We get it...republicans don't like kids and they don't like regular americans having healthcare...the rightwingjobs think its a privelege to have healthcare and a right to carry a gun...got it

So, let me get this straight?  It is actually worse to change one's position than to support something they and their constituents oppose.  I said that I disliked the term flip-flop.  The term was made up by Bush was it not?  Providing labels sounds like him.  My question: Can an honest politician (oxymoron--no I'm not talking about Bush) actually win an election and stay elected?

"Now its time to put politics aside and seek common ground to reauthorize this important program."

And the reason why they didn't put politics aside before they passed the bill, before the veto, and before the vote to override is?????  

We get it.  In 9 months, the Democrats have passed one bill that they liked, a minimum wage increase.  That's earned them an 11% approval rating.

This is the biggest do-nothing congress in a long time.

Dot, you already know that the bill that Bush demanded would expel families from the program that are currently covered.  Funding would increase but not enough to cover increasing health care costs, and administrative rules changes would invalidate some families that are currently covered as well as taking away states' right to add additional funding from their own budgets to cover more families.  That's reason enough not to compromise.

Huh, Rick, when you put it like that, I have to say that I agree with the rightwingjobs.  A privilege is something earned, and people should earn healthcare and not just have it given.  Owning a gun, on the other hand, is a right guarrenteed by the 1st amendment.  I would be fine if this right were revoked or further limited, but it is still a right.

On another issue briefly--Pat is right, I do sidetrack easily.  I can't understand the liberal positions on abortion and the death penalty.  They want to save the life of somebody convicted of throwing a serious crime, thereby throwing their life away.  Yet, they are in favor of the position of taking an unborn life with who-knows-how-much potential.  Talk about backwards.

Good thing issues like SCHIP are on the back burner while Pelosi is getting votes done on some kind of Armenian genocide issue.  This did happen 100 years ago, so Pelosi is about at her level of understanding of what is important.  Pelsoi, and Reid, have been complete train wrecks as leaders.

January/2009 - the gavel goes back to the Republicans.

Beats me. What I canot figure out is why  Democrats want wealthier Americans to be in a program that is meant for poorer ones.[and expect them to foot the bill for it].Then too,if Republicans ''don't care for kids''then why has poverty dropped to its lowest levels since the Democrats ran all three branches of government?[1993].Indeed,it dropped all though Bushs two terms. Then lastly,SCHIP was a Republican creature[1997].Not a Democrat one.[except as Democrats want to continue coverage for illegal aliens,which even they admit they may have to drop support for].

bush continues to ABUSE KIDS by not providing health care to needy kids, he should be tried, convicted, locked up and throw away the key just like all child abusers.

Lee Holmes, no idea what you're talking about wealthier Americans in a program meant for poorer ones.  This is meant specifically for people who are too well off for medicaid but unable to get insurance on their own.  As for the poverty level your numbers are wrong.  As you can see here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Poverty_59_to_05.png the poverty rate bottomed out in 1999 and climbed in every year of the Bush administration until last year.  As far as SCHIP being a Republican creation that is true.  That it was first passed by a GOP Congress and the party now wants to gut the program only proves how radical the party has become.

Many of you folks have no idea of what your talking about. Neither Bush nor any Republican intends or advocates reducing healthcare for needy children they simply don't want to give to the non-needy. Read the bill!

"Owning a gun, on the other hand, is a right guarrenteed by the 1st amendment."


Close. The first amendment is free speech, and we've decided we don't care about that one, like warrantless searches, due process, right to council, habeas corpus and all those other useless "rights." I guess the right wing wants their guns so they can blow their own brains out, because they sure don't care to use them to protect the Constitution.

Nicholas:  You asked, "Can an honest politician actually win an election and stay elected?"  Yes, he can -  Senator Russ Feingold - Wisconsin

When will the Schip hit the fan? Or how about, when will the Schip hit the Iceberg?  Schape Up or Schip Out? More useless Schip from our Schipless politicians.

Simple solution --- just put a disclaimer in the bill that changing ones vote on the bill is in no way a flip flop.

I realize that there is little, if any room for compromise on this bill. I guess I was  hoping for more than a compromise, hoping(naively, I guess) that if President Bush really wanted to put politics aside he would see that this bill is so important to our children that he would change his mind on the isssue. I really don't understand why he is so opposed to it, many influential members of his party support it.

NSMSNBC - This bill is about healthcare for children. Since you believe "people should earn healthcare and not have it given," perhaps you could suggest how you think uninsured American children should be earning their healthcare.

I am glad you care so much about unborn babies. Do you still care about them once they are born? This is what I don't understand - no abortions because you care oh so much about these children, but no healthcare for uninsured babies and kids - on the principle that a free handout is more offensive than a child going without the medical care he or she needs.

