Eight states sue Bush over SCHIP.
By on Oct 1st, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Eight states sue Bush over SCHIP.
A coalition of eight states — New Jersey, Maryland, Arizona, California, Illinois, New Hampshire, New York and Washington — have sued the Bush administration, objecting to new rules that “make it harder for them to provide coverage to children in middle-income families”
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
woo hoo! go blago!
this will further piss off the illinois wingers...
i'm afraid i haven't been paying as much attention to my
October 1st, 2007 at 9:06 pmstate happenings, but i do know both houses have been
tusslin' with the guv... mostly about his determination to
have children's health coverage...
...
Oh, how happy this news makes me. Maybe even a few of the 29 percenters will take notice of just how cockeyed Our Glorious Leader is.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:16 pmPerhaps the courts can rule this assclown administration out of order.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:20 pmOctober 1st, 2007 at 9:29 pm
“I’m a uniter, not a divider.â€
Comment by EvilPoet — October 1, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
It's true. We all hate him now.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:29 pmIt’s true. We all hate him now.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 1, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
**evil laugh**
October 1st, 2007 at 9:37 pm**evil laugh**
Comment by Zooey — October 1, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
There, how's that?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:41 pmI am proud to have lived and voted (not simultaneously) in two of them.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:58 pmThere, how’s that?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 1, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Heh, not subtle at all!
October 1st, 2007 at 10:04 pmBush has changed his Child Health Day proclamation to tell kids they're screwed.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:10 pmSo the childrens got some health carin to do?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:16 pmBravo to the eight states. Why don't the other forty-two states join them in support SCHIP and opposing insane Bush & his Veto?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:09 pmI also read in a local paper that the schools were getting cuts in their federal funding too. No Child Left Behind my ass.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:10 pmGotta feel pretty good when you get states to sue you. Means you are pissing everyone off, at least most of those with kids ... or that were kids at one time.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:15 pmHeh, not subtle at all!
Comment by Zooey — October 1, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Geez, you didn't ask for subtle. You just said **evil laugh**, and in my opinion, THAT was an evil laugh...
October 1st, 2007 at 11:16 pmI am also proud to have lived and voted in two of them. My home state of CA and my former home state of NH. (If NH can finally give up being a conservative state there's hope for all of them.)
Zooey and The Republic of Stupidity - you crack me up.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:23 pmBravo to the eight states. Why don’t the other forty-two states join them in support SCHIP and opposing insane Bush & his Veto?
Comment by Ditch Mitch KY
The other states do support SCHIP, they just aren't suing the government. A majority of the public also supports SCHIP. Bush is going to do the Republican party major harm by vetoing this bill. But, like I heard on Countdown tonight, a quote by Sy Hersch, someone in Washington told him that "Bush doesn't give a rats ass what happens to the Republicans in the next election". All he cares about is getting what he wants.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:17 amComment by Michael — October 2, 2007 @ 12:32 am
Gee, Michael, you're so charming, and... and... "meaningful" w/ the generalizations, and stereotyping, 'n name calling, 'n blanket condemnations.
It's really, really hard to fight the urge ta tell ya ta go F- yerself, ya greedy, whiny crybaby. Better go chug a bottle of yer Screaming Eagle Cabernet (jes' $2,222.95/bottle) so's ya can pass out in a right wing stupor. Ooops, yer already in one.
Oh, that's right... you work in "health care" **cough... cough**. Yer an "expert" **cough... cough**. You "know better" ** cough cough**. Oops I'm sick! Better look out. I might breath on ya, and get govt aid too!!! Cooties!!! Cooties!!!
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 amBecause you never made a valid point!
Comment by Michael — October 2, 2007 @ 12:52 am
F_ YOU... YOU PATHETIC WHINY NAZI!
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:53 amYou know what your real problem is?
Underneath it all, you don't like yourself.
You're a rage-aholic and a coward. you come here to take your temper out on people you'll never have to meet or deal w/ face-to-face. You're a bully and that makes you a coward.
My father knocked me out cold once w/ one punch when I was 6. He sucker punched a 6 yr old. Do you really think I'm afraid of you?
You are right about some of what you say, and you are very, very wrong about other things. You demand people acknowledge what you say, but you NEVER acknowledge the validity of their viewpoints too.
They are wrong sometimes, and they are right sometimes. You are right sometimes and you are WRONG sometimes. It is the way of all human affairs.
