Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsWednesday, October 17, 2007 5:52 PM CDT
Comments Comments (76) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Republicans on track to uphold veto on children's health
By David Espo
Associated Press
Advertisement

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Shrugging off a barrage of political attacks, House Republicans are on track to hand President Bush a victory this week by upholding his veto of legislation expanding children's health coverage.

To understand why, consider Utah, where Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch is an outspoken supporter of the measure — and the state's two GOP House members oppose it.

Rep. Rob Bishop called the vetoed bill a ``dumb idea'' for relying on higher tobacco taxes to pay for insuring children, a provision he said would create a need for new smokers.

And Rep. Chris Cannon said that while he agrees with Hatch on one point, they part company on another. ``This is a profoundly moral issue,'' he said in an interview. ``But that doesn't mean the government should do it. Government isn't very good at doing some things, mostly because of rigidity.''

With a vote set for Thursday, not even Democrats predict they will amass the two-thirds majority needed to override Bush's veto, even on an issue that polls exceptionally well with the public.

While at least a half-dozen Democratic lawmakers who declined to support the measure in September are expected to vote to override the veto, not a single Republican has announced plans to switch.

Republicans project confidence.

``We will not see an erosion of our votes,'' Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, a member of the GOP leadership, predicted recently. And as if to underscore the point, Rep. Tim Johnson's office quickly disputed whispered Democratic claims that the Illinois Republican was on the verge of a change in position. ``He's voting to sustain the veto,'' said a spokesman, Phil Bloomer.

The bill originally cleared on a vote of 265-159. If all House members vote on Thursday, supporters will need 290 to prevail, 25 more than they had last month.

For their part, Republicans say they are looking forward to compromise talks after the vote is held, although some express concern that Democrats may spurn Bush's call to negotiate.

``I believe the Democrats fully believe they can exploit this'' for political gain, said Rep. Mike Castle, a Delaware Republican who voted for the measure that Bush vetoed.

``This is a hard bill to explain,'' said Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, another GOP supporter.

But House Republicans quietly distributed a survey by pollster David Winston, who is close to Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the party leader, with suggested talking points.

It said critics of the legislation can win the public debate if they say they favor ``covering uninsured children without expanding government coverage to adults, illegal immigrants and those who already have insurance....'' A copy of the poll was obtained by The Associated Press.

Additionally, an AP analysis suggests individual Republicans who side with Bush may have relatively little to fear politically. The 151 Republicans who voted against the bill when it passed last month averaged nearly 64 percent of the vote in their most recent election. Many had vote totals in the 70-percent range, making them all but invulnerable from attack.

Among those who supported the measure, the average vote total in 2006 was 59 percent. While several among them are in safe seats, the list includes well-known moderates as well as those Republicans who squeaked to victory in 2006 such as Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida and Jon Porter of Nevada; or those with statewide ambitions, including Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Tom Davis of Virginia.

But the list of opponents of the legislation, too, includes men and women who faced difficult races before, or have been targeted by Democratic allies in the run-up to the vote.

Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., who won his first term last year with less than 50 percent of the vote, said his opposition was consistent with his record in the Illinois Legislature and the campaign he ran last year.

``It's an incremental creep toward socialized medicine in my view,'' he said of the measure.

American United For Change targeted Florida Rep. Ric Keller, airing an ad that said he and the president ``would rather send half-a-trillion (dollars) to Iraq than spend a fraction of that here at home to keep our kids healthy.

``Congress can override Bush's veto. So ask Congressman Keller to think again.''

But Keller, in an interview off the House floor, said he's not switching. He said he supports the children's health program, and supports an expansion along different lines.

``I want to be able to provide kids with health insurance first before we provide coverage to adults.'' He said he opposes the bill's tax increases and argues it would allow coverage for some families with income up to $84,000 — a claim disputed by the measure's sponsors.

Rep. Cliff Stearns, another Floridian, boasted that the ad campaigns have passed him by. ``When it comes to tax increases, I'm seen as a lost cause, so the Democrats haven't every bothered to advertise against me,'' he said.

Rep. John Peterson of Pennsylvania is another target. A solid conservative with a strong anti-abortion record, he faces a televised attack similar to the one waged against Keller, as well as a radio commercial from Catholics United.

