The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill providing health insurance to more than 10 million American kids. The bill passed by a vote of 265 to 159, meaning about 20% of House Republicans voted in favor of the measure along with all of the House Democrats. President Bush says he’s going to veto the measure and the House vote was not veto proof, making a handful of House Republicans critical votes on this issue. (290 votes are necessary, meaning an additional 25 Representatives would have to change their minds to override Bush’s veto). The roll call vote is here. Voting “no” on the children’s health care measure from Indiana were Reps. Buyer, Burton, Pence, and Souder.
Let me get this straight. $12 billion per year for children’s health care is too darn expensive. But $2 or $3 billion per week for the endless and useless war in Iraq is fiscally responsible? Rubber stamping the Bush administration’s agenda apparently results in some unusual priorities.
talking point- the GOP hates your children.
unless they are in the womb, then they want them all to be born.
unless they are over 18, then they want to kill them in Iraq for Oil.
Your child is sick? well, the GOP says “too bad- we need every dollar for the war. You need to sacrifice too.”
I’m so mad about this callous disregard for our kids I cant tpye!!!
What’s the cost of a few childrens death in the War Against Socialized Medicine? Souder, Pence, Buyer and Burton are the courageous Generals fighting the Medical Bolsheviks – sick and dead children are merely “collateral damage”.
As with many things –the devil is in the details. Suggest studying the source of the funds and qualifications for the coverage. The insurance coverage is a laudable goal and if so then funding should come from general tax revenue.
I think it’s less about the expense than the details of the program. Some want to raise the income eligibility to like 500 percent of poverty, so then we are covering middle income people. Other states are using the kids health program to cover adults.
Maybe we should consider that national defense is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government, and health care is not?
(I do think our national interest is served by our presence in Iraq – but I knew when we went into Afghanistan that this struggle would last for a generation or more, and that there is no guarantee of anything in war.
I respect that reasonable folk may think otherwise – I certainly wish my own thinking did not end up at this conclusion, but that’s the way it looks to me.)
And again, we are conflating health insurance with health care – will this program be of net benefit in the long run, or will it be another step toward a complete entitlement mentality?
Yeah, I think the War in Iraq was a war of convenience that had little, if anything, to do with our national defense. While it’s admittedly tenuous, I think that children’s health care has more to do with interstate commerce than the War in Iraq has to do with national defense.
Our presence in Afghanistan might have been somewhat less than a generation had we not done it on the cheap in order to go into Iraq. Our Iraq adventure has been about the least “in our national interest” endeavor we’ve ever undertaken. Any proposal for anything is met with “we can’t afford it”, while I think we’re being asked for $200 billion more for Iraq–I mean the Global War Against Terror. Didn’t we just give about that much just a few months ago?
“Voting ‘no’ on the children’s health care measure from Indiana were Reps. Buyer, Burton, Pence, and Souder.”
And Baron Hill.
Let’s also not forget the bag lady. Julia Carson didn’t vote at all.
I hadn’t noticed Hill, but you’re right.
And yeah, Carson’s got problems. I guess no representation is better than bad representation, but ideally one would prefer good representation.
Baron talked pretty tough against the war, spying, etc. in the campaign. His votes have been somewhat less strident than his campaign speeches.