U.S. House gives Republicans 2 weeks to change course on SCHIP

Today, the United States House of Representatives postponed the vote on overriding President Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization bill [Source: House Roll Call 938]. The House has plans to bring up the veto override in two weeks on October 18th.

This two week interlude will give Congressional Republicans a chance to listen to the American people; a chance to listen to their constituents; a chance to listen to the 43 Governors, Democrat and Republican, who support the reauthorization of S-CHIP.

I’ve heard many people say that opportunity only knocks once. In this case, opportunity is banging on the Republicans’ door a second time to do the right thing for America’s children.

Congressional Republicans have been given a rare opportunity to get it right; to vote yes for children’s health care. Will they seize the day? Will they seize the opportunity to provide more of America’s children with access to health care?


Will they continue to follow this poor, misguided President’s attempt to cut the legs out from under our nation’s children?

I remain hopeful that Georgia’s Congressional Republicans will join Georgia Democrats in a bipartisan fashion and do what’s right for Georgia. Do the right thing for America, help our kids, and vote to override the President’s veto in two weeks.


  1. Rogue109 says:

    “This two week interlude will give Congressional Republicans a chance to listen to the American people; a chance to listen to their constituents; a chance to listen to the 43 Governors, Democrat and Republican, who support the reauthorization of S-CHIP.”

    Andre, maybe Congressional Democrats can take the two weeks to read the Constitution and discover that providing health care coverage is not the role of the Federal government?

  2. joe says:


    I share your hope that the Georgia delegation will join together. However, I don’t think that we agree on anything else about SCHIP. I hope that all members of the delegation will recognize SCHIP as being socialistic and vote to end the program or at least severely curtail it.

  3. Icarus says:

    But Rogue, Joe, Holly,

    (wait for it)

    It’s for the children!

    Are you against children?

    You probably hate puppies and long walks on a beach too.

    Please ignore that this is an expansion of federal government into covering middle income adults, many of whom are already covered with private insurance.

    Surely you can overlook that, for the children.

  4. Jason Pye says:

    As Tom Price said 77% percent of the kids that would effect by this expansion already have private health insurance. And this is more than a simple reauthorization of SCHIP.

  5. Burdell says:

    House Republicans should compromise. They promise to help repeal No Child Left Behind if the Dems promise not to try to expand SCHIP (or better, promise not to renew it at all).

    There, I have presented a bipartisan way to end two improper expressions of Federal Power. Now get to it.

    I predict you’ll see healthier, better-educated kids if you succeed.

  6. Oz says:

    The new SCHIP is a bloated pig, caricature of a children’s health plan.

    Dems need to stop playing games with children’s health.

  7. YourFutureLeader says:

    Im confused as to how somebody can call SCHIP socialist when its not a government mandated program. Its an alternative program, which is optional regardless of your income level. At no point are you forced to go onto the program, so it being a “socialist” program is incorrect.

    I support SCHIP and I think its expansion if handled carefully is a good idea. Its one of the few government programs that runs well and people on both sides of the aisle like.

    The problems I have with the bill that was vetoed are the lack of safeguard put into place to prevent states from running deficits again and having to wait to be bailed out. It seems the solution as of now is to just throw an outrageous amount of money at it, rather than actually put in place safeguards.

    Secondly I think that using a tax on cigarette’s is a horrible idea, outside of the fact that its a declining revenue source, we also already tax the things to shreds and this bogus campaign that it will actually make people stop smoking is laughable.

    I do find it entertaining that the Bush admin and many Republican leaders keep clinging to this figure of 83,000/yr as if thats what this bill does and it does not. That was a proposal by the State of New York to raise their individual limit to that and it was rejected by HHS.

    Also what exactly are we considering “rich” these days?

  8. joe says:


    SCHIP takes money from me and gives it to somebody else. From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. Does that sound like socialism to you?

  9. Paul Shuford says:

    So, when this bloated pig of a program bankrupts the entire SCHIP program by putting millions of children who are already insured now (which we’ve already seen happening in Georgia with our SCHIP-funded program), and leaves the truly poor children out in the cold, what are you going to say then, Andre? Just throw more money at it? Or just tell more poor kids that they can’t enroll because they were born too late, like happened in Georgia?

    Anyone who supports this socialization of healthcare (and yes, it is a socialization, the vast majority of the kids covered by this expansion already have private health insurance, so you’d be taking services supplied by the private, free market that the recipients can obviously afford now, and taking that business out of the private sector and putting it into the hands of government) is just supporting the bankrupting of the entire program, for no good reason whatsoever, because you wouldn’t be adding significant amounts of children to the insured rolls.