``I'm concerned that Congressman John Peterson says he's pro-life, but votes against health care for our children. That's not pro-life, that's not pro-family,'' says the commercial.

In an interview, Peterson responded that he was instrumental in creating a state insurance program while in the Pennsylvania legislature.

He lists numerous objections to the measure that Bush vetoed. ``It's my strong opinion that this bill makes it easier for an illegal alien to get (health) benefits and Medicaid benefits,'' he said in an interview.

He said the measure eased requirements for prospective Medicaid beneficiaries.

Take a look
Sophie Black, 4, right, bangs pan tops in front of her mother Kim Black, left, grandmother Judy Michael, center, and brother Spencer Black during a protest against the veto of a children's health bill outside Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, office building in Dallas, Texas, Thursday, Oct. 4, 2007. In backing President Bush's veto of a children's health bill, many Republicans feel their party has picked the wrong issue to try to regain its long-lost reputation as guardian of prudent federal spending. (AP Photo/LM Otero)
Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 76 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Instead of complaining wrote on Oct 29, 2007 2:42 PM:

" figure out why these people are poor and have no insurance. Maybe bad luck, maybe lazy, or whatever but instead of handing out $ every time someone cries they don't have any, see why they don't and start there. Welfare reform is badly needed in this country. Think of all the $ there would be if some of these people would get a job and quit selling drugs and hot jewelry. Everybody knows someone in there life that has gotten free $ and did not really need it. "

To: did some research wrote on Oct 28, 2007 7:55 PM:

" Bush did not say we wouldnt spend the money. He said he wanted a bill that would ensure the increase goes for healthcare of poor children....not adults and children of families who can and are paying for their own health ins. the bill the dems keep bringing him is to ensure "govt paid" health ins for adults and people who can afford their own ins first. govt paid healthcare is a mess already..just ask someone who is on medicaid. the govt gets to say what dr you see and what medicines you can take. expanding this program will just make it worse. any time something is free, the demand goes up. when the govt is in charge of it, they start putting limits on it. just look at the UK and Canada....a mess! "

Did some research wrote on Oct 28, 2007 6:44 PM:

" The SCHIP bill sent to the President would increase the funding of it by $8 billion dollars over the next ten years (that's on top of what we're already spending)... Here's my point: We're currently spending $2billion per week on the Iraq War and we're worrying about how we're going to get the money for $8 billion over ten years??? We're playing politics with a bill that will ensure thousands of kids are receiveing proper healthcare. "

I like him a lot wrote on Oct 28, 2007 12:43 PM:

" I think President George is great. He ALWAYS trys to do the best for us...... As usual the left is mad,That tells me that george is on the right track. The more they scream the more Im sure George did the right thing. God bless the President,the soldiers and the USA..................... I think Obama is wrong,Billary is very bad, Edwards is probably evil(his hair doo is)........HAve a swell Halloween everyone... "

do some research wrote on Oct 28, 2007 1:41 AM:

" poor children are already covered under the system the way it is. this bill is not about poor children. it was to provide insurance to people earning up to $60 thousand per year...$80 thousand in some states...people who can afford to pay for their own insurance and probably are already doing so. this bill would prompt some of those people to drop their own ins. to have someone else pay for it. Bush told congress to send him a bill increasing the $$ and making sure poor children were covered first. if the dems in congress really care so much about poor kids, they would send the kind of bill that makes poor chlidren the priority. "

UK all the way wrote on Oct 26, 2007 11:28 PM:

" I'm going to nursing school just so I can move to a country that cares about their people. Hooray for uni-health care. "

Hilly Billy wrote on Oct 24, 2007 5:56 PM:

" I agree. Darn Republicans. We both work for State Farm and I wanted to sign up my children since we would qualify even though this is supposed to be for the poor. "

to To "news" wrote on Oct 17, 2007 12:33 PM:

" I totally agree. Its a much better idea to simply tax the poor and the middle class. Taxing the rich is just foolish since they'll just make more money anyway! "

to Woodford Pundit wrote on Oct 17, 2007 11:03 AM:

