The revised bill made it so families earning up to $83,000 a year could be eligible. If this bill were targeted at the poor, President Bush and the Republicans wouldn't oppose it. But it isn't. It's a new, radically expanded middle-class entitlement that would cost WAY more than the $60 billion congressional projection. The veto was a good thing. As will be the failure of measure 50.

Thanks for that important clarification, which really sways me. Tobacco companies are great, as is Bush.

So it's no longer about the issue, it's about who's on which side?

Amazing that during the 6 years of his presidency when the GOP controlled Congress, Bush could not find a single spending bill that was so large that it justified a veto. Not one! And the national debt soared so high that it even rivaled Ronald Reagan's record in expanding the national debt. But with Democrats in control of Congress, Bush finds a bill that spends too much money -- on children's health!

Great idea. Let's just keep expanding the nanny-state.

Do Liberals ever believe in taking responsibility for themselves?

Ever??

Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley -- two of the most conservative Republicans in the U.S. Senate -- are among the sponsors of the SCHIP bill that Bush just vetoed. Are they (gasp!) now to be labeled (gasp!) with the hated "L" word?

After hearing how the Medicare prescription drug coverge now costs in the TRILLIONS to provide drugs, without means testing, to seniors of every income I have to believe this will be just as bad. On that note the Chimp has apparently finally awaken from his foolish fiscal coma.
Veto good, another massive dependency entitlement bad.
Why can't we get good policies to do the right things without the inexcapable blunder of going way to far?

Do Liberals ever believe in taking responsibility for themselves?

Ever??

do corporations making a product that has only one net effect--killing and disabling most regular users--ever believe in taking responsibility for themselves?

Ever?

Why can't we get good policies to do the right things without the inexcapable blunder of going way to [sic] far?

News flash: "the right things" costs money. I know, it's hard to believe, but true.

Bush is dispassionate and unbelievably uncaring for any social remedies for the lower and middle class citizenry.

No on 50, leave the Constitution alone!

Eco,

A hammer, used regularly and recklessly, can seriously maim and kill. Should we start taxing hammer sales?

Moreover, it's not like I care that tobacco is being taxed. It's the fact the money will go to yet another wasteful, bureaucratic entitlement program for those who don't even need it.

Why don't we just tax everyone at 90% and let the government pay for everyones food, shelter, clothing, transportation and health care? Oh yeah, that'd be communism and it DOESN'T WORK!

So Dave, it's the "right thing" to dole out freebies to irresponsible parents?

Great message to send: "Don't worry about actually taking care of your own kids, big government is here to pay for everything."

No wonder our prisons are predominantly stocked with lower-class citizens.

leave the Constitution alone!

Sorry, the Oregon Constitution makes itself easy to amend, and voters have added all kinds of stuff to it over the decades. And that's fine, because items are as easy to take out as they are to put in.

The problem with sin taxes is that they are about as regressive as taxes can be....nothing like taxing the poor to pay for middle class health care.

A hammer, used regularly and recklessly, can seriously maim and kill. Should we start taxing hammer sales?

yes, it *can*. but, a hammer has many effects, most of them benevolent and useful.

a cigarette has only one effect--it kills or disables the regular user (and last year, at least 400,000 bystanders.)

Why don't we just tax everyone at 90% and let the government pay for everyones food, shelter, clothing, transportation and health care? Oh yeah, that'd be communism and it DOESN'T WORK!

actually, that's not how Communism works at all.

"So it's no longer about the issue, it's about who's on which side?"

Yep. It's now politics by ad hominim, rather than actually considering the benefits and consequences of the proposals.

What's with the half-fast partial approaches? Why not get down to universal health care and be done with it? If kid's deserve decent health care, so do their parents. If either of them deserve decent health care, then the geriatrics do, too.