  10. atlantaman says:

    Don’t forget that a significant amount of Georgia’s Democrat caucus voted against it as well.

  11. dingleberry says:

    Boy, Andre sure likes to use his front page privileges to grandstand like a fool, but he sure as hell ducked out of here quick when people asked him to back them up.

    Now I’m starting to see why Decaturgay thinks Andre is such an idiot.

  12. GabrielSterling says:

    With the way the program is defined under the Democrats “poor and middle class families” can but subsidized insurance through the state. Of course with the income definitions a portion of these same “middle class” families become “rich” under the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) where they are forced to pay more taxes. So the democrats want to get everyone both coming and going.

    Stellar plan. ‘Bout time Bush vetoed something.

  13. Burdell says:

    How’s this for a statistic:

    Economists Jonathan Gruber of MIT and Kosali Simon of Cornell found that when SCHIP or Medicaid are expanded, only 4 out of every 10 new enrollees were previously uninsured.

    So SCHIP insures 4 for the price of 10.

    Even if you want the Gov’t to provide health insurance surely you can concede that a program this inefficient is not the way to do it.

  14. John Konop says:

    Pro-Birth or Pro-Life?

    Sadie Fields from the Georgia Christian Alliance has been consistently out spoken about the rights of unborn children. Sadie has made it clear that pro-choice Americans are supporting a parents the right to murder a child.

    Yet when it comes to the welfare of those children fortunate enough to be born, Sadie is willfully blind to how denial of needed healthcare could result in death for the child or the mother. How can she be so outspoken about a child

  15. Federalist says:

    Typical conservatives. Not one GA GOP congressman voted for schip. Pro-life until birth only I suppose. I would hate to be a single parent of a special needs child right now.

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    This does not only mean that we are to take care of our individual selves. As Americans we have a responsibility for each other. Rogue…the constitution does not need to state in plain text that the fed should provide healthcare. As mentioned by other commentors, this is not mandatory, this program is an option.

    Have it your way in your little mind though. Sick children whose parents can not afford healthcare go to school with your kids too. Hopefully one of these children does not have spinal meningitis or some other biological terror. Sick kids do better in school too, don’t they rogue? they never miss school, and could not possibly be left behind…afterall nclb was passed by “pro-life” “compassionate” cons to ensure they are “not” left behind.

  16. Icarus says:

    It’s late, I’m lazy.

    here’s a decent rebuttal of the veto from RedState.

    Please note that I support SCHIP in its current form, and that Bush is in favor of adding $5BN to continue the program as it exists today. The objections, as detailed in the link, are to expanding the program to include people who are covered, for the most part, by private health programs, many of whom are not “the children”


  17. Paul Shuford says:

    Federalist – since this program isn’t mandatory, do we get to opt out of paying for it, too?

    I have no problem with saying that Americans should take care of each other. But don’t tell me that you should be able to stick a gun in my face and tell me that I MUST pay for someone else’s (or their children’s) healthcare, especially when I don’t get to have any say in what choices they make regarding their health, or if they have kids or how many kids they have, which is exactly what making a program like this taxpayer-funded does. If you want to privately fund “taking care of each other”, feel free. But when you say that this should be funded by taxes, you’re saying that it’s ok for me to be to be threatened with kidnapping and imprisonment, and quite possibly death if I resist, if I don’t want to pay for taking care of other people, and their children.

    I can make responsible decisions all day long, not father children that I can’t afford to support (including paying for their healthcare) and yet you want to present me with a bill for other people’s kids who refuse to be as responsible as I am?

  18. JRM2016 says:


    That pandering post is beneath you particularly since you appear to have sufficient depth of political knowledge to understand the political game being played here. Hey “Federalist” where does the Constitution guarantee government provided health care for families with an 83,000 dollar annual income?

    Not much else to say on this that hasn’t already been said other than please call your congressmen and remind them we know the its for the children ploy is exactly that. Also it includes a 20,000 percent tax increase on cigars.

  19. debbie0040 says:

    I am glad this bill was vetoed. It was a step toward socialized medicine. I support SCHIP in its current form but not the massive expansion the Dems added to it.