" Personally, I think you should stop taking advantage of the entitlements of police and fire protection and skip all FDA approved medicine. You are a hypocrite if you don't think that you benefit from entitlements. What's one more? "

to to: to if I had wrote on Oct 17, 2007 11:01 AM:

" Actually, school vouchers are both free market and socialist. Wrap your brain around that one. They're free market in that schools have to compete for business, but socialist in that they redistribute wealth via the government. And yes, believe it or not, Socialism doesn't preclude choice. Are you telling me that the French eat the same thing every day, all drive the same car, and can't choose their doctor? "

dwarf wrote on Oct 17, 2007 8:39 AM:

" I don't get it. How is insisting that the parents should be responsible going to help sick and injured kids, again? "

To "news" wrote on Oct 17, 2007 8:28 AM:

" Great points. And that's the fallacy with taxing the rich. The more we (and I'm not rich) try to tax away our problems on someone up the income ladder, the higher we have to go. It's not an unlimited pool. "

to: to if I had wrote on Oct 17, 2007 8:23 AM:

" School vouchers are free market. Plain and simple. Excellence is rewarded, as in business. Have a nice day, comrade. "

reality check wrote on Oct 17, 2007 8:17 AM:

" The bill would provide benefits up to age 25. Age 25 is hardly a child, agreed? Health insurance IS affordable, but you have to prioritize. Cable tv, or insurance for my kids? Cigarettes, or insurance for my kids? Lunch out every day at noon, or insurance for my kids? It's sheik to say you can't afford insurance, yet a more accurate description is that you choose not to pay for it, and are hoping that somebody else will. Don't forget healthcare for the illegals. Can't forget the illegals. After all, they will comprise a very large Democrat voting block someday. "

to smoking wrote on Oct 17, 2007 7:57 AM:

" you had them, you pay for them. I'll pay for ym own chemo "

I love it wrote on Oct 17, 2007 5:55 AM:

" when everyone talks about the wealtht Republicans. Have they checked the finances of the Democrat leaders lately? Name one that is not wealthy. Just one When they have nothing else to say they have to fall back on old stuff. Perhaps long ago (before my time I guess) the Republicans may have been wealthier. But it seems to me that some of the Demos have the GOP beat hands down. "

News to someone wrote on Oct 17, 2007 5:53 AM:

" $75,000 is not super rich by any means. By the time you have a nice home and nice car the money is gone. And you still have to provide food and shelter. Or you can do without the nice home and car and use your beater to go to work. Point is money doesn't go far. In these days and times $150 to $250K is getting into the wealthier bracket and some would dispute that. "

hmmh wrote on Oct 17, 2007 5:50 AM:

" Exceptionally well polling means nothing. I heard where the majority of the people polled do NOT want government intervention in health care over what it is now. People with $80,000 income can afford healthcare IF THEY CHOOSE. Some do not choose and we should not be forced to pay for it. Who do you think will pay for it? We will. "

to To: If I had wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:49 PM:

" Socialism is government programs AKA the redistribution of wealth. Republican school vouchers are socialist because they redistribute money from taxpayers to schools. I'm opposed to vouchers, not because they're a bad idea, but in areas like Bloomington-Normal, it would be very hard to find a decent secular education. My kids are being raised to respect science and knowledge and don't believe in fairies. "

Woodford Pundit wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:26 PM:

" Remember when 'health care' was called 'health insurance'? Would you expect the Federal Government to buy your home, auto, personal liability insurance for you? Insurance is a business. It's basis lies in statistical analysis of risk. Take some risk on your own, get a lower premium. Now, some seem to want no risk at all and have other pay the tab. Let me ask you this - if you could save a thousand or two lives in an African nation, would you be willing to cut your own child's income? Prob'ly not. Then why do you insist that it's only 'fair' that someone else in this country provides health care to you? Insurance. Buy it. Or don't. But don't expect me to buy it for you, because then it's not insurance it's an entitlement. "

No one is trashing wrote on Oct 16, 2007 8:03 PM:

" the healthcare - republicans favor an increase in funding - just not a cigarette tax. You can fund and expand a decent program responsibly. That states dishonor the intent of the program is sad. Fund the program by taxing the rich more is OK - I mean really rich - 75k or more by democratic standards, but force the states to follow the intent of the law if they want the money. The state governments are robbing healthcare for children by adding in people who vote, and those who are not even legal citizens. Don't just say I want more money - hey cigarette tax! and then demonize anyone who actually thinks about that. "