Personally, I'm sick of the sickos wrapping themselves in the "poor kids" propaganda. Around these parts, such approaches tend to make me look to see what part of the West Hills gang will be benefitting. Y'know, like Dan Saltzman's phoney campaign "for the kids" which pumped up the bottom line for the non-profit his wife ran, while the decisions his staff made at the Parks Bureau consistantly and blatantly empoverished the very same children of access to public park space by catering to middle-aged white guys from out of state.

"For the kids" is now the code phrase for "scam". Our children are, in reality, being coopted.

Coopted to fuel the phoney campaigns of phoney "do-gooders".

Man, Jack...You sure are intent on helping OHSU pay off that tram *rimshot*, aren't you?

Yes, doctors are bad. Only soldiers and death are worth paying for.

Dave J said,
"News flash: "the right things" costs money. I know, it's hard to believe, but true."

I know. That's why it's important not to go too far on too many things. It's hard to do the right things well when billions or trillions are recklessly spent on too many policies with too many people entitled to them.
There really is no justification for having the government provide health insurance or prescription drugs for those who can afford it themselves.

And why can't proponents of this new excessive program see that it will turn out just like the prescrition drug coverage debackle? Insuring those who make $60, 70, 80k or more?

Eco:

"Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production."

Curious how the description I made earlier differs from the fact stated above.

Whatever his motive was for the veto, I believe he made the right choice for the people of America.

"I believe he made the right choice for the people of America."

Not for the uninsured children of America. They will die and suffer needlessly in our obscenely rich country w/o SCHIP.

The arguments in favor of the veto, like too many other Bush arguments, are rooted in a corporatist ideological commitment to extreme lasseiz-faire economics.

Bush and his apologists justify depriving poor children of health care on the grounds that some slightly less poor children might get health care as well. Oh dear, what a catastrophe that would be! We better just throw the baby out with the bathwater and veto the entire program.

People who make even $60-$80K can't necessarily afford the crushing premiums, co-pays, exclusions, adhesion clauses and deductibles erected by the American insurance racket between the American consumer and his health care.

"Do liberals ever believe in taking responsibilty for themselves?"

The insane rantings of a depraved American psychotic.

Our government bails out huge corporations when they fail to pay their employees' pensions, but lets children die to make a stupid "Government Helping People is Always Bad!" ideological point.

Chris: We are a filthy rich country that proudly denies our own children health care. Any guesses why some non-Americans might consider us more barbaric and dangerous than the Sunnis and Shi'ites?

"Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production."

Curious how the description I made earlier differs from the fact stated above.

isn't it? especially when in a real Communistic system, the government doesn't own the things you described (and so can't hand them out). it also can't "tax everybody at 90%", because no redistribution of income is necessary.

good lord, another Wikipedia savant.

Civilized countries all have health care safety nets for their children. Most Americans agree that we should join the ranks of the civilized, at least in this regard. In this they are eminently rational. Health care investments in the young have HUGE quantifiable payoffs to society, even if you are enough of a moron that you only care about the $$. Life is rough, and good sense is going to triumph on this issue soon.

People who make even $60-$80K can't necessarily afford the crushing premiums, co-pays, exclusions, adhesion clauses and deductibles erected by the American insurance racket between the American consumer and his health care.

Well, it seems thats really the problem that we should be addressing then, eh? Maybe then everyone could afford health care. Honestly, I dont see a problem with the system of the past that patients paid based on their income or ability to pay. But then Mr. Kaiser had to screw it up for everyone.

Sam writes...
"The insane rantings of a depraved American psychotic."

Then, Sam writes...
"Our government bails out huge corporations...but lets children die to make a stupid "Government Helping People is Always Bad!" ideological point."

Obviously Sam is ENLIGHTENED, as opposed to us so called "American Psycotics." I wish I could be lacking in prejudice like Sam.

My point. I was OPPOSED to the bailout of Pension Plans. (which would have cause an incredible amount of gnashing of teeth by employees of those corportations... after all Sam, the bailout WAS FOR THE CHILDREN)

And I can, at the same time, believe it or not, be OPPOSED to this insane proposal to give more money to the government to provide/manage healthcare. Let President Bush, Hilary Clinton, whoever you want to name take control of this and we'll be deeper into a mess than ever before.

