Baron Hill: Will Override SCHIP Veto

[kpete]

Baron Hill: Will Override SCHIP Veto
by ironheel
Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:55:35 AM PDT
Just got the word that's going around...

Baron Hill (IN-09), who originally voted against the SCHIP expansion, will announce that he will vote to override the President's callous veto of the bill.

more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/11/10536/527

[annabanana]

1. OK! That's one... how many more do we need?

Who are they?

Lets get busy

[Lasher]

5. We need 14 to 25 members to switch their votes.

265 members voted for the SCHIP bill the President vetoed. But 11 members didn't vote. So that means that 18 members would have to switch their votes to override the bill. Or let's say all 11 members who didn't vote decide to support it. Then 14 members will have to switch their votes. But If all of them vote against an override, that'd bring the total of members who have to switch back up to 25.

Not all members who voted against it were Republicans- 8 were Democrats. That's a big chunk of the 14-25 members who have to switch their votes to override it.

Another, albeit unlikely, situation is that the nay-voting members just don't show up to the override vote. If you assume nothing else changes, something like 25 nay-voters would have to not vote to get an override. That's probably not going to happen, but the more nay-voters who decide to not show up, the more the number of yay-voters needed for override declines.

So far, Rep. Dan Boren (R-OK) has said he'll switch his vote to override it, and Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), who didn't vote, said he would vote for the override.

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4014/39

Here is a link to the roll call vote result.

[Beetwasher]

2. Cool! I'm Predicting IT WILL BE OVERRIDDEN!!!

There will be more of these defections, especially since the rights sliming of the Frost family is backfiring so horribly. Repubs will need to start running far and fast from that, and the best way to do that is to override the veto.

[Lasher]

3. Hmm, a Blue Dog Democrat comes over for this one.

Looks like he's decided he wouldn't mind getting re-elected next year.

[IndyOp]

4. Way cool! This is my Blue Dog - he is conservative at core, but has been

speaking out in favor of universal health care and is quite knowledgeable about social security issues.

His reasons for voting against SCHIP included the fact that he really cares about the tobacco family-farmers in his congressional district - and here is the email he sent out about why he originally voted against it:


I understand that some are concerned with my recent vote on the SCHIP expansion. Let me start by saying a few things that I believe will clear up some of the misconceptions about this bill.

First, I know that we all agree about the value of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Expanding children's health insurance is a wonderful goal and the merit of this legislation is not in question. In fact, I have consistently supported the SCHIP program during my previous terms in Congress. And, just last week I voted to reauthorize SCHIP through November 16th of this year. Had we not taken that vote, the program would have expired entirely.

Secondly, this is not a case of children versus tobacco. There is much more complexity to the issue, which I will address in the content of this message to you. Finally, the fact that I voted "no" on this version of this legislation does not mean that I don't fully support an expansion of the program.

That said, I would respectfully ask that you consider my reasons for voting against this version of the SCHIP expansion. As a Member of Congress, who was elected to serve in the best interest of residents of the entire Ninth Congressional District of Indiana, I must look beyond a program's name to what is actually involved in such comprehensive legislation. While funding the children's health insurance program is something I have supported in the past, I cannot support taxing Hoosiers in order to pay for the mismanagement of other states' SCHIP programs. Under the current bill, too much of this federal funding will go primarily to states lacking in their coverage, something Indiana is not.

The State of Indiana has one of the most efficient SCHIP programs in the nation. Unfortunately, this legislation would give a well-performing state, like Indiana, less money than states with wasteful or inefficient SCHIP programs. It is estimated that Indiana would contribute approximately $300 million each year in revenue, and only receive about $50 million toward its SCHIP program. A lot of this money would go to bail out PAST mismanagement in these under-performing states, thus making Indiana a healthcare "donor state."

In sum, Hoosiers, through a 61 cent tobacco tax increase, will pay significantly more into the program than they will get out. The money will go to other states that have not effectively managed their SCHIP programs. I know that Hoosiers are feeling the burden of increased taxes from every angle - the rising price of gasoline and skyrocketing property taxes - and I cannot support another tax for a program that will least benefit Hoosiers. Further, this would be another program in a long line where Indiana does not get its fair share back from the federal government. Whether it is transportation dollars or housing money, Indiana is constantly getting shortchanged on the tax dollars it sends to Washington. This is simply not fair and must stop.

As you know, the President has now vetoed the legislation and there are simply not enough votes in the House of Representatives to override that veto. Because I wholeheartedly support this program, I believe it is absolutely imperative that we come together in the House to create a bill that the President will sign, and one that expands SCHIP in a way that is more equitable to Hoosiers. If we don't, then the children will indeed lose. I consider the SCHIP program an asset to our nation's children, but cannot simply vote for it on name alone.

I was elected to represent all of the constituents of the Ninth Congressional District, and therefore must take all of their concerns into account. That is what I have done in considering how to vote, and I have concluded, regrettably, that this particular proposal is neither equitable nor effective for Hoosier taxpayers or the families needing health coverage -- I think we can do better. Finding this solution will require bold leadership, and I believe that in this case, that leadership is ensuring as many children as possible have the coverage they need when they need it, and as soon as possible. Congressional gridlock will only delay this coverage, and I hope my colleagues in the House will join me in finding a realistic solution to the problem.

<snip>

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to seeing you in the district.


Sincerely,

Representative Baron P. Hill
Ninth District of Indiana
U.S. House of Representatives

[Didereaux]

6. Kucinich voted with the Repugnants on this?

I looked at the link with the roll call and it had Kucinich in the Nay column. One of eight Democrats who voted against the bill. What is with that? I never heard that before.

?????????????

[KamaAina]

7. Dennis didn't think it went far enough

in particular, the provision granting coverage to children of legal immigrants somehow got stipped in conference (wouldn't I like to know why!)

http://kucinich.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=75275

"I cannot support legislation which extends health coverage to some children while openly denying it to other children," Kucinich said. "This legislation is woefully inadequate: and I will not support it.

"Legal immigrant children deserve the same quality health care as other children receive. It is Congress' responsibility to address the main difficulties that prevent legal immigrant children from gaining access to health care. Today, we did exactly the opposite.

So he's not really "voting with the Repugnants", though he could well be making a tactical mistake.

[Didereaux]

8. thanks ...yes a tactical mistake n/t