, they’re pro-birth.†That is, intent on bringing a child into this world but not providing the programs to help that child.
Comment by eatyrgarbage — August 2, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Pfffft. Who cares? They're the free market's problem once they're born.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 amVeto away, chymp. When your Repukelickin toadies sustain the veto in the Senate, they'll be digging their political graves with a backhoe, big ass, gnarly yellow backhoe!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:04 amGood job House. Too bad it won't pass Bush.
But we can't say we didn't try.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:27 am#
“Is it a veto-proof majority?
If not, it is just posturing.
Comment by SKdeAâ€
So asshat, are you saying that the Democrats should not try to pass any bill that would not have a veto proof majority? If so, then the Democrats should just stop trying to pass legislation and spend all their time on investigating the crimes committed by the Bush Crime Family. The new Republican canard is that the Democrats are a “do nothing†congress because they haven’t successfully passed any legislation that has made it past a Republican filibuster or a Bush veto. That is hardly a “do nothing†congress. That is a Republican obstructionist congress. Don’t see where the blame falls on the Democrats here.
Comment by bilbobaggins — August 2, 2007 @ 9:52 am
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 amDear Bilbo,
Please don't call me an asshat. I am a lib like you.
I just feel that it is a massive waste of time for the legislators to be working on anything except impeachment right now. Since Bush will veto whatever has the low amount of votes, and issue signing statements denying the validity of anything veto-proof, we are hosed.
You should get to know the regular posters here so that you do not call people names who are on your side, it doesn't make for interesting discourse.
The legislation will provide health care for a family of 4 that makes up to 83k / year.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 pmHardly poor. Additionally it will provide for childless adults up to age 25. Hardly children. It a massive step towards universal socialized health care.
Of course BushCo doesn't give a rat's patootie about kids - but that's not their motivation. It's the same principle as trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare: they want to dismantle anything resembling a safety net. SCHIP is a successful program in spite of the miserly funding the R's have given it. They are terrified that it's success will show people how effective a national health care program can be. To them, it's the camel's nose and they will block it every way they can.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:30 pm"...they want to dismantle anything resembling a safety net.
Comment by Powkat — August 2, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Cite?
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:37 pmA functioning memory and rational thought process. Ever since your darling St. Ronnie started chipping away at it in 1981 - followed by Bush I and then Newt the safety net has been shredded one skeine at a time.
I cried in 1980 when Reagan was elected - my husband laughed at me but he's not laughing now.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:33 pmThank you, Dimocrats, for using my tax dollars to fund illegal children in the United States.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:42 pm#21 is against health care for children and young adults still in school.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 pmBut is troll willing to reject his un-needed social security monthly stipend? Is he against means-tested payments?
He repeats the rightwing statistics without having investigated the data.
The House held its ground. This is good.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm.
But is troll willing to reject his un-needed social security monthly stipend? Is he against means-tested payments?
Hmm? So you take someone's money via force by FICA taxes, then they are supposed to give back the small fraction the government returns?
I'll gladly opt out of all Social Security and Medicare benefits!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 pmI’ll gladly opt out of all Social Security and Medicare benefits!
Comment by m12
And I will gladly opt out of funding the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign country.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:22 pmAnd I will gladly opt out of funding the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign country.
Deal, upside!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:24 pmm12 -
Glad we both agree that this occupation needs to be defunded NOW!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 pmHmm? Does that mean you think Social Security and Medicare should be immediately defunded?
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:26 pmm12: "Hmm? So you take someone’s money via force by FICA taxes, then they are supposed to give back the small fraction the government returns?
I’ll gladly opt out of all Social Security and Medicare benefits!"
No, the money is not taken by force. We as a society agree to put money into an insurance plan for Seniors. Before Social Security, huge percentages of the elderly lived in abject poverty. It's the law. People you support are always free to try to ruin it, or eliminate it or privatize it, whatever.