We MUST get politics out of health care. Kids have health care. The needy already have health care. The U.S. is not a socialist state. The government caused the problem with health care in America by over socializing medicine to the extent it is not completive, and we want to exacerbate the problem? U.S. Capitalism refers to an economic system in which the means of production are all owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money (see finance and credit). See http://www.InteliOrg.com/

We MUST get politics out of health care. Kids have health care. The needy already have health care. The U.S. is not a socialist state. The government caused the problem with health care in America by over socializing medicine to the extent it is not completive, and we want to exacerbate the problem? U.S. Capitalism refers to an economic system in which the means of production are all owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money (see finance and credit). See http://www.InteliOrg.com/

republicans hate America, middle class kids and Gen. Sanchez. Unbelievable. billions for iraq(51st state) big oil and big insurance but screw the middle class once again. I'm really glad that jerryleeinthemiddle are doing great but there are millions of us regular middle class families hurting out here.2.80 cent gas(i can remember 12 cent a gallon gas. 250 a month insurance payment on my one kid, not family policy just on the individual kid, 30%fed taxes while some idiots claim there was actually a tax cut. yea I'd like to see my tax dollars go to the middle class for a change.Quit blindly supporting your president and support the American people for a change. God knows your boy bush doesn't.

My Congressman, Pete Sessions, opposes the expansion of SCHIP, which is rank hypocrisy considering that he sponsored a similar bill called the Family Opportunity Act, which allows families with a Downs Syndrome child to buy into Medicaid if their household income is up to 300% of federal poverty level. One of his children has Downs Syndrome and--although he would not personally benefit from the expanded Medicaid program--it is a special interest of his. Why he doesn't care about the rest of our children is beyond me, but it's typical of Republicans to not care about something unless it affects them directly.

""Owning a gun, on the other hand, is a right guarrenteed by the 1st amendment."


Close. The first amendment is free speech"

What's a few amendments amongst friends? (Sent Wednesday, October 17, 2007 6:34 PM)

And freedom of religion. The First Amendment garantee of freedom of speach is tied inextricably to freedom of religion for a very good reason.

Typical repugnant veto - please have them babies, theye don't care what happens to them after they are born, just be sure they are born, after all some rich co-ed probably dropped too much acid and can't have any of her own and they want to make sure she has a good supply to choose from.
If you want folks to have children then make sure they have jobs that offer affordable health care coverage - if the private sector that has made so much off w and the war really cared about people, babies and children in general, they would suck up the cost of the healthcare plan for their employees.  But they don't care if someone is between jobs (would rather you be tied to one that did not pay much or offer any benefits to the little people),  this veto is class warfare at its best, and one of w's best kept secrets is now out in the open, hopefully for all the middle class to see.  We are nothing to him and his party.  I won't be forgetting that one and neither will my children and grandchildren.

Typical Republican politics as usual.  They view the wasting of hundreds of billions of American tax payer dollars on illegal unconstitutional military efforts in Iraq as "sound policy".  However, they view spending a tiny fraction of that on American children as "socialism".  They've always been liberal & wasteful when it comes to unwarranted military actions but want the world to believe that they are compassionate conservatives when it comes to the middle and lower classes of the USA.

How could anyone vote against health care for the kids. The health of Americas children is in a crisis.

This current generation of children. Are the first generation in the history of America who's life expectancy is less than that of there parents. Words cannot express the monumental catastrophe that this is for America. Add to that. Life expectancy has been dropping in America dramatically over the past years. At one time. American women had the longest life expectancy in the world. They were #1. Now they rank #42 with the rest of America. And getting worse. And some people still want to quibble about the need for expanded health care for kids. And the need for HR 676 Universal National Health Care For All. Give me a break. How corrupt, stupid, greedy, and short sighted can you be.

America is facing extinction by greed. And our enemy's are laughing their A** off at us. It's midnight in America. And we have no time to loose. Get SCHIP, and HR 676 pass as fast as you can. See sickocure.org And let every politician know that the HALL OF SHAME!! awaits anyone who votes against the kids in this health care crisis. And it will be the duty of every American to let the politicians constituents know that they voted against the kids. No excuses.

It's typically rightwingish (and ridiculous) to blame children of somewhat Ok-salary-earning parents for their inability to "earn" healthcare. Every child should be covered for excellent health and survival. Stop putting so much $$ towards the abortion fight. Put it towards the kids dying of tooth decay and wasting away with cancer.