    Great parody article:


    Schumer: SCHIP Should Cover All Un-Aborted Kids
    by Scott Ott

  20. Federalist says:

    you know….sh#t happens. Particularly in todays economy. My older brother was born in the mid 20s…could my father help it that the market crashed years later? No. Today, rather than a depression, opportunist conservatives outsource jobs overseas. Conservatives call for less pork spending (actually most candidates do, but end up not living up to their statements) and when a defense contract is not renewed, quite a few people lose their jobs. Having a good paying job in the private sector is never a sure thing. Paul shuford. I was fortunate…my job was impossible to outsource…and I had tenure, which is unheard of in the private sector. Having kids you can support financially is not a sure thing in america. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. I only hope that one day you have to face a similar burden, and your children starve and can not go to a doctor.
    They say, when you lose your job for any reason (downsizing, outsourcing, the company goes bankrupt, etc.) that you should expect to wait a month for every $10k you earned before you will get a job that pays what you earned before…unfortunately americans do not save money in those amounts, typically. Nobody can expect to have to give their child 24/7, and not work, because of a special need (down syndrome, autism, etc)…but for some reason you compassionate cons think that trying to prohibit abortion will make this easier on everybody.

  21. Andre Walker says:

    Let me start by saying that the money spent in Iraq for 41 days in enough to guarantee health insurance for 10 million American children for a complete year.

    It’s been asked where, in the U.S. Constitution, the role of the government is defined as providing health care coverage to its citizens.

    The clear answer is health care is not specifically mentioned in the Consitution. But neither is the public education; neither is parks & recreation; neither is public libraries or anything else the government provides that we all enjoy. The government provides these things, parks & rec; public libraries; and public schools because it makes our society better as a whole and because it is the right thing to do.

    I’d like to set the record straight that only one Democrat from Georgia voted against S-CHIP…just one. The other 5 Democrats voted to do the right thing and I remain confident that Jim Marshall will join his colleagues in voting for S-CHIP.

    Contrary to what some may believe (or want you to believe), health insurance is not affordable. If it was then 47 million Americans, including 700,000 of our children, would have health insurance. If health care was affordable, then Georgia would not exceed the national average of uninsured Americans.

    Our priorities are way out of line when we can spend billions and billions of dollars in someone else’s country, but when someone suggests spending a little money on ourselves, folks hoot and holler socialism! socialism! socialism!

    This is all about right and wrong here. The President’s veto was wrong. Congressional Republicans’ vote against S-CHIP was wrong. Passing the bill, with bipartisan support in both chambers, was right. Overriding the President’s veto is right.

    Let’s do the right thing here, override the President’s veto, and provide access to health care to those 700,000 American children who don’t have it.

  22. Federalist says:

    I know that the idea that americans are all equal was a noble lie…but just for the people that think that this policy is socialist….and use that “each according to their own” garbage. I am very wealthy, and pay more taxes than over 90% of america…doesn’t that mean that I should be afforded more protection? I should have military troops stationed outside my house to protect me….just like every other rich person. Hell we rich people should be provided bunkers in special places…right? We can move the middle-class and poor people near the coasts in case of hurricans, tidal waves, and foreign invasion…so you can earn your keep by acting as a human shield for us rich people that earned more government services.

    This sounds ridiculous, I know…but it is essentially what paul shuford wants. He will not put it into such blunt terms, but how is this any different. I do not need the other gov’t services anymore, just protection. why should i pay for your kids to go to school, or for farm subsidies, or for the war in iraq? “i am having a gun put to my head.” Right Paul?

    I need to go take my expensive medicine for my alheimer’s now. Drugs that middle and lower class families can not afford to buy for their elderly parents…because, as paul would say, they do not deserve it.

  23. John Konop says:


    The problem is SCHIP is not a solution it is a band aide on a gushing wound.

    The problem is the average family makes around 50k a year. The take home pay is between 35 to 40K.per family.

    A good health care policy for a family of four runs about 10k a year. On top of that you have to pay co-pays and have limits and plus other out of pockets. Also it is a wrestling match to get the insurance company to pay. And if you buy cheaper insurance you just pay higher out of pocket

    A small business person or employee pays between 35% to a 100% of the cost. The fastest growing group dropping insurance are families making over 50k because health cost is 25% to 35% of their take home pay. Also people under that already were struggling. And if God For bid if they have a real health crises they have to file bankruptcy Which is why around a third of bankruptcies are people with health insurance and had a health crises.

    So basically even if a family struggles to pay they are one crisis away from bankruptcy. This is why every poll shows healthcare as a major issue for most Americans.

