House Fails to Override Child Health Bill Veto

[Guardsman Bass]

The title pretty much says it all

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 — Supporters of a bill to provide health insurance for 10 million children failed this afternoon, as expected, to muster enough support in the House to override President Bush’s veto.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Roll Call Vote (house.gov)

The vote to override the veto was 273 to 156, or 13 votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority of those present and voting, a result that reflected the Democrats’ inability to make any dent in Republican opposition. The bill was originally approved by a 265 to 159 vote on Sept. 25.

In fact, the main suspense before today’s vote was over whether the bill’s supporters would pick up more “yes” votes from Republicans. But none of the 151 Republicans who voted “no” on Sept. 25 switched sides today. Instead, six Democrats switched from “no” to “yes.”

Forty-four House Republicans voted for the bill today, compared with 45 on Sept. 25. (Representative Peter King of Long Island, who voted “yes” on Sept. 25, did not vote today.)

The White House said President Bush was pleased with today’s result. “As it is clear that this legislation lacks sufficient support to become law, now is the time for Congress to stop playing politics and to join the president in finding common ground to reauthorize this vital program,” said Dana Perino, Mr. Bush’s spokeswoman.

Democrats had anticipated defeat, and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, and Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, immediately offered angry comments.

“Each Republican who voted to uphold President Bush’s heartless veto should be embarrassed that he chose to stand in the way of improving the lives of millions of America’s poorest children,” Mr. Reid said. “While we appreciate those who voted to override his veto, there unfortunately remain too many who are all too willing to rubber-stamp President Bush’s shameful policies and succumb to his misinformation campaign.”

Mr. Emanuel was defiant. “In the coming days, Democrats will not back down and we will insist on providing health care coverage to these 10 million children,” he said.

Most of the Democratic leadership has shown little inclination to negotiate with the White House, beyond offering to make “tweaks” in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program so the president could “save face,” as Mr. Reid put it recently. Democrats in Congress said Wednesday that they would pass a new bill, but were willing to adjust it to address some White House concerns.

Mr. Bush has already named three administration officials to “seek common ground” with Congress on the S-chip program, as it is commonly known.

But Democratic leaders, believing they have public support for expanding the program, said they saw no urgent need to negotiate the central elements of the bill.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats in Congress would not compromise on their goal of providing health insurance for 10 million children — 6.6 million already on the rolls and nearly 4 million who are uninsured.

When he vetoed the bill quietly on Oct. 3, Mr. Bush said he was open to compromising with Congress. The bill approved by both Houses would expand the S-chip program by $35 billion over the next five years. Mr. Bush has proposed to spend $5 billion more over the same period.

Many Republicans argue that the vetoed bill would allow coverage of children from middle- and upper-income families and of adults and some illegal immigrants. Democrats reject such criticism, but say they will consider revising the bill to make its restrictions and prohibitions clearer.

The last-minute debate today followed the same path, as Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic whip, parodied what the president has said about the campaign against terrorism. “You’re either for American children or you’re not,” Mr. Clyburn said. “It’s just that simple.”

No, it is not, said Representative Greg Walden, Republican of Oregon. He said he wonders if the government could pay for the S-chip program as embodied in the bill. “I spent 21 years in small business,” he said. “I never signed a contract I couldn’t keep my word on.”

The bill would increase tobacco taxes, with the levy on cigarettes increasing to $1 a pack from the current 39 cents.

If Mr. Bush vetoes a second version of the bill, Democrats say they will send him a third version just before Election Day 2008.

In the Senate, which passed the bill 67 to 29 on Sept. 27 with the help of 18 Republicans, supporters already have a two-thirds majority.

Representative Judy Biggert, Republican of Illinois, said the next step is “to get back to the drawing board and fix the bill.”

“It won’t take much,” she said. “For example, we need to make sure that poor kids are covered before adults. If Democrats really care about kids, they will have to negotiate.”

Mr. Reid was asked Tuesday whether he would be willing to negotiate with the White House if Congress upheld the president’s veto. “No, no, no,” he replied. “We have negotiated.”

To win support from Republicans, Mr. Reid said, Democrats had “compromised and compromised and compromised.” The secretary of health and human services, Michael O. Leavitt, said Wednesday that the child health program “ought to be focused on poor families.”

But the latest CBS News poll, released on Wednesday, found overwhelming support for expansion of the program to include some middle-class uninsured children.

Eighty-one percent of respondents, including 70 percent of Republicans, supported expanding the program. Three-quarters of those who supported expansion said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to finance it. The poll was conducted nationally by telephone Oct. 12-16 with 1,282 adults, and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

“This legislation will haunt him again and again and again,” Mrs. Pelosi said of the president. “It’s not going away, because the children are not going away.”

No comment, yet. Apparently, not a single Republican representative that voted against the SCHIP expansion last time changed their vote to help override the veto.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I wonder how many Repubs who didn't change their votes are running for reelection. I bet the answer is 'very few'.

[Guardsman Bass]

Probably. But then again, the thing got veto override support in the Senate. What's wrong with the House?

[CmdrWilkens]

I wonder how many Repubs who didn't change their votes are running for reelection. I bet the answer is 'very few'.

Except thatthis is the House which means every single one of them is running for re-election unless they are retiring which IIRC only 8 have announced of which I'm unceratin how many are nays.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I wonder how many Repubs who didn't change their votes are running for reelection. I bet the answer is 'very few'.

Except thatthis is the House which means every single one of them is running for re-election unless they are retiring which IIRC only 8 have announced of which I'm unceratin how many are nays.

The stupid fuckheads are committing political suicide, then. They won't have any sympathy from me or anyone but Bush's dead-ender 24%.

[Duckie]

Reelection odds are 80+% for a house incumbent. There's no way to dislodge a congressman, because nobody gives a shit about "small fry".

[Dalton]

Hastert's leaving. I think they're just grouchy. Maybe they hate children too.

[Elfdart]

Christmas is early this year. First Senator Dodd blocked amnesty for the phone companies, now Pete Stark busts Republitard balls on the House floor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsGaNR9dVPM

And of course they're squealing like little bitches because he called a spade a spade. Wankers.

[The Yosemite Bear]

ohcourse tey hate children. children can't vote and they are too young to send to Iraq. Though I think that may not stop them...

[Metatwaddle]

Christmas is early this year. First Senator Dodd blocked amnesty for the phone companies, now Pete Stark busts Republitard balls on the House floor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsGaNR9dVPM

And of course they're squealing like little bitches because he called a spade a spade. Wankers.

Niiice. Well, it's not surprising that the only Congressman to come out as an atheist has proven to have serious balls in other areas, too.

I was faintly annoyed that Nancy Pelosi chided him for making "personal" remarks about the President. Sure, he was being harsh, but I get the feeling he's right, which is better than being polite.

[Darth Wong]

The stupid fuckheads are committing political suicide, then. They won't have any sympathy from me or anyone but Bush's dead-ender 24%.

Hatred of all things socialist is deeply ingrained into the American psyche. They may not be as suicidal as you think.

[Flagg]

The stupid fuckheads are committing political suicide, then. They won't have any sympathy from me or anyone but Bush's dead-ender 24%.

Hatred of all things socialist is deeply ingrained into the American psyche. They may not be as suicidal as you think.

That's the genius of the Democrats politically whoring out the 12 year old a few weeks ago to put the face of an actual kid on the issue. The rightwing fearmongering can really only work on abstractions. That's why they went after this kid with the amount venom they did. That's why they attack Iraq vets who speak out against the war by calling them "phony soldiers". You put a face on the issue and the average American will let sympathy for the individuals override their fear of the dreaded socialism.

[Darth Wong]

The stupid fuckheads are committing political suicide, then. They won't have any sympathy from me or anyone but Bush's dead-ender 24%.

Hatred of all things socialist is deeply ingrained into the American psyche. They may not be as suicidal as you think.

That's the genius of the Democrats politically whoring out the 12 year old a few weeks ago to put the face of an actual kid on the issue. The rightwing fearmongering can really only work on abstractions. That's why they went after this kid with the amount venom they did. That's why they attack Iraq vets who speak out against the war by calling them "phony soldiers". You put a face on the issue and the average American will let sympathy for the individuals override their fear of the dreaded socialism.

Will they? This isn't the first time people have trotted out victims of America's health-care system in an attempt to gain sympathy for the cause. I've seen this kind of rhetoric before, and it didn't work. So you'll have to excuse my pessimism about it working now.

[Flagg]

Hatred of all things socialist is deeply ingrained into the American psyche. They may not be as suicidal as you think.

That's the genius of the Democrats politically whoring out the 12 year old a few weeks ago to put the face of an actual kid on the issue. The rightwing fearmongering can really only work on abstractions. That's why they went after this kid with the amount venom they did. That's why they attack Iraq vets who speak out against the war by calling them "phony soldiers". You put a face on the issue and the average American will let sympathy for the individuals override their fear of the dreaded socialism.

Will they? This isn't the first time people have trotted out victims of America's health-care system in an attempt to gain sympathy for the cause. I've seen this kind of rhetoric before, and it didn't work. So you'll have to excuse my pessimism about it working now.

Yeah, I don't know about the long term implications. We're dealing with people who suffered from "disaster fatigue" after having to watch news stories about the Boxing Day Tsunamis and Hurricane Katrina within the same year. But it seems to have put the issue in the spotlight for the time being, which makes the Republicans opposing it look really, really bad.

Of course Ellen DeGenares is having some issues with an adopted dog and Britney lost visitation rights. So you know, more important shit is happening.

[The Yosemite Bear]

also for political long term stratagy, this was a bill with popular support,, the main reason it was attacked, and every health bill will be attacked, is that it would signify a return to populism rather than minority issues. can't have the proles stirred up now can we.

[Glocksman]

Hatred of all things socialist is deeply ingrained into the American psyche. They may not be as suicidal as you think.

That's the genius of the Democrats politically whoring out the 12 year old a few weeks ago to put the face of an actual kid on the issue. The rightwing fearmongering can really only work on abstractions. That's why they went after this kid with the amount venom they did. That's why they attack Iraq vets who speak out against the war by calling them "phony soldiers". You put a face on the issue and the average American will let sympathy for the individuals override their fear of the dreaded socialism.

Will they? This isn't the first time people have trotted out victims of America's health-care system in an attempt to gain sympathy for the cause. I've seen this kind of rhetoric before, and it didn't work. So you'll have to excuse my pessimism about it working now.

From what I've seen, the administration is successfully spinning this as 'an expensive entitlement for the middle class that the poor will pay for'.

As if GWB gives a shit about poor people to begin with.

The truth is that a lot of Americans don't think the government should be providing health care 'for those who can afford it on their own', and the administration's spin is gaining traction.

[Darth Wong]

Calvinism is alive and well in the United States. As long as that situation persists, I don't think we'll ever see meaningful health-care reform.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What's that mean?

[Flagg]

What's that mean?

Calvanists have this whole idea that you're sick, poor, and/or have a generally shitty life because god wants you to. So to interfere with that is to interfere with gods will. Because that whole good Samaratin parable (racist though it may be) should just be ignored.

[Johonebesus]

What's that mean?

Jean Calvin was a theologian at the tail end of the Protestant Reformation. He was a staunch predestinarian who taught that God elected a few souls for salvation, and the rest were damned to hell, with humans having little or no say in the matter. His followers, Calvinists, would expand on this and say that you could determine who was of the elect and who wasn't by observing how they lived, both whether they acted like good Christians, and whether God blessed them in this life. This naturally led to the attitude that the sinful and the destitute were not of the elect and abandoned by God. They were morally unclean and deserved anything they got, and if a perfect God could show them no mercy, why should good Christians?

Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists are all descended from Calvinist sects, though nowadays the Baptists have done the best at preserving the old holier-than-thou mindset.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Dear <name deleted though most of you know my first name>,

Millions of children lost a chance to have health care coverage when the U.S. House voted 273–156 yesterday and failed to overturn Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) renewal. It would have taken a two-thirds majority to override Bush’s veto.

It is truly devastating for America’s working families that a faction in Congress put party politics above their obligation to America’s children and shattered a dream for millions of working families.

Until yesterday, millions of low-income families saw hope on the horizon in the form of health insurance that would allow them to take their children to the doctor when they are sick and to get preventive care so they can grow up healthy.

There is simply no justifiable reason for voting against health care for children. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program has been a great success. Studies show children enrolled in the program are healthier, which means they require fewer expensive medical services. Studies even show kids with coverage through this program do better in school.

Those are just a few of the reasons why a strong, bipartisan majority in Congress voted to expand health insurance for children. The most important reason is that taking care of our kids is a moral obligation and supporting SCHIP is simply the right thing to do.

Make no mistake: Those who stood with the president and against our children and grandchildren took an extreme position far outside the mainstream values of both their colleagues in Congress and the American people.

Thank you to everyone who called or sent e-mail messages and faxes to Congress. In total, you contacted your lawmakers more than 100,000 times. The message was loud and clear: Working men and women will hold opponents of children’s health care accountable at the voting booth.

In solidarity,

John Sweeney
President, AFL-CIO

found in my inbox, and I'm not even an AFL-CIO member anymore (UNITE HERE for the win!)

---edit---
I did mail my congressman and my senator, my senator voted for Schip, my congressman is a Neocon representing a redneck county.

[Ryan Thunder]

What's that mean?

Calvanists have this whole idea that you're sick, poor, and/or have a generally shitty life because god wants you to. So to interfere with that is to interfere with gods will. Because that whole good Samaratin parable (racist though it may be) should just be ignored.

Sorry, how was it racist again? The Samaritan guy, who the Jews would detest for whatever reason, did more good than the other passers by or even the highly religious dude. That doesn't strike me as racist...

Oh, and Calvinists, along with anybody else who claims to be Christian but doesn't bother to actually understand Christianity is are idiots.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Sorry, how was it racist again? The Samaritan guy, who the Jews would detest for whatever reason, did more good than the other passers by or even the highly religious dude. That doesn't strike me as racist...

Oh, and Calvinists, along with anybody else who claims to be Christian but doesn't bother to actually understand Christianity is are idiots.

Erm, I believe it is more like selective cherry picking of the Bible text, and given that the Protestant sects tend to encourage people to creatively interpret the text, this sort of thing is bound to happen.

The Calvinists are a bunch of radical retards to put it simply. One really wished they died out but hey, a lot of them fled to America.

[The Yosemite Bear]

not to mention the 19th century "Social Darwinists" the rich deserve their position because they are the most fit.

[Covenant]

What's that mean?

Calvanists have this whole idea that you're sick, poor, and/or have a generally shitty life because god wants you to. So to interfere with that is to interfere with gods will. Because that whole good Samaratin parable (racist though it may be) should just be ignored.

Sorry, how was it racist again? The Samaritan guy, who the Jews would detest for whatever reason, did more good than the other passers by or even the highly religious dude. That doesn't strike me as racist...

Oh, and Calvinists, along with anybody else who claims to be Christian but doesn't bother to actually understand Christianity is are idiots.

It's because most Samaratins were dicks. The idea of a 'Good Samaratin' was like writing a story called "The Goode Negroe" or "The Intelligent Liberal" or something, about someone who does something against his base nature to be an example of goodness. In Matthew, Jesus tells his followers to stay the fuck out of Samartinville and away from the Gentiles. If they're sick with disease, fuck those guys.

Samartins were disliked because they were arrogant or preachy and otherwise not very good at putting their money where their mouth is. It's not REALLY racist though, since the Jews and the Samaratins are basically the same people, and can be viewed as one of the Jewish splinter groups.