You don't like the rate, talk to your hero, Ronald Reagan. He doubled the frickin thing in 1983.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:20 pmOh, m12, I wanted to admit to you that I made an error arguing with you the other day. You were chiding Democrats about the fact that you think JFK advocated tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy. I pointed out that you were wrong in your basic assumption but I pointed out to you that JFK wanted to lower the top marginal rate to 55% which would be fine with me. I was wrong about that. JFK wanted to lower the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 pmIf you want to go live on an island - do so. We'll even let you call it troll island.
When you live in a civilized society, there are certain mandates; health care is among them.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:43 pmTroll: "It a massive step towards universal socialized health care."
No, not at all. Socialized medicine is when the government owns all the hospitals. A single-payer system is when everyone still owns their own property and services, but everyone goes to one source for payment. There is the maximum choice and the maximum efficiency. There's no mystery here - we have examples of both. The VA is socialized medicine. Medicare is a single-payer plan. Both systems run with far less waste and overhead than insurance-based. All they need is better funding.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 pmIt never ceases to amaze me: the depth of the cold-hearted, callous, unfeeling, selfish attitude of the right.
Their me-first look at the world is shameful.
John Donne said "no man is an island."
If you live in a society, you must support systems for the good if its inhabitants. You aren't alone in this world.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 pmThe single-payer system is the key.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:54 pmMedicare actually functions pretty well considering the massive system that it is. At least health care providers know the deal and they know what/when they will be paid. The insurance system is a for-profit business with complicated and arcane rules for payments, treatments, etc., all based upon maximizing profits.
Ret. Col. JR is spot on.
Marie, currently Medicare runs with a 2.5 to 3% overhead. The VA runs at about 4 to 5%, and insurance-based runs with 15 to 35%.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:59 pmNow that is done. How about our infrastructure Repukes? The children use the bridges and roads to get to school. We have to protect our children from terrorism, drugs , gays, and pornography. Oh, thats right protect the fetus but neglect the child.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pmHmm? Does that mean you think Social Security and Medicare should be immediately defunded?
Comment by m12
I only said you agreed with me on defunding the Iraq Clusterf@ck. I happen to think SS and Medicare, even though they need some reworking, are still viable programs.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:05 pmOh, thats right protect the fetus but neglect the child.
Comment by michael
BushCo only cares about children when they can make money off them, use them to suck votes out of the Evangelicals or get them to fight and die in illegal occupations.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:08 pmI only said you agreed with me on defunding the SS and Medicare Clusterf@ck. I happen to think Iraq, even though it needs some reworking, is still a viable program.
Corrected for you!
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:28 pmNo, the money is not taken by force. We as a society agree to put money into an insurance plan for Seniors.
Really? Were you alive in the 30s? I don't recall ever agreeing or voting on this 'insurance' plan.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:29 pmMedicare actually functions pretty well considering the massive system that it is
That's why its going bankrupt with trillions in unfunded liabilities?
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:30 pmIf you live in a society, you must support systems for the good if its inhabitants. You aren’t alone in this world.
Why? The 40% of this society who doesn't pay income taxes certainly doesn't!
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:31 pmm12: "The 40% of this society who doesn’t pay income taxes certainly doesn’t!"
If you get a paycheck, take a look at the stub. Even a minimum wage worker pays taxes. A self-employed person on minimum wage pays 15% into Social Security alone.
m12: "Were you alive in the 30s? I don’t recall ever agreeing or voting on this ‘insurance’ plan."
You weren't alive when lots of laws were passed, but as a member of this society, you're bound by those laws. That's just basic civics. You really haven't thought this "civil society" thing through have you?
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:53 pmm12 doesn't have a job, so only his mom pays any taxes. Gotta keep his time free to man the KKKarl rover Keyboard talking point megaphone!
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:07 pmA vote for the SCHIP legislation is a patriotic vote to help the United States win the War on Terror, while a vote against the SCHIP legislation is evidence of some traitorous person trying to undercut our efforts to win the War on Terror.
What?!?!?!?
Think about it.
Healthy children (no matter of what economic level) grow into healthy teenagers and adults, and it just seems logical that in Bush's "eternal" War on Terror, having a whole lot of healthy citizens makes our chances of winning Bush's "eternal" War on Terror much better.