    We have a system where people are pushed not to pay and use society as an emergency health insurance policy. That is why when people say I take the risk by not paying that is not true unless we do not treat them and let them get sicker or die if they do not have the money.

    That is why we must make people what they can afford for healthcare or this is a race to the bottom.

    As someone who lectures everyone about being pro-life I would think you would understand this concept. My question are you pro-life or pro-birth?

  24. Paul Shuford says:

    First of all, Federalist, having a good paying job has never, ever been a sure thing. That doesn’t mean that I should be responsible for paying for other people’s healthcare or the healthcare of their children, especially when I have no say in their health choices or in whether they have children they cannot support or not. And yes, someone is holding a gun to my head if it’s supported with taxpayer dollars – if you don’t pay your taxes, what do you think happens? Agents of the State come and get you and put you in jail, and shoot at you if you resist them. That is exactly what you’re talking about when you’re talking about taxpayer-funded healthcare.

    And, Andre, why are you repeating the lie that “47 million Americans don’t have access to health insurance” – when 14 million of those people, including children, are eligible for government-subsidized insurance programs but have neglected to enroll in them; 18 million of the uninsured live in households with an annual income of $50,000 or more and could afford health insurance, but choose not to buy it; and almost all of the balance of the 47 million isn’t made up of Americans at all, but illegal immigrants.

    John Konop,

    You’re mischaracterizing the US health insurance system. How many of the people you used in your example, people making 50k a year, don’t have access to group health insurance through their work? You’re acting as if most people making 50k a year are paying 10k out of pocket, post-tax, per year, on health insurance, and that is simply not the case. Even if they were making 50k a year and paying 10k a year for health insurance, all their medical costs, including health insurance, would be tax-deductible because it exceeds 7.5% of their gross annual income. Why are you lying about this issue?

  25. Harry says:

    On the other hand, is it a good idea to encourage the entitlement class to have babies by way of giving government grants at birth, AFDC, food stamps, school meals, healthcare, section 8 housing, utility subsidies, earned income tax credits (so the parents can buy more stuff for themselves not the kids), etc etc?

  26. John Konop says:


    You need cash flow to pay for the service to start with. Tax deductions are based on gross not net. Most people in this tax bracket file I simple form. Also bottom line how many people like their current healthcare plan other than Congressman and government workers.

    Numbers talk the average family does not like their healthcare plan and are having a hard time affording healthcare.

  27. Harry says:

    In another life I’d have provided “cut buddy” service to the ladies and been a “baby daddy” at taxpayer expense.

  28. debbie0040 says:

    John, I am Pro life but AGAINST re-distribution of wealth. Don’t even try to distort the issue like the liberals do. I am not the least bit suprised you would try to distort things.

    You are misrepresenting the facts. Most that make 50,000 per year have access to employer subsidized health insurance. Even Waffle House provides health insurance for their employees.


    You also have Medicaid for the low income.

  29. ChuckEaton says:

    “opportunist conservatives outsource jobs overseas.”

    In a global market, I think you could just as easily make the argument that the opportunists are the ones purchasing the cheap products (and now services) made overseas. If more folks were willing to pay a premium for products made in America, like New Balance running shoes, then we wouldn’t have so many jobs going overseas.

    In the end, in a competitive free market, we have only ourselves as consumers to blame.

  30. ChuckEaton says:

    Of course if our government did things to make manufacturing in America more competitve; such as less regulations, bureaucracies, and taxes – we would be able to produce more competitive products domestically.

  31. maestro7 says:

    Someone please show me (via my email address in profile) where in the US Constitution that the federal government is specifically authorized to fund any sort of health benefits.

    This is juxtaposed with the concept of “States’ rights,” whereby a given State could theoretically choose to provide health benefits, should the People so choose to enact in their particular State.

    So, I don’t care about arguments concerning “rich vs. poor,” “children on the streets,” “common good,” or any other pop political tripe that someone chooses to spew. These perspectives are completely irrelevant in terms of what the federal government is restricted to be doing.

    I think a better question to ask a federal officeholder would be, “Have you ever actually read the US Constitution?”

  32. Paul Shuford says:


    What exactly are you asking? I personally think that abortion should be legal, if that’s the question you’re asking.

    You haven’t answered the questions about why you’re lying about this issue. How many of the people making 50k a year fit the description you’ve provided – not able to get employer-provided health insurance, spending more than 10k a year for health insurance, and too stupid to itemize their deductions when they could pay less taxes by doing so and including their health insurance expenses? I’m thinking it’s a pretty low number.