You blanket defend Bush, NO MATTER HOW UGLY the behavior, and you condemnd totally anyone who dislikes what Bush does or dares to disagree w/ you over ANYTHING.
The night we talked you liked that I would acknowledge your viewpoint, but that sort of respect is a 2 way street, and you don't want to reciprocate.
Afraid of you? YOU??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA... yer a comic.
And here you are, quivering in your rage, hoping I come back so you can take your temper out on me again.
But what you really, really hate? Being alone.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:27 amrep?
Hiding under your bed?
Comment by Michael — October 2, 2007 @ 1:01 am
Who's hiding under yours, Mr. Craig?
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 amAh, cursing is what liberals resort to when they have no answers to legitimate questions! That’s why I am here. To expose your stupidity!
Comment by Michael — October 2, 2007 @ 12:58 am
Projections, and insults are what conservatives do to avoid actual debate or relevant questions.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:30 amWHY DON’T I EVER HEAR ANYTHING FROM YOU LIBERAL LEACHES CONCERNING PARENT’S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN? WHY? WHY? WHY?
Comment by Michael — October 2, 2007 @ 12:55 am
Why don't I ever hear anything about the conservative leaches concerning corporate responsibility to provide healthcare for all of their workers. Why? Why? Why?
Oh wait, responsibility is something Michael only expects others to have, not for him to have to provide? ;)
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:32 amBut they do! If mommy and daddy pay for it!
Comment by Michael — October 2, 2007 @ 12:27 am
So marley, would you prefer that poor parents put their children in an orphanage since greedy republicans won't pay them living wages? Of course you do...
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 amPoor Mikey's head will explode when the Dems have large majorities in both Houses and the WH. Will enjoy listening to him in Jan '09.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 amYes, and lazy parents should also pay for all their children's education too! I'm so tired of these freeloading socialist baby-factories asking me to support thier pathetic little needs. So what if they have to take on an extra couple jobs to do it. With how much the economy is growing for low income earners and how much annual incomes are rising for the lower classes I don't see any reason these lazy losers can't pay for these most basic of human needs. It's not like working sixteen hours a day will affect their ability to properly raise their children in anyway either because a good traditional family should have a stay at home mother anyway. That's what all us conservative folk recommend. Wait, did I just contradict myself? Oh well, I'm a conservative mind that prefers to conserve on thinking about reality because it's too damn hard to concern myself about the needs of others when theirs so much "me" to think about.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:17 am>when I never hear a word about parent’s
>responsibility from you dopes!
what? did I hear you say something about iraqi parents responsibilities?
oh no, I guess not.. I guess we're giving them free healthcare over there so we dont have to give them free healthcare over here, huh mikey?
so you agree that if a pregnant woman thinks she can't provide adequate prenatal + postnatal care for her children, she should just abort them right?
which is worse in your mind? abortions you dont have to pay for, or healthcare for other peoples children you DO have to pay for?
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:21 am>But they do! If mommy and daddy pay for it!
>Comment by Michael
what if theres no daddy around mikey?
we make the kid suffer for the mom's lapse in judgement for getting knocked up by a bumb?
how would you feel about not having to pay for childrens healthcare, as long as every american woman got one free abortion on the taxpayers tab?
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:23 am>Are you the nut in the center?
I'm the mocha messiah that melts in your mouth, not in your toilet stall.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:39 am"the bill includes health assistance for the children of illegal aliens"
That's a lie. That original provision was struck from the final bill.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:01 amComment by Daryll — October 2, 2007 @ 8:52 am
This has been a pretty common cry from the right -- we're paying for people who make $40,000 -- or $60,000 -- or $80,000 -- or whatever. This is a meaningless argument, since different ceilings apply different places, based on what the cost of living is. For example, in New York City, $80,000 still puts you less than average. But in Omaha, that puts you in a very comfortable lifestyle.
As far as paying for children of illegal aliens -- if the children were born here, they are U.S. citizens. If you believe they shouldn't be citizens, that's a separate argument -- one that needs to be changed through a constitutional amendment, not vetoing SCHIP. Until that change is made, children who are citizens get the benefits of being citizens no matter who their parents are.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:05 amAhh, I responded to an attention seeking troll. Sorry. Won't happen again, though there are so many things that could be said regarding the the red-herring-income-argument.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:10 amComment by Frosty Cupcake — October 2, 2007 @ 9:10 am
No worries, we all do it from time to time. And Daryll can be sooo much fun to feed, though.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:18 amI find it funny that TP put in the article "...coverage for middle income families."