I'm not falling at the feet of the Healthcare models offered in Canada, Europe, South and Central America, or even Cuba. My spouse's family members, who are citizens of other countries, don't quite jump up and down about their health plan as thought of by many.

Lastly, now we've added a second call to action to the "It's for the children." with "they will die and suffer needlessly in our obscenely rich country w/o SCHIP." Quite honestly, it's seldom about either...

Sam said,
"They will die and suffer needlessly in our obscenely rich country w/o SCHIP."
This type of comment appears to be from a misataken beleif that a lack of free insurance is the same as a lack of health care. This country has long mandated that the sick have access to health care. So let's stop pretending we are talking about health care. This is about free insurance paid for by others.
Now, how is it that children will die without SCHIP or free insurance?
Insurance that covers many who can afford it despite the rhetoric to the contrary. Yes there are co-pays and deductables, but there are millions of Americans who pay for the level of health care they can afford.
There are not children dying in this country from lack of insurance.
In fact here in Oregon there are 10s of 1000s or more who qualify for the Oregon Helth plan but do bother to sign up.
I'll ask again, why can't proponents of this new excessive program see that it will turn out just like the prescription drug coverage debackle? Insuring those who make $60, 70, 80k or more?
Why can't we have safety net soley for those needing one?

There are not children dying in this country from lack of insurance

Like the chimp says, you just go to the emergency room. (And then, when the bill comes, ignore it.)

Wait a minute folks, The bush-man may have been correct in vetoing this bill. The good old US of A may not be able to fund a Children's health care program, we are too involved in making sure all ILLEGAL ALIENS are afforded their RIGHTS under our constitution for FREE education, medical care, social security, housing and the like.

Thanks big "w" for all your doing in keeping our priorities straight.

Who's to argue with the Chimp?:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/10/08/chimps_choose_more_rationally_than_humans/8872/

"This type of comment appears to be from a misataken beleif that a lack of free insurance is the same as a lack of health care"

US hospitals are profit-driven and routinely refuse to perform expensive life saving procedures for uninsured patients that would be performed if the patients had insurance. How do you get health care in this country? You have to have a valid insurance card. Have you tried to get seen by an MD at an ER without such a card? If you did, you would realize that my "beleif" is not "misataken": YOU NEED HEALTH INSURANCE TO GET HEALTH CARE, PERIOD. Uninsured people simply do not get the same level of care as insured people. Ask anyone who works in the health care field.

"There are not children dying in this country from lack of insurance."

Whatever. Keep your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand and live in La-La Land if that's easier for you. The rest of us are stuck here in reality, in which the insurance industry controls health care and controls who lives and who dies.

"Insuring those who make $60, 70, 80k or more? Why can't we have safety net soley for those needing one?"

Because $60, 70, 80K or more will not cover sky-high premiums, deductibles, co-pays, plus other living expenses, especially when your insurer denies your child care after happily accepting your payments. Again, why is it OK to deny poor children health care on the grounds that some slightly less poor children will get health care too? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Isn't it preferable to err on the side of providing more health care to children?

No, it is preferable to make stupid ideological points about the evils of the "nanny state." You people are psychotic.

"Let President Bush, Hilary Clinton, whoever you want to name take control of this and we'll be deeper into a mess than ever before."

Yeah, there is no mess at all with Kaiser, HealthNet, Unum Provident, and MetLife having control of health care. It would be terrible if public officials, politically accountable to we the people, were involved. Better to let the CEO's, accountable only to their shareholders and bottom lines, decide whether our children live or die.

Great veto and I'll be voting no on M50. I don't see any reason to expand the nanny state anymore. I can pay for my kid's health insurance just fine and I would expect other parents to do the same.

