Today's Date: Add To Favorites
House Fails to Overcome Veto on Health Bill Vote
Labor & Employment | 2007/10/25 16:24

Once again defying a veto threat from President Bush, the House this afternoon passed a new bill to provide health insurance for 10 million children, but not by a margin large enough to override a promised veto. The vote was 265 to 142, or 7 votes short of the two-thirds needed to override a veto. Forty-three Republicans joined 222 Democrats in voting for the bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California implored members to vote for the bill, declaring that it "has the support of the American people."

But the Republican minority leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said late revisions to the bill were "window-dressing rather than substantive changes."

Throughout hours of debate, several Republican opponents of the legislation said its supporters were trying to ram it through while much of the California delegation was back home because of the wildfires in their state. Ten of the 26 members who did not vote today are from California, and 8 of the 10 are Republicans.

A week ago, President Bush's veto of the original bill was sustained, as the 273-to-156 vote in support of the bill was 13 short of the toll needed to overturn the veto. Forty-four Republicans voted then to override the veto, and the suspense before today's vote was whether the bill's supporters would convert any Republicans. But only 43 Republicans voted for the bill today.

"It's unfortunate that even after a week of meetings and adjustments to the bill at the Republicans' request, they would still apparently prefer to play politics instead of reauthorizing a program the vast majority of the country supports," Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said after today's vote. "Once again, Republicans have chosen partisanship over pediatrics."

The Senate will probably approve the revised bill next week. There is a veto-proof majority in favor of the bill in the Senate, but today's vote in the House, as well as last week's, signal that it will sustain Mr. Bush's veto again.

If that happens, Democrats said, they may extend the existing insurance program for children through next summer. They would then schedule another vote on the issue in September or October, in the hope of inflicting maximum political damage on Republicans just before the 2008 elections.

Two prominent Republican senators who generally side with the White House, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, expressed disappointment after this afternoon's vote, underscoring how the children's insurance issue cuts across party politics.

"It's a shame that this legislation, which is even stronger than the compromise legislation passed earlier this month, did not secure a veto-proof majority of support from members of the House of Representatives," Mr. Grassley said.

Mr. Hatch called today's outcome "a lost opportunity for America's low-income, uninsured children" and said he was dismayed that the issue had become such a political battle. "As a result, low-income children will continue to be uninsured," he said. "That is a shame."

The new bill, like the one vetoed by Mr. Bush on Oct. 3, would cost $60 billion over five years, an increase of $35 billion over the current level of spending.

Supporters of the new bill said it addressed all the major concerns that prompted Republicans to oppose an earlier version. The new bill, they said, would end coverage of adults, ban coverage of illegal immigrants and generally prohibit states from covering children in families with incomes above three times the poverty level, or $61,950 for a family of four.

Speaker Pelosi said the restrictions on adults, immigrants and high-income families were clear in the first bill, and "they are even clearer in the second bill."

For the cost of just 41 days of the Iraq war, Democrats said, the government could finance a full year of health care for 10 million children.

But President Bush said his concerns had not been addressed "in a meaningful way," and many Republican lawmakers said the changes were illusory.

"The bill puts lipstick on a sow," said Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, Republican of New York. "Today is raw politics — trotting out a vote just for the sake of a vote."

Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, Republican of Florida, said the State Children's Health Insurance Program would still be a "magnet for illegal aliens." Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, said that rich children could still qualify for benefits because states, in determining eligibility, could ignore or disregard part of a family's income.

Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia, said the bill still called for a "a massive tax increase" The federal excise tax on cigarettes would be increased to $1 a pack, up 61 cents from the current level.

And Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, said that under the new bill, as under the original, two million people would lose private health insurance coverage and enroll in the expanded government program.



[PREV] [1] ..[5915][5916][5917][5918][5919][5920][5921][5922][5923].. [8300] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
Amazon workers strike at mul..
TikTok asks Supreme Court to..
Supreme Court rejects Wiscon..
US inflation ticked up last ..
Court seems reluctant to blo..
Court will hear arguments ov..
Romanian court orders a reco..
Court backs Texas over razor..
New Hampshire courts hear 2 ..
PA high court orders countie..
Tight US House races in Cali..
North Carolina Attorney Gene..
Republicans take Senate majo..
What to know about the unpre..
A man who threatened to kill..


Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet.
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Legal Document Services in Los Angeles, CA
Best Legal Document Preparation
www.tllsg.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design