What is the takeon this? Is it concern that the middle class is beoming the lower class, or that middle class is trying to get welfare that should be for lower class? Inquiring minds want to know.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:29 amDaryll you crack me up. What are you doing on a thread that doesnt involve gay sex? is SCHIP an acronym for some top secret "homos only" organization that only gays (and you) happen to know about?
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
Do you agree with this word of God Daryll?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - (Lev. 11:10,) it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Also, theres something in the bible about how those who disprect thier parents should be put to death. Do you agree Daryll?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:50 amSorry to interrupt the circle jerk, but Americans will never pay for the health care of middle class kids and middle class adults under 25. Do you guys want the federal government to wipe your butt too? I'm no fan of Bush, but he will make up for his traiterous shamnesty bill if he vetos this piece of garbage. The Dems tried to get the get universal healthcare's nose under the tent by trying to modify the scope of SCHIP and common sense Americans smelled a rat. If the Dems don't pull this garbage out of the bill and get funding approved for SCHIP ASAP, millions of impoverished kids will have a lapse in healthcare coverage. So who is really hurting the kids? That's right, the marxist scum that has become the democrat party.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:10 amHa hey "joe" you talk like a little girl.
Is social security "socialism" too? Are you against that?
>Democracy and freedom are best served when issues like this remain at >the state level where the people can actually have an influence.
I'll address your other persona here. Nice conclusory argument you have here. Care to tell us exactly what sort of things you think the founding fathers were referring to when they said that congress should "provide for the general welfare"?
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:57 amComment by Joe Armstrong — October 2, 2007 @ 10:10 am
I may need a machete to navigate my way through your rant, but here goes.
"Americans will never pay for the health care of middle class kids and middle class adults under 25."
-- Two points here. One, the middle class can no longer afford health care unless somebody (the government or their employer) pays for at least part of it. Two, adults under 25 only qualify if they are college-attending dependents of their parents.
"Do you guys want the federal government to wipe your butt too?"
-- Why is it that the wingnut response to everything the government tries to do for its citizens is to complain that the people will expect the government to take care of every single little thing they need, such as butt-wiping? You probably also object to government-provided education, taxpayer funded police and fire departments, and publicly funded roads and highways.
"I’m no fan of Bush, but he will make up for his traiterous shamnesty bill if he vetos this piece of garbage."
-- If you're going to use terms like "traiterous shamnesty bill", you might at least explain how these terms apply. Correct spelling would be a bonus.
"The Dems tried to get the get universal healthcare’s nose under the tent by trying to modify the scope of SCHIP and common sense Americans smelled a rat."
-- Um..."common sense Americans" actually WANT universal healthcare. A majority of our people now think Bush isn't doing a good job on handling health care, they want universal healthcare even if it means raising their taxes (the tradeoff for higher taxes means no more obscene insurance premiums), and they want everybody covered so the insured no longer have to pay for the uninsured. Check this out: http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm
"If the Dems don’t pull this garbage out of the bill and get funding approved for SCHIP ASAP, millions of impoverished kids will have a lapse in healthcare coverage."
-- This makes no sense. What are you talking about here? Explain.
"So who is really hurting the kids? That’s right, the marxist scum that has become the democrat party."
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:00 am-- The "it's the Democrats' fault the president is vetoing the bill" argument doesn't wash. You think that by lowering the age and income level limits that Bush will sign the bill? Bush doesn't want ANY SCHIP funding, as it takes money away from his benefactor private health insurance companies. And two things about your last sentence: 1) if you're going to call the Democrats "marxist scum", you need to give an explanation with more evidence than wanting to help children get health insurance, and 2) it's the Democratic Party. Just basic grammar, which you need to brush up on in addition to your spelling.
Comment by Vendetta — October 2, 2007 @ 11:29 am
So your only objection to providing health care to children of the working poor is what level of government pays for it?
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 am1) I'm a middle class guy and I can afford healthcare. Granted, it would cost much less if ambulance chasers like Jon Edwards couldn't sue doctors at the drop of a hat and if our emergency rooms weren't inundated with illegal aliens. I love how my liberal friends say they can't afford healthcare even though they have flat screen TV's and spend $200+ per month on their cable, internet, and cell phone bills. It's called priorities people!
It's also funny how libs/marxists think the government will provide cheaper healthcare. My company's #1 customer is the federal government and you'd be shocked to see how much taxpayer money is wasted. The only thing government agencies care about is spending all the money that is allocated to them so they can get as much or more money in the future. They couldn't care less about spending taxpayers' money wisely.