Didn't liberals learn anything from welfare? When you subsidize bad decision making you don't improve anything, you just get more of the same. The more money you hand out to people who aren't responsible the more irresponsible people you'll get. I know the bleeding hearts always want to help but 50 years of data shows that handing money to people who aren't responsible doesn't make them responsible. They just sit on the couch watching Oprah until the next handout appears in their mailbox.

Ratso is correct, and I'm surprised no one else is really discussing this...the cigarette tax is a regressive tax...it hits the poor and undereducated because they are the ones statistically who smoke. If we are going to tax for children's healthcare, why aren't we taxing other big business and true luxury items? Why not for every Mercedes, Lexus, Hummer or yacht that is sold, a tax is attached to aid those less fortunate that they are. I can dream, can't I?

Lets tax beer and microbrews. Yeah...that would go over well....

I meant wine and micros....

Andy: Didn't liberals learn anything from welfare? When you subsidize bad decision making you don't improve anything, you just get more of the same. The more money you hand out to people who aren't responsible the more irresponsible people you'll get. I know the bleeding hearts always want to help but 50 years of data shows that handing money to people who aren't responsible doesn't make them responsible.

So providing the same handouts to health care corporations has gotten us responsible decisions from that sector? And, for that matter (getting back to the original thread) shielding tobacco companies and their killer products from liability for so many years, likewise produced responsible behavior?

I don't think I need to reply to Sam, the people above have done it for me.

Who, aside from maybe the hospitals and insurance companies, won't agree that health care in America is broken and needs to be fixed? Instead of forcing others to pay for someones care, I would much rather work to get the cost of those premiums down so that person can afford them on their own. There are so many sweetheart deals and policies in the medical field that hurt the average person, why not work to abolish those? Or maybe work on changing the tax code and all the other things that make a person 'poor' so those people can afford care?

I'm middle-low income myself, have been all my life, as well as my extended family. From what I've seen, most poor people are perfectly content with where they are. Sure, they'd like a better life, but they'd rather not work for it. And of course there are those who wish to make a better life for themselves, like me. Guess what? there are tons of programs available that have helped myself and others like me. Throwing money at problems is never a good idea.

It's pretty funny how liberals want cheap or free health care, yet the only solution they see is government based. How about Wal-Mart's $4 prescriptions? or $9/mo. birth control? Still hate the company? Yeah, I thought so...

Also, everyone here is talking about the deals these corporations are get, bailouts and such. I don't see how by not supporting one, you're supporting the other. I don't support free health care and I don't support corporate bailouts. I imagine most of the other more conservative people on this blog would agree with me. Corruption and corporatism are not conservative values; they're values of the so-called Republicans running the show at the moment. Someday we'll have our party back.

Something has to change. And I see nothing wrong in covering families earning as much as 85k. After a mortgage, Halliburton high fuel prices, car, food insurance, taxes, etc it can be hard to pay a $600-800 a month health insurance bill. Small business and large business have problems with health insurance costs.

Paying for some kind of change (whether it is this vetoed bill or another proposal) can be the subject of debate but somethign has to give. I can't see the current system standing up much longer. I know people who have been ruined by health care costs. insurers are writing policies to exclude ccoverage. Using excuses to deny coverage. Keeping premiums level by touting HSA policies (a true scam, and a pain in the ass, I can assure you).

I have misgivings about using sin taxes, to fund long term government committments. But I favor sin taxes as good public policy. And I use tobbaco occasionally, and drink booze. I had the same misgivings about the lottery and Indian gaming. And look at the bright shiny world those have brought us.

Measure 50 should be passed. Have you who use the Oregon Constitution's being sacrosanct as a "reason" to justify voting no looked at some of the stuff in the Oregon Constitution? yeah, it is an important document, but for crying out loud, it has had stuff added to it and yanked out before, and it covers a lot of pretty onbscure stuff. This would not be an unusual item to put in it.

Joey says: "Guess what? there are tons of programs available that have helped myself and others like me. Throwing money at problems is never a good idea."

So we should only spend money on solving your problems, and the hell with everyone else?

Andy says: "Didn't liberals learn anything from welfare? When you subsidize bad decision making you don't improve anything, you just get more of the same."