Who could be against the SCHIP bill? It was written in accordance with the true American spirit: "Find a way for someone else to pay your expenses." Everyone just loves Santa Clause, except for those from which he must steal in order to be able to give away so much. That is the true nature of this bill, yet another tax-and-spend scheme, using the poor little children as political shields. What descent human could oppose a measure to insure their health? The authors of this offensive chose, as a funding source, a group which they believe would not have much of a political base, those who manufacture, sell and consume tobacco. Congress would not even dare to consider financing a measure benefiting children with taxes on such things as baby food, diapers, children's clothing, juvenile furniture or toys. Never in a million years could we count on something that fair happening in the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Wow.  Once again, you liberals are blinded by your hatred of anything tagged with "Bush/Republican/Right Wing" to see things objectively.  The SCHIP reauthorization was rewritten by Pelosi, Ried, et. al. to provide coverage for incomes up to $82,000/yr, and "children" were defined as anyone up to age 25!  These are absolutely ludicrous limits, and Bush was correct to veto the bill.  It was just another attempt by the Left to bring more people under the government dependency umbrella, and to sneak socialist healthcare in piece by piece.  Nice try, but we can read.

And to "What's a few amendments among friends?", you obviously don't have a clue.  The First Amendment has nothing to do with the things you mentioned.  It states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievences."

You look foolish when your rants aren't factually correct.  Just trying to help you save face.  And I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if anyone can quote one documented case of an American citizen being falsely prosecuted under th Patriot Act, or the Electronic Terrorist Surveillence Program.  Anyone out there?  Anyone?  No?  Maybe we should "Move On".

The state asked to put people on the schip, the federal government OKed it so the people Bush argues should not be on the rolls were approved by his administration, huh, did he do this to provide himself an argument? Even I don't believe he is that smart. I see the pot calling the kettle black here, does anyone else see a pattern here? Bush conveniently finds a non-reason to stop the growth of this bill even though he is at fault for the arguments he is now presenting. WMD anyone?

Hillary Rodham Clinton will be our next president! Vote democratic!!

As a religious/social conservative, I was appalled and disgusted by the attacks directed at the 12-year old and the 2-year old and their families.  The facts about those families were not as the proponents of the more-limited version of SCHIP had claimed.  Moreover, exposure of the falsity of the attacks only hurts the chances of the proponents of the more-limited version prevailing on the goal of passing the more-limited version of SCHIP.  Finally, lies about the families is in no way consistent with the biblical commandment requiring that we bear no false witness against our neighbor. Disagreement with the policies of the opposition can be mounted without attacking these families with lies and innuendo.

as a former low income child myself, and now a working (and married to someone who works) mother of 4, who pays pretty much through the nose for private health insurance for my family, I STILL oppose SCHIP.  

This is not a bill for the greater good of low income children.  It is however a bill that is going to provide insurance for people who make well above the poverty level, and not just for children.  

I REFUSE to provide health insurance for someone who is 21 years old and perfectly capable of working and providing his or her own insurance.

The funding for this expanded program is going to be footed by the very people that it is intended to help...LOW income families.  

The taxes imposed will be on tobacco.  And since roughly only 25% of Americans smoke, and those are primarily LOW INCOME people, they will in essence have to provide insurance for MIDDLE to UPPER INCOME people.  

Also, if those 25% of Americans who smoke were to QUIT smoking, because of the price increase, then where will the government get the funding to keep up such a cash hog?

And while we're talking about where the money is coming from, let's take a look at what effect this will have on immigration.  

This bill will completly crush the premium tobacco industry (hand rolled cigars and the like).  That in turn will put some 180,000 employees(from Nicaragua, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic) out of a job.  What do you think they will do then?  Where do you think they will go for a handout???  I can assure you that it's not going to be to their own governments looking for a handout...they have nothing to give...it's going to be a one way ticket to the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE!

They're betting on a dying horse.  Plain and simple.

This is simply bad politics.  Its going to ruin our country financially, and eventually, no one will have the insurance.  

So please people, be careful of what you wish for...you just might get it.

jpfree, the program isn't directed at the "needy" as traditionally defined.  It is designed for families with children which make too much money for Medicare but can't swing private insurance on their own due to cost or denial of coverage by private carriers.  The families being attacked by conservative commentators are exactly the people the GOP originally designed the program to cover.

Shawn Bartz, prosecutions under the Patriot act and the Electronic Terrorist Surveillance Program are considered classified information.  We'll never know because the government now has the "right" to make people completely disappear without recourse.  That's what makes it so scary.  If you're having trouble understanding this just imagine yourself the subject of a secret investigation by President Hillary.  Now are you starting to get it?  This isn't about who's president, it's about what power the government should have.

I support the SCHIP program but not the manner in which it is proposed to be funded. If the program is designed for all eligible children in the United States then why are only smokers being required to fund it?
I smoke cigars and they were the targeted the most under the bill.
If congress and state legislators keep taxing the tobacco industry as a means of raising revenue to fund different projects no one will be able to afford the product and demand and the industry will cease to exist.
If you really want to fund the project and put pressure on the President to end the war why not put a surcharge on the pentagons funding? For every dollar they would have to give $.01 towards SCHIP which would provide more than surplus funds for the program. Then if the President wishes to reduce funds for the program he would have to reduce military spending.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):