Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front: Politix |
Pelosi 'praying' Bush doesn't veto children's health insurance bill |
2007-09-29 |
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she is "praying" that President Bush has a change of heart and does not veto a bipartisan children's health insurance bill that he has labeled an unwarranted expansion of government-run health insurance. "The tide is going a different way than a presidential veto would reflect," Pelosi, a California Democrat, said. "It was with great "I think I have to pray a little harder, but I will not give up," Pelosi said. Don't forget to pray hard that people don't figure it out. Pelosi's comments came a day after the Senate voted 67-29 for the measure, which would expand the State Children's Health Insurance program by up to 4 million White House spokeswoman Dana Perino on Friday said Bush still intends to veto the bill when it arrives at his desk. Perino also said the disagreement between Congress and the White House was a simple policy difference, not "about who cares about children more than the other "The president is saying, 'Let's take care of the neediest children first, let's not put scarce federal dollars toward a program that was meant for the poorest children and let it creep up to middle-income families with incomes up to $83,000 a year,' " Perino said. Is this really a money-loser? Wouldn't preventative care cost the feds less than emergency care or the consequences of no care for some conditions? Bush and many Republicans contend that the program's original intent -- to give parents who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private insurance coverage for their children -- would be changed under the current bill, prompting parents to wind up dropping private coverage their children already have to get cheaper coverage under the bill. Looks like the Dems figured out an additional use for the bill. Too bad the original purpose was forgotten in the feeding frenzy. Oh well. Perino also objected that the rhetoric surrounding the SCHIP bill has become too heated. "I think it is preposterous for people to suggest the president of the United States doesn't care about children, that he wants children to suffer," Perino said. Not if you're a hate-filled liberal with your eyes rolled back in their sockets! The bill enjoys bipartisan support. Eighteen Republican senators Thursday night joined all the Democrats in voting for expanding the popular program from its current annual budget of $5 billion to $12 billion for the next five years. Hmm. Riding on the coattails of appearances? Four senators -- Republicans John McCain of Arizona and Sam Brownback of Kansas and Democrats Joseph Biden of Delaware and Barack Obama of Illinois -- did not vote. With the current program scheduled to expire Saturday, the White House encouraged Congress to "We should take this time to arrive at a more rational, bipartisan SCHIP reauthorization bill that focuses on children in poor families who don't currently have insurance, rather than raising taxes to cover people who already have private insurance," Perino added. What? I thought it was the trunks' job to soak the poor and the donks' job to soak the rich. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah was among those Republicans who split from the president. "It's very difficult for me to be against a man I care so much for," he told his colleagues on the Senate floor prior to the vote. "It's unfortunate that the president has chosen to be on what, to me, is clearly the wrong side of this issue." Why don't I see your reasoning? Though 67 votes in the 100-person chamber would suffice to overturn a veto, the House version, which was approved Tuesday, fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. |
Posted by:gorb |
#11 Let us hope Cthulhu doesn't hear her prayers. |
Posted by: DMFD 2007-09-29 23:03 |
#10 Creeping socialism is what it is. It's beyond the creeping stage. It is an all out assault, the Leftists sense that time is almost right for them to take a grab at all the marbles. It goes back to cleaning its weapons and loading the magazines |
Posted by: Natural Law 2007-09-29 20:48 |
#9 No, it's about getting their foot in the door of socialized medicine. This is the top in the door move, much pushing later, they have the whole leg in. Kill it now and moveon. Anything by FAT Kennedy should be shitcanned. |
Posted by: wxjames 2007-09-29 20:15 |
#8 San Francisco being the homosexual capital, has a 0 growth birthrate. So what does she care about this bill? To here, it is about spending money. |
Posted by: Lampedusa Glagum1736 2007-09-29 17:44 |
#7 Nimble and Anonymoose, I don't know which pictures are more perverted. Al |
Posted by: Frozen Al 2007-09-29 15:57 |
#6 She still hasn't explained why she was hanging out with that "V for Vendetta" guy. |
Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-09-29 13:38 |
#5 Creeping socialism is what it is. Kill it before it crawls from the |
Posted by: DarthVader 2007-09-29 09:50 |
#4 If you make 64K a year and you have a do-nothing 25 year old child still living with you, this bill give you money to buy insurance. 25? Child? Gimme a break. |
Posted by: OldSpook 2007-09-29 09:47 |
#3 Pelosi prays with her constituents at the (nsfw) Chaper of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.(/nsfw) (sfw)Boycott Miller Beer. |
Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-29 09:43 |
#2 I wonder who or what she's praying to? Mother Gaia? Stonehenge? Athena? |
Posted by: tu3031 2007-09-29 09:13 |
#1 I got a letter on this from my Congresscritter. What she says, vice the propaganda, is that the ..."bill to expand funded health insurance for families making up to $80,000 a year and would slash funding for a program called 'Medicare Advantage'(whichi is managed care for Medicare) to pay for it." The impact in the district in the highly enriched state of New Mexico (per capita income around number 47) is reflected upon the datum that 40% of the seniors here get Medicare through that plan. If the Prez signs it, that means the seniors will forced to start paying more out of pocket. In other words, its a rob Peter to pay Paul setup. So why is the coverage in the 'Children's' plan for families with comes above the national average? Do I sense a blue versus red country interest here? In other words, its a bill with a name attached for no other purpose than to give the Donks a sound bite to show how cruel the Trunks are if they oppose it. It's not the "We're Robbing the Poor Elderly to Buy the Votes of Middle Class Families who have Children Act". Guess how MSM is going to handle it? Hmmmm... |
Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-09-29 08:36 |