Does this mean you favor ending funding for the war in Iraq?

No more tuxes. No more tuxes. No more tuxes. No more tuxes.

Let me say it again so all of you can understand.

NO MORE TUXES.

Greg C

I did spell that right didn't I. Hmm I'll just go check in at WWW.RNC.ORG and then get back to you.

"So we should only spend money on solving your problems, and the hell with everyone else?"

I guess I should have elaborated a bit more on my comment. The first program I took advantage of was free public education. First Chief Joseph Elementary, a decent school, then Ockley Green Middle School and Roosevelt High School, two of the "worst" according to many. I put "worst" into quotes because I really did get a pretty good education from all three schools. The teachers were all very good, and very willing to see someone who wanted to succeed do so. That right there is the key word, want. I wanted it, I worked for it, and I got it. The vast majority of the other students, the ones who are bringing down the test scores and giving the schools a bad name, they didn't wantit. How do you give someone something they don't want or care about? All the money in the world won't raise the test scores and give those people a quality education if they don't want it, will it? I wanted it, I got it. It was available, I took it. More money would not have changed the situation *at all*, we had all the resources we needed.

The second program I took advantage of was the Business Education Compact. I was out searching for these programs and I was willing to try to learn what was taught in school (as well as study hard in my free time). As a result, I was offered a paid internship at Intel. After that, I went on to Hollywood Entertainment's store support department. Finally, at 23, I found my passion in politics and decided it was time to go back to school. I'm now working toward my bachelors degree with the use of private grants and student loans.

So, to recap, public education, and a school to work program run by a private organization. They were available, they were effective, and they worked for be because I wanted them to. I'm not special, anyone could follow in my footsteps if they had the desire.

I'm not going to help someone with no desire, drive, and motivation to help themselves.

I'm not going to help someone with no desire, drive, and motivation to help themselves.

yeah, i really wish infants and preschoolers would get off their butts and earn a living. buncha lefty liberal socialists, all of them.

oh, and by the way, any post that ends with "so, to recap" is about 500 words too long.

You're joking, right?

You're joking, right?

that was my thought about your post.

by the way, the topic's "health care for children" and Measure 50.

I guess what's obvious to some, others fail to see. Parents are responsible for their children until they're 18 years of age, right?

My post was following the conversation in the comment area, but also tied into the topic; albeit slightly.

Parents are responsible for their children until they're 18 years of age, right?

that's ideal. but what happens when the parents, despite having jobs, homes and love, cannot afford ever more costly health care for their children?

That's a problem that you and I both agree we need to address. The difference is you're for socialized medicine, and I believe we can find a way without creating another expensive government entitlement program which would put this country even further in debt.

"I believe we can find a way without creating another expensive government entitlement program which would put this country even further in debt."

And that way is ... ?

Tell us your better way, Joey Link. Don't be coy. We are all on the edge of our seats.

The difference is you're for socialized medicine

government already pays for a lot of child health care, yet i'm sure you'd agree we don't have "soclialized medicine."

so, you're ultimately arguing that it's okay, but just not too much, else we'd be "Socialists."

what utter nonsense to place ill-informed gibberish over the health of children. what an entirely different world if we just all agreed to do what every other First World country does--successfully: guarantee health care for all children.

you see, you're arguing about who should pay, while the rest of the civilized world is already simply doing it.

or, we can just pay later with increased social problems, increased Medicare costs, increased prison populations, and so on. right?

do you understand that child health care is about more than treatment? that it's about the future health of the society as a whole?

do you understand that child health care is about more than treatment? that it's about the future health of the society as a whole?

They do not understand that. They are psychopaths.

"Society as a whole?" What are you eco? A socialist? A Communist? What do you want, a NANNY STATE? HAVEN'T YOU EVER HEARD OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

Listen to the psychopaths: it's every child for himself. Our country is strongest when the weakest links are utterly f****d, rather than strengthened by the stronger links.