To: If I had wrote on Oct 16, 2007 7:55 PM:

" really man... you are so off the reservation, there is no hope. The public school system is the socialistic enterprise. Government run public education. School Vouchers frees the person from the government run facilities and allows individual choice. IF you really thing republicans pushing school vouchers equates to promoting socialism, you have been clearly educated in a public insitution yourself. "

Should we be........... wrote on Oct 16, 2007 7:06 PM:

" surprised that the Republicans are going to trash the health care for children? If you are NOT a wealthy Republican, you are up that old familiar creek without a paddle. It's that plain and simple. Republicans want only wealthy people in this country and if it means a genocide against our children, do they care? OF COURSE THEY DON'T!! "

Smoking wrote on Oct 16, 2007 7:03 PM:

" This is a great idea taxing cigarettes for healthcare. Most smokers will be paying for their chemo with Welfare anyways. "

If I had wrote on Oct 16, 2007 6:10 PM:

" to guess probably more Republican's abuse the student loan system more than any other segment of the population. What group pushes for their school voucher (socialist) system the most...Republican's. "

Just more wrote on Oct 16, 2007 6:07 PM:

" food to feed to the public to vote more Republicans out of office. We should rejoice at the next election as more of them are voted out of office. Revenge is sweet my friends. The truth is they can't get along with others and show their @$$es. "

The Decider wrote on Oct 16, 2007 5:41 PM:

" Listen, I need that $35 Billion to bomb and kill little Iraqi kids before they grow up to be terrorists. I have a plan for American health care, give all the poor people free Preparation H. "

Homey wrote on Oct 16, 2007 5:06 PM:

" To "Bill Stinks like a Cigar": You hit the nail on the head. The Democrats (state and federal) like to use taxes on tobacco to fund all kinds of grand ideas. With all of the hysteria about smoking, lots of folks are in favor of taxing the evil smokers. The Democrats are clever. They know these programs cannot possibly be fully funded from tobacco taxes, but once these programs are up and running...well, the money has to come from somewhere, so guess who is going to pay...the taxpayer. How many of these programs ever go away? They don't, they just keep expanding. Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it. "

To:State Farmers wrote on Oct 16, 2007 4:10 PM:

" I work at the farm and make good money. I am am single with one child. I pay the same premium as a person that has 3-5 children. Thank goodness for the social welfare. "

To:Kathy Responds wrote on Oct 16, 2007 4:07 PM:

" Why do you care if someone has an abortion? "CARE ABOUT YOUR OWN" "

you had them wrote on Oct 16, 2007 3:56 PM:

" you pay for them "

To: Kathy wrote on Oct 16, 2007 3:28 PM:

" ....I bet you work at State Farm. C'mon admit it....you do! Statements like yours only come from people that work at that fine intitiution. "

Bill stinks like a Cigar wrote on Oct 16, 2007 3:18 PM:

" This bill stinks like the cigars it saves! First it is based upon raising revenue from Tobacco taxes. It uses forcast that are based upon current usage, which as we know is quickly be reduced as clean air bans come into effect. And, most users of cigars are not addicted to them and laws of supply and demand would dictate that consumption would drop at a lower price. Less consumption equals less revenue. How would the federal government makeup this shortfall? Furthermore, this bill doesn't directly state that the money must be used for children's health insurance. It leaves that up to the state's discrention. And, as we know in our state, the intented target of the funds is not usually the recipient. I find it ironic that this tax is on tobacco, because all this seems like the Democrats smoke and mirrors attempt to generate a new revenue stream for pork Projects! "

Illini wrote on Oct 16, 2007 3:18 PM:

" Come to our state, where our governor blago has decided we don't need police, but he needs a raise and everyone should have free health care. Illinois, the new welfare state controlled by the country of Chicago. "

Forget it! wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:50 PM:

" This should NOT be passed. Children are extremely unhealthy now because of the food they eat or don't eat, usually due to the parents not providing them with healthy meals. This could become a real mess! "