I mean, we'll need many, many healthy citizens to man (and woman) our nation's defenses. And besides, healthy citizens tend to be more attentive and will be better capable of spotting anything suspicious, while sick citizens tend to be more consumed by health concerns.
Ergo, voting against something that enhances our nation's health and the health of our citizens (no matter what age) is actually supporting the terrorists. Which means that those members of Congress who voted against SCHIP, in their vote, aided and abetted the enemies of our democracy. Traitors.
And it goes without saying that tax cuts for the wealthy have aided and abetted our enemies, since our nation needs every resource available to maintain our nation's health and the health of our nation's citizens if we are to win.
And the Minnesota bridge collapse? Another sign of what the Republicans (like the treasonous Grove Norquist) have done to decimate our nation's infrastructure, thus weakening us as a nation, and endangering all of us.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:08 pmWhy isn't mommy and daddy paying for their kids health care?
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:13 amThink about it.
Healthy children (no matter of what economic level) grow into healthy teenagers and adults, and it just seems logical that in Bush’s “eternal†War on Terror, having a whole lot of healthy citizens makes our chances of winning Bush’s “eternal†War on Terror much better.
Comment by The Oracle — August 2, 2007
That's correct! So it's time for the future mommies and daddies of this country to ask themselves a very important question before they decide to have unprotected sex, can we afford health care if I get pregnant or are we going to be leaches and let the hard working people in this country pick up my bills!
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:29 am"Both systems run with far less waste and overhead than insurance-based. All they need is better funding.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — August 2, 2007"
Ha, ha, ha, ha! I'm in the health care business and if you believe this loon, I have a bridge for sale!
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:37 am"And I will gladly opt out of funding the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign country.
Comment by upside00 — August 2, 2007"
Illegal? How so?
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:38 am"Marie, currently Medicare runs with a 2.5 to 3% overhead. The VA runs at about 4 to 5%, and insurance-based runs with 15 to 35%.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — August 2, 2007"
Where on earth do you get your figures? Insurance companies run on 11% - 12% like most businesses (I have worked in the health care business for 20 years) I know this for a fact. So, explain to us how the VA runs at about 4% to 5% and Medicare runs at 3%?
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:42 am“Marie, currently Medicare runs with a 2.5 to 3% overhead. The VA runs at about 4 to 5%, and insurance-based runs with 15 to 35%.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — August 2, 2007″
Marie, first off, there is NO way a government organization can run at 5% overhead. It's probably more like 40 - 50 %! If they run at 5%, can you imagine the service you will get considering the industry standard is 11%? The Col. has been smoking too much weed!
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 amHis numbers most likely do no include capital improvements or the retirement benefits. Public schools do not include these in their figures either. Those are some big cost. Add them in then compare the service of the public sector vs. the private. You'll be singing a different tune. BTW I think the VA should be single payer it would serve our vets much better. The country doesn't owe health care to anyone else.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:05 am"The country doesn’t owe health care to anyone else.
Comment by Troll — August 3, 2007"
AGREED!
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:27 pmMichael Moore should read this article and lose the weight.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelFumento/2007/08/02/obesity_is_not_only_epidemic;_its_contagious
He is part of the health problem in the USA.
Two third of Americans are overweight MM included.
This takes away resources that could be used for real health care.
Moore leaves one huge "carbon footprint" multiplied by millions of overweight people like him.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:08 pmChubby people use more gas to transport themselves.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:40 pmWe could save some gas if Mikey and his chubby friends would do their part for global warming and health care by just taking care himself.
Lose it.
If you get a paycheck, take a look at the stub. Even a minimum wage worker pays taxes. A self-employed person on minimum wage pays 15% into Social Security alone.
Back to your SS tax idea? Guess its not an insurance program anymore....
Plus, you ignore all the welfare those people get like EITC and food stamps....paid for on the backs of the rest of America.
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:34 pmAnd the Minnesota bridge collapse? Another sign of what the Republicans
Idiot fool, Minnesota is a blue state and has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation!
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:35 pmQuick, Bush loyalists, bring out the “But… but.. Clinton!†lame excuse book!
Is this the same Clinton that took 8 years to spend on SCHIP what Bush spends in 1 yera?
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:37 pm