    I personally don’t care if people aren’t satisfied with their healthcare, and claim to have a “hard time affording it” when it’s obvious that they make more than enough to pay for private health insurance. Does that give them a right to force me to pay for their health insurance?

  33. Bill Simon says:


    I am SO glad you posted on here. Specifically, I like this:…”maybe Congressional Democrats can take the two weeks to read the Constitution and discover that providing health care coverage is not the role of the Federal government?”

    Find me a location in the Constitution that provides for the Federal government sticking its nose in ANY of the following “Republican” near-and-dear issues:

    Worship of God

    I’ll drop back by in about a week or so to see if you’ve been able to remove your foot from your own mouth.

  34. Federalist says:

    You say taxpayers should pay for healthcare for a few people…I say taxpayers should pay for genocide in Iraq.

    Bill simon, you really should not talk about the constitution anymore. It was not written for fundamentalists. It is extremely ambiguous and gives the federal government the authority to do what is best for the country. it is best to make sure the people are healthy, educated, and able to work.

  35. John Konop says:


    I will say unlike Debbie you are consistent, you do not care if kids or their patents die on the streets via lack of healthcare if they do not have the money. As well as you do not care about the abortions issue.

    They way I look at it if you care about healthcare you are 96% pro life

    If you care about birth only you are 4% pro-life?

  36. John Konop says:


    You say you are not for redistribution of wealth yet you back one of the biggest entitlement programs like Medicare.

    I am for people paying not getting it free if they have the money. I cannot figure out what you are for because you are all over the board.

    All I can figure out is you are about 4% pro-life. So the next time you give a righteous speech about the abortion issue, you should tell people you think life ends at birth with you after that at 2 month year old kid should figure it out.

    Do you warn the mother we are forcing you to have the kid but hey if you cannot afford the healthcare let your baby die?

    You want irresponsible parents to have kids and punish them via the parents because they do not pay for healthcare?

  37. Paul Shuford says:


    If you’re talking about a self-employed person (the quintessential “small business person”) then ALL of their health insurance costs are 100% tax-deductible regardless of what percentage of their income it makes up (they don’t have to follow the 7.5% rule). So, they’d have to pay 100% of their health insurance costs, but they’d also be able to deduct 100% of their health insurance costs from their taxes.

    I don’t know where you’re getting your “most employees for private companies pay at least 35% higher on their contribution for healthcare” thing, please provide documentation.

    Where you were wrong is when you stated “The problem is the average family makes around 50k a year. The take home pay is between 35 to 40K.per family.” and then stated “A good health care policy for a family of four runs about 10k a year.”

    While that may be true, the 10k a year spent on health insurance is able to be deducted from that person’s taxes, meaning that the burden of paying for it is much less than if it had to be paid out of their “take home pay”, or post-tax income.

    That’s my point. You either don’t understand the issue, or you’re mischaracterizing it intentionally.

  38. John Konop says:


    Do you have a business?

    Do you understand with a deduction the small business is out the majority of the money?

    Paul the 35% number is low in the private sector.

    Are you a government worker?

    Most people out here in the real world would not argue with the number.

    The more you write shows how much you do not understand the real world.

  39. Paul Shuford says:

    I’m not getting into a pissing match. If you want to address the real issues, then post real content, John. Otherwise, you’ve still shown you are either mischaracterizing the issue, or simply don’t understand it.

  40. JRM2016 says:


    Your comparison of health care to the government’s duty to provide for the common defense is ridiculous.

    As stated before and conceded by those of you on the left, the Constitution makes no guarantee of health care. It does specifically refer to in the Preamble, in Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2 the military role for the federal government is defined and guaranteed.


    Please do not quote the 47 million uninsured number. It is intellectually dishonest.

    10 million of your 47 million are non-citizens.

    Of the remaining 37 million, some 38% are families with incomes over $50,000.

    So the real number of uninsured is closer to 23 million, but we know that the census bureau has consistently overstated that number as well.

    S-CHIP of course is just part a broader problem with single payer advocates who believe our health care should be federalized. Go talk to some doctors and hospital administrators about the return they receive for provided care to Medicare and Medicaid recipients.

  41. Harry says:

    Those who like S-CHIP will love having more paycheck deductions to cover for others’ poor prevention methods and lifestyle choices.

Comments are closed.