Is anyone paying attention? wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:49 PM:

" Seriously! Why don't the republicans want this bill, because it's ill conceived and the money to pay for it is weakly provided. They want to increase health care for children, but not the way this bill describes. However, talk to Joe Q Democrat about this, and he'll say that it's because they're penny-pinching scoundrels who hate children and love war. No one pays attention to the why anymore, just the what. What really discourages me about this is that the democrats would rather thumb their nose at Bush and win political points than compromise to build a better piece of legislation. That speaks volumes... that is if anyone's paying attention. "

Kathy responds wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:34 PM:

" Actually, all responsible parents are not for this bill. We pay for our own, so can they. "

dwarf wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:16 PM:

" Yep, makes sense. It's all about the children... until we would actually have to spend money on them, anyways. "

To: To Mark wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:14 PM:

" Oh yes... for goodness sake, lets put more money into the unborn than we do the children that are actually alive. Lets protect you while you are in the womb and then give them no safety net once they are born. That makes oh so much sense!!! Perhaps if there was better sex education, and more options for would -be parents, there would not be so many kids in despirate need of health care. Now, i am not saying abortion is the best option, it should be the last. But lets be realistic! Apparently, I right to a good life only applies for nine months post conception. "

To Mark wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:09 PM:

" ...really, hypocrites? I can think of very little more hypocritical than the dems stressing that the health care is "for the poor children" and then go and fight in favor of abortion rights. That, my friend, is hypocritical. "

Re Mark wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:02 PM:

" You've got it wrong, Mark. It's completely constitutional. The federal government is to PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE the general welfare. Not the other way around. "

To:To Mark wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:00 PM:

" Hypocrytical? You mean like republicans being anti abortion...but don't want to feed them with welfare or provide them with healthcare. I agree the parents need to stop being lazy and get jobs. Although the kids suffer because the parents are deadbeats. You can't let kids starve and lack the healthcare in society that is necassary if you ask for them to be brought into this society with a pair of deadbeat parents. Nice way to start your life. "

To:John Galt wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:57 PM:

" Again...Rich people have 5 kids...I have two. I pay 300.00 a month in premium...policy holder with 5 kids pays the same. There is something wrong with that picture. That's exactly why the rich get richer. Many would say i am rich...maybe i am. "

jane76 wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:56 PM:

" This is ridiculous, why can't this country for once put aside all the BS and realize that this is something as Americans that we can afford! We spend money on all kinds of useless things so why wouldn't we try and get something like this on the books? And for every idiot out there that is going to screech the word "taxes," get used to the word already!!! We have taxes because we live as a community of people in the U.S. What we should be more concerned about is why people with less money pay MORE taxes, why the middle class is constantly responsible for supplying tax dollars and the rich just keep getting more breaks every year. "

To:BN Republican wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:55 PM:

" I love when many GOP supporters call manadatory healthcare socialism. It's okay for these same people with 5-10 kids to pay the same premium as individuals with 2 kids. That is a soclist program also. They should be charged extra per kid...because why should i pay the same as a person with five kids? "

Punish Them wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:53 PM:

" How dare children be born to poor parents. How do we expect these children (or anyone) to get their education and better themselves, if they are sick because they can't get basic health care? Give these kids the basics of health and education so they can be successful in life...what to do with them if they fail with these tools is another debate..but this is the land of opportunity..let's make sure everyone has OPPORTUNITY..not necessarily RESULTS "

look.. wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:48 PM:

" it all comes down to budgeting. My husband and I both work full time as managers of business's. We make decent pay but didn't always make this much either. We budget. We make sure we know how much we have coming out of each check and how much is going into a savings account to. We don't have credit cards now(we paid them all off and cut them up) we pay cash for everything. We have three children and we take care of them on our own. We have crappy insurance but we have it. Our deductables are high as well as what our out of pocket cost us. But there are some who don't have this and do need help. and no matter what you can't blame the children for their parents mistake, it will be them who suffer. "

To Mark wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:41 PM:

" ...really, hypocrites? I can think of very little more hypocritical than the dems stressing that the health care is "for the poor children" and then go and fight in favor of abortion rights. That, my friend, is hypocritical. "