2) Bush would not veto the bill if the dems didn't try to change its scope. SCHIP is a great example of a safety net program that helps those who are less fortunate. Sorry, I'm not going to pay for my healthcare and my middle class neighbor's kids healthcare. It's never going to happen.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 pmPS. There is nothing "democratic" about your party these days so that's why I call it the Democrat Party. Also, it drives libs/marxists nuts. What happened to JFK's party? As a Reagan Democrat, I've become thoroughly disgusted with the Democrat/Marxist Party over the last 3 decades.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pmComment by Joe Armstrong — October 2, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
"I’m a middle class guy and I can afford healthcare."
-- That's great. Do you pay for it all by yourself, or does your employer provide at least part of it? If you are self-employed, do you take it as a business deduction? How many in your family are you insuring? For many middle class families, paying $1,000 a month to insure a family of four is a hardship, and they can't do it without sacrificing other luxuries, such as rent and food.
"Sorry, I’m not going to pay for my healthcare and my middle class neighbor’s kids healthcare."
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm-- If you are truly "middle class", as you say, your kids would be covered just as your neighbor's kids would be. Don't have any kids? Boy, you must REALLY be burned up about your taxes paying for your neighbor's kids' education, then.
"There is nothing “democratic†about your party these days so that’s why I call it the Democrat Party. Also, it drives libs/marxists nuts."
Comment by Joe Armstrong — October 2, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Doesn't drive us nuts. Libs are more amused than anything else at the idea you think your bad grammar is somehow insulting to us.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pmA Reagan Democrat? You really believe that the republican Party is working to benefit the interests of the middle class? Have you been paying attention to the shriveling up of the middle classes since 1980? Try as you might, I don't think it is factually possible to believe that Reaganomics have done anything but destroy our nation's once strong working class. And Bushinomics are solely about pillaging from the middle and even slightly upper class to feed the endless greed of the ultra rich. Every single study done by anyone except the Heritage Foundation clearly expresses this fact.
Now, I'm not saying the Democrats have a vested interest in our greater good either. I'm just of the belief that they don't get titillated at the thought of our demise into a Kleptocracy as much.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm1) Instead of addressing the real issues (tort reform, illegal aliens), all the libs/marxists want to do these days is shove socialism down your throat. Like Scientology, socialized medicine doesn't work. No matter what Michael Moore tells you, we've got it pretty good here. I paid $600 per month until my kids got their own insurance and it was definitely a burden, but the government is not the answer. Healthcare costs can be significantly reduced if we address the real problems instead of cutting off the nose to spite the face. Just fly on a plane from Canada or Europe and ask the passengers how much they like their healthcare. There are more and more "medical tourists" coming to the U.S. every year.
2) SS is a joke. FDR was great for foreign policy, but not so much for domestic policy. If I ruled the world, I'd change SSI to "Social Welfare Program" because that's what it's become. None of my kids expect to receive benefits from SSI. They plan on depending on their 401K's for retirement. SSI is just a slush fund for greedy politicians and people who really do need assistance. Let's stop kidding ourselves and come up with bi-partisan ideas to increase citizens' retirement income by using the private sector while at the same time reforming "SSI" social services so that those in need know about these programs and don't fall through the cracks. For example, many poor pregnant women don't even know about Title 19...
3) I worked my ass off to provide my kids with a private school college prep education while at the same time subsidizing government schools that have turned into marxist indoctrination camps with my property taxes. I have no problem paying for my neighbor's kids education as long as their mom is able to CHOOSE which school they attend. Government schools have done more to harm the U.S. in the last 40 years than any other institution.
3) I doubt any of you marxists were even an itch in your daddy's pants when Reagan came into office so let me give you a heads-up: Jimmy Carter trashed the U.S. economy and appeased the terrorists who we are now fighting during his presidency. Reagan came into office and shook things up. There's no way in hell I'd be sitting right now in the house I bought in 1983 if it weren't for Reagan. Many Americans feel the same way so get used to it.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:29 pmBush would approve the extension of the SCHIP if it wasn't expanded. But some lawmakers wanted coverage for families making $80k/year and also for those children up to 25 years old. This is just some states moaning and whining because Bush won't let their 25 year old children, and opportunistic parents get freebie health care. I have kids and I take care of them. Perhaps some of these folks should try it some time. Yes some children need help, but 25 year old kids and those making 80K, c'mon!
October 4th, 2007 at 5:16 pm