President Bush vetoed bipartisan legislation today that would have boosted funding for the state children's health insurance program.
The bill would have brought $148 million dollars to Missouri for an estimated 68,000 children.
U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill quickly condemned Bush's veto and called it fiscally irresponsible.
“The question is: why would the President veto the Children’s Health Insurance Program but support Medicare Part D? Simple. The difference between the SCHIP program and Medicare Part D is that the insurance corporations and drug companies got a cut in Medicare Part D," McCaskill said. "When big corporations stood to profit, the President had no problem expanding insurance coverage even for multi-millionaires with Medicare Part D. But when low- and modest-income families can’t afford health care for their kids, he’s willing to leave them out in the cold," she added.
Jay Nixon's campaign for Governor quickly jumped on the issue and tried to tie to Gov. Matt Blunt. A Nixon campaign release claimed that the legislation could have insured thousands of Missourians that Blunt cut from the rolls back in 2005.
"Governor Blunt opposes a program that could potentially reinstate health care for thousands of Missouri children who – because of his massive cuts – don’t have it today,” said Attorney General Jay Nixon in a statement. “We now have more than 127,000 children in our state without insurance. That is unacceptable. But instead of supporting a program which could bring coverage to thousands of those children, Matt Blunt is touting a health care plan that ignores them completely."
Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate in support of the legislation. That's enough to override Bush's veto. But in the House, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override, despite sizable Republican support. A two-thirds majority in both chambers is needed.
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's veto.
1 comment:
Nice way to tell one side of the story, Dave.
Care to get the other side and explain what is actually in the bill and why Republicans oppose the renewal of a program they started in 1997?
How about asking Congressman Blunt why instead of just using a two word quote to explain his position in such an important debate.
With all due respect, its with postings like this that makes me a cynic of this blog and others like it.
If you are honestly trying to report hard news - dont you think its important to get the other side's view and report it accurately?
Thanks.
Post a Comment