Hold on! wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:38 PM:

" The children are not politically affiliated, they are children. Why is it that we only look out for "our own"? Why can't we band together just once and get along? I hope the "rich" never know what it's like to want. And not all rich people work hard, or at all, they were born into wealth and think they are better than those who are less fortunate. "

Elephant in the room wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:37 PM:

" Is the total cost of health care. "Universal medicine" vs. self pay debates still fail to address the issue of new technology costing more than we can possibly afford for everyone to have. Just because health care involves life and death doesn't mean we can ignore basic laws of supply vs. demand. "

To:When... wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:34 PM:

" Yours is only $660.00 a month,ours is $930.00 a month, nice to be retired,but I can see the Republican view, if they would pass this that means no more "trips" from there donors, and we all know the Republican's have to take care of the rich "

To Mark wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:14 PM:

" ...really, hypocrites? I can think of very little more hypocritical than the dems stressing that the health care is "for the poor children" and then go and fight in favor of abortion rights. That, my friend, is hypocritical. "

To Mark wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:14 PM:

" ...really, hypocrites? I can think of very little more hypocritical than the dems stressing that the health care is "for the poor children" and then go and fight in favor of abortion rights. That, my friend, is hypocritical. "

When... wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:00 PM:

" When will people realize that health insurance is not a Right but rather a privilege? I wish my health insurance costs were more like one of the previous posters- $150 sounds like a deal. I pay about $330 bi-weekly which is about 28% of my income. But again it comes to priorities. Most importantly, if your job doesnt provide it is your responsibility to correct the situation. ANYONE can move up in this country, those that want to argue this simply dont want to accept short term paint and sacrifice for long term rewards. "

Morals? wrote on Oct 16, 2007 12:56 PM:

" Rep Cannon says it's a moral issue, but the government shouldn't get involved? Since when do Republicans NOT want to legislate morality? Who else CAN do this? If there issues with the bill, then FIX IT instead of dismissing it as 'socialized medicine' Funny how we can pour money into infrastructure and a social medical system in Iraq, but not here "

Mark wrote on Oct 16, 2007 12:52 PM:

" So, let's see, the Republicans who oppose the S-CHIP Bill think a $35 billion increase over five years is too much for children's health care. But spending $35 billion in three and a half months for a war in Iraq is just fine. And then they talk about moral values. What hypocrites. "

to BN Democrat wrote on Oct 16, 2007 12:33 PM:

" The accompanying picture shows that you are absolutely right! "

Kathy wrote on Oct 16, 2007 12:30 PM:

" Not working and protesting. What is wrong with this picture! "

BN Democrat wrote on Oct 16, 2007 12:16 PM:

" We know best. We are smarter then you. So just fall in line and do what we say. There that is a good flock of sheep. "

Maybe wrote on Oct 16, 2007 12:11 PM:

" If we quit putting money into a war that isn't going anywhere, we could afford health care for children. "

creeping socialism wrote on Oct 16, 2007 11:55 AM:

" of course this was a creeping step towards socialism. health care is not a "Right" and "for the kids" is merely a slogan to advance a cause. It was rightly vetoed. Now it is a "right to healthcare" next will be the "right to groceries from the supermarket" and a "right to vacation" crazy I tell ya. I"m afraid the revolution between the red and blues (and greens) will be in our lifetime. I just hope its the blues revolting from the reds in power, and not the other way around. "

Alphonse wrote on Oct 16, 2007 11:51 AM:

" The truth is, this country depends on a low economic class; all capitalist countries do. there are more working-age people in this country than there are jobs that give health insurance. It is therefore impossible for everybody in this country to go out and get health insurance under our current system. Private, for-profit companies aren't going to offer cheap insurance on their own merits, because that would cut down on their profits. health insurance for all children, and eventually all people, will ONLY come from the government's involvement. "

to: John Galt wrote on Oct 16, 2007 11:46 AM:

" If hard work is the way to get rich, than I'm sure you support the so called 'death tax' and any other taxes that make sure rich folks' kids can't just sit around and collect their parents' hard-earned money. The social mobility you believe in is a myth. rags to riches tales make for great stories, but they happen so rarely that you'd have to be a fool to say that the only thing poor people need to do is work a little harder. "

Priorities wrote on Oct 16, 2007 11:37 AM:

" I watched a mother on TV holding her little girl talking about how she needed health insurance. The girl. about 2 had peirced ears, the mom had a bunch of tatoos on her arm. Maybe if the priorities were raising the children rather than things like this plus the latest cell phone, may be more people could afford coverage on their own. "

Human Shield wrote on Oct 16, 2007 11:15 AM:

" In war, it's called a "human shield"... hiding behind innocents to advance your agenda. "

Great wrote on Oct 16, 2007 11:15 AM:

" I am glad to see the Repubs holding firm on this. The Dems know this is a step towards socialization of medicine. It also was a step towards allowing illegal immigrants to get health insurance. I am sure ES, T, Thospence, Vic Connor, and the others will go off about how Repubs are anti-poor, etc. This bill didn't help the poor anyone with an IQ knows this. "

To BN Republican wrote on Oct 16, 2007 11:04 AM:

" Sometimes the kids who's parents can't afford insurance grow up the same way the parents did. I believe if we don't assist, and notice I said assist not take care of the kids, there is going to be another group of individuals living off the government. I know first hand it would be more affordable if I would just give up and quit my job and live off the government but I won't. And yes I do provide health insurance for my children. But it sure would make buying groceries a lot easier if I did not have to pay out the full 150.00 bi weekly to insure my kids. Oh and lets not forget the co-pays and deductibles. Those are always nice too. So I took great offense to you calling me a loser. Judge not lest you be judged. "

Typical wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:54 AM:

" Typical Democrats. They make up some scam and if you dont like it they scream personal attacks. Louder and Louder....Much like the "Students"who shout down speakers they dont agree with...... "

John Galt wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:51 AM:

" To: the rich get richer. The rich get richer because the rich work hard and earn more. The poor is not getting poorer, they just aren't gaining as fast. The way to a great life for all is not to take from the rich and give to the poor, it is to encourage everyone to work as hard as the rich and earn their keep as well. "

Republi-can'ts wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:44 AM:

" Way to go, W! Spend billions on injuring Iraqi and Afghani children, but not a penny to insure our poor children in the Homeland. "

Woodford Pundit wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:42 AM:

" Let's step back a bit and consider the original intent of the program without "mission creep". Kids - not adults; OK? Citizens (legal) of the United States - and, more specifically, proven residents, qualified, of the individual states. Delivery - right now, the Federal payments to Illinois just go right into the "big pot"; your esteemed governor will determine where or if they are spent on 'children'. Frankly, it appears now that it will continue to go into "all kids Illinois" which is, by the goverors own spokesman, spending 40% of their money on non-Illinois residents, or foreign nationals. The federal law is flawed and the folks wailing "it's all about the kids" are uninformed on this issue. None of this money goes to kids - it goes to state legislatures, and it comes from YOU. In between there are numerous functionaries claiming salaries and benifits. If you wish to help uninsured children do it locally. "

NOT TRUE - the rich get richer wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:37 AM:

" Sorry for the ole cliché, but the poor are not getting poorer. The entrepreneurs of this country are the ones creating jobs, real jobs, great jobs. If you feel you must throw blame somewhere it can rest with Congress. They burden our economy more than anything. If you feel strongly for socialism then you're not ever going to be happy in the USA. Uphold the President’s veto of legislation expanding children's health coverage! "

Fatso wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:13 AM:

" I agree with Rob Bishop: the funding for this Bill is a dumb idea. But, it seems, if it weren't for dumb ideas, this Congress wouldn't have any ideas at all. "

Rolling Eyes wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:12 AM:

" Gotta love the picture of the little girl with this article. "Think about the children. ©" Who cares how much it will cost, or that this program is being expanded to people who should already have health insurance... "

BN Republican wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:06 AM:

" What a bunch of heros! Kids, if your parents can't afford health insurance, pray that they'll get a better job! Otherwise, accept your lot in life and pray that you don't grow up to be as big a loser as your parents. "

the rich get richer wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:01 AM:

" and the poor... same old story. Let's climb the ladder and pull it up when we reach the top so we help no one else. "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy