make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Easley unhappy with Bush veto on child health insurance plan

RALEIGH (AP) -- Gov. Mike Easley wants help from lawmakers with a veto -- this time one from President Bush on a bill that would have expanded children's health insurance dramatically. Bush rejected the bill because he said it was too costly and expanded the federal-state program beyond its original intent of helping children in low-income families. Easley says "there is no excuse" for any member of the North Carolina congressional delegation not to support an override. Bill supporters are about two dozen votes short of an override in the House. President Bush has said he is ready to negotiate with lawmakers on a compromise. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.


Insurance for Children

My ex husband committed a crime against our youngest daughter. He is in a federal prison for 6 years. I can't get any help as he is incarcerated. NC Healthchoice is the only assistance I get. I do not make enough money on my own to provide healthcare for this child who has medical issues. I do not collect food stamps or any other assistance. As a matter of fact, I work a full time job as well as a small part time job just to make ends meet. If the funds for this are removed, my child will become a victim once again! Why isn't there help for children of incarcerated parents especially when they are the victim????????

Are you really so dim?

Are you really so dim to believe that Bush did anything to take away from what you are already getting? If anything he was acting to preserve what you and others like you are getting. If we expand this insurance to nearly everyone then there will be nobody left to fund the programs and they will collapse into a mess, leaving many more than before without any coverage. Yes, you are the victim again. The victim of not being able to think beyond tomarrow and what the Dems propaganda machine want you to think. Ask yourself this, "who will pay for it when everyone get's insurance from the government for free?" No answer? Neither did Hillary when they asked her this question. By the way, what kid of mother would not be close enough to their kids to NOT know everything that the father is doing, abuse and stuff. How long did you let this go on? Allow it to happen? Why have you not tapped into the Children's Relief and Victim's Funds? What about the father's assets? Sounds like you wanna blame everyone else but yourself.

The program is very much intact

What Bush vetoed was a massive EXPANSION of the program, blatant vote buying by Representatives and the one-third of the Senate who are standing for re-election next Fall. When this program is already paying insurance premiums for people making $83k a year in some states, but politicians want to expand it, something is terribly, terribly wrong.

doctors/hospitals are the problem

when asprin cost $7 a pill in the hospital and doctors routinely charge over $100 an office visit just to hear your complaint for 4 minutes and write you a perscription for an antibiotic that costs $50 a bottle of 10, something is wrong. This is a monopoly. Dont be fooled because insurance companies do not pay those charges, the uninsured do. Hospitals etc discount insurance companies so they pay 30% of what the uninsured pay.

Not the docs

When the screaming liberals in Washington demand free healthcare for all "poor" children that with a family income of less than 90K/year, for all poor illegals that get into the country, for all the lazy that won't work because the government will give it too them for free... Who else is going to pay for all that. Everyone that really works for a living. You might like to think you like the idea of free healthcare, socialists style, but wait until your taxes have to pay for it. Won't be worth going to work anymore with Hillary taxing you to pay for everyone that won't work.

"where does it say...."

Where does it say that my child has to go without coverage, because the father is a deadbeat and the goverment wont help me find his sorry butt. So I am so sorry for your feelings, but remember this Republicans get old too, and one day you just might need the states assistance to stay alive...


Everyone can still go to the hospital and get care if they need it. Nothing about this bill can change it you ignorant fool. Reading comprehesion wasn't your strongest subject in school was it?

No one says that someone shouldn't get health care

"Can you honestly sit there and say those children do not deserve any health care" No one (by law) can get turned away for health issues by hospitals. This program is about health INSURANCE. There is no right to health INSURANCE... As for the state of the health care system, you can thank the government policies that lines the politicians pockets. Take away the PACS, Lobbyists, etc. and let free market reign as it should. Costs (medical care, drugs, etc.) would not be where they are at now. How do you do that? The FairTax...where you pay taxes on those things you buy vs. our current progressive income tax (which is taken right out of the communist manifesto).

The state WILL help you

Do you have an existing child support agreement? If so, before you go to the DA, go to DSS. Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), which all states have subscribed to, they HAVE to help you - it's a matter of law. Here's a link to read about what it can do.

One simple question

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it state the right to health insurance? You are in the position you are due to the cumulative effect of the choices you have made over the course of your life. You could have chosen to done well in school, could have chosen to better yourself with higher education, could have saved up before having kids, etc., etc., etc. The fact that you have to work three jobs indicates failure to make good decisions. So why do I have to cover for your poor decisions...

Of course much of our lot in

Of course much of our lot in life is due to the choices we make, but do you really think everyone starts on the same level playing field? To think so is utterly naïve. The balance in our society between the haves and haves not is so entirely out of line that many people really do have to make the choice between health insurance and food. True many people make horrible choices, get into drugs or don’t try to do well in school but that is only a small percentage of the 44million without coverage. The health care system as it is now is in utter chaos and the health care companies have no obligation or responsibility to people. If you think our current system is in good working order then you might be the one who needs to go back to College to educate yourself on the current state of things. You are correct in your assertion that nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee health care but there are many things that are not in the constitution that the founding fathers had every intention of having our government do. In fact we already have national health care to some extent. What do you think Medicare and Medicaid are? Should they be taken away? I think our founding fathers and basic Christian values should compel us as a society to help those less advantaged. Your Quote “ Why should I have to cover your for your poor decisions” I am going to assume you mean spend tax dollars. If you follow that logic then why should I have to pay taxes for anything that does not directly benefit me? If I don’t own a car then why should I have to pay taxes for roads? If I have no children then why should I have to pay taxes that go toward public education? Part of the responsibility of government, and in my humble opinion our responsibility to God and to our country, is the betterment of society as a whole.

Charity yes, forced government extortion, no

"I think our founding fathers and basic Christian values should compel us as a society to help those less advantaged. " The first half of that sentence is pure fantasy. The rift between the haves and have-nots was far greater at the time of this nation's founding than it is today. The founding fathers were almost ALL of the landed gentry/gentleman farmer and established merchant classes. People such as Adams and Jefferson were fatastically wealthy while the vast majority of Americans were subsistance farmers or small, local businessmen. What our founding fathers did do was establish a system whereby any free-born man COULD succeed if he tried. Subsequent amendments now make it possible for anyone to succeeed if they apply themselves. "Possible" doesn't guarantee success however, so you are always going to have "the haves and the have-nots." We NEED the have-nots to function as a society, but we don't need to breed them through our government economic programs. They do quite well proliferating on their own, without financial incentives. The second half of your sentence is purely your religious-based opinion, and carries no more value in a secular society than anyone's oppposing opinion. Please don't use God to justify picking my pocket. The rhetoric that "the successful have a greater obligation" is pure liberal fantasy, not found in the Bible or the Constitution. Neither Jesus nor Jefferson places a greater responsibility toward our fellow man or nation based upon our net worth. We are ALL supposed to play by the same rules. If you really care about the betterment of society, stop handing out free steamed grouper with a shrimp and mussel wine sauce (the equivalent of paying insurance premiums for children in families collecting $83k a year) and teach them to fish! Our established system is failing as we drift further toward Sesame Street Socialism. We need to stop insulating people and families from the consequences of their actions, and start letting people manage their own lives. I give away a large sum of money every year to people who are trying to better themselves responsibly AND demonstrably. The "Woe is me" crowd gets nothing from me beyond what Uncle Robin Hood takes.

idealic life

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it state the right to health insurance? I have news for you. There are too many laws and programs made to count that have no origin in the constitution. I am sure that in 1787 our forefathers would have known all the issues that would have cropped up over 220 years. I suppose it would have been better left alone so women would have never had the vote, African-Americans never had gotten their freedom, etc. The fact that you have to work three jobs indicates failure to make good decisions. So why do I have to cover for your poor decisions... Here is where you have crossed a line. I took extra jobs because of taking care of an elderly parent (in-law)with Alzheimers, and my own mother who went blind and could no longer care for herself, and taking care of my own family of 3 children, with my wife's help. I suppose you will try to tell me that they had made bad decisions for going blind, or having alzheimers. I never lost health coverage. I have a bachelor's degree. I have made excellent choices in life. I have lived up to my duties as a son, son-in-law and father. Watch where you tread. Unlike you, I think of my fellow man that has not been able to bounce back from huge adversity as I did. I have empathy for others and aspire to loftier ambitions than turning my nose up at others. I guess where the poor and disadvantaged are concern in your eyes to quote Ebeneezer, "better that they die and decrease the surplus population" You pathetic excuse for a human being. I will never stand by and watch you spread your dribble for forced abortions, sterilization, and bigotry. Count on that.

Typical Lib....all emotional

"I suppose it would have been better left alone so women would have never had the vote, African-Americans never had gotten their freedom, etc." Maybe you should read the Constitution, in particular, the pre-amble. Those admendments established justice for all... "I have a bachelor's degree." In what...philosophy or some other degree that does not contribute to society? "I have empathy for others and aspire to loftier ambitions than turning my nose up at others." You went from discussing this child insurance program to your own problems regarding your parents...ok then. People who openly state they have made good decisions are like an alcoholic who denies they have an addiction problem... My point was/is...why should I be forced at gunpoint to do give to something that has absolutely nothing to do with me, my family, etc. I am certain that I give more to charities annually than you do. That is in addition to the taxes taken from me for these handout programs. Bottom are jealous of others due to your own personal situation and "want to get even" with the world by forcibly taking money away from those not in your own situation. How many times a day do you say to yourself "It's not fair that I am going through this when Joe Bob is driving his BMW to his business."


HERE is a fix...FIRST OFF, I don't remember reading in the Constitution ANYWHERE where it states that Health Care is a right. I shouldn't have to pay for anyone else's health care, PERIOD. Thank ole Clinton for the HMO's we have today, WHAT A GREAT PROGRAM, NOT! Lastly, GET RID OF ILLEGALS...if you help, harbor, hide or hire an illegal...the government should make it a point to BANKRUPT YOU....the WASTE that goes into government run programs to BABY SIT adults is absolutely RIDICULOUS! I have enough to worry about without ADULTS STEALING from me! Write in for President... ME 2008

What a moron!

What person would ever support someone like you? Clinton was not responsible for HMO's. They have been around since the early 1900's. If someone smells a fart near any conservative, you blame Clinton. It's getting old. If you ran on those types of policies, you'd be run out of town or asassinated!


HMO's have been around in one form or another since 1910. In 1970 talks between the US Dept. of Health and the father of HMO's a Mr. Paul Ellwood got the ball rolling. 1977 marked when HMO's began to grow in popularity. Clinton was not even President then you moron. What won't you conservatives blame Clinton for? As far as illegals go, no one should be in the country illegally, maybe someone should have been minding the revolving door in Texas under W's watch. "Adults stealing from you" stealing what? I pay taxes just like you and I don't approve of a lot of what they go for but I could sure see some of those programs done away with for other worthwhile ones so in many ways my income has been stolen too. Vote for you? You would not dare put your name on those ridiculous stances to seriously run and no one would even dream of publically supporting you. You must know that; so quit your mindless ranting.

Veto Is Good

If the government had kept its hand out of health care in the first place we would not need insurance today. I stand behind this veto. I only wish it had come years earlier.

That's dumb!

The government's involvement in health care has had its benefits. Stronger drug testing, patient's rights, qualified doctors and nurses, shutting down greedy insurance companies, penalizing those who double bill, insurance fraud, etc. Not all that the government does is bad.

Easley & the Child Insurance Veto

Once again the ugly head of the conservative pops out of his/her rose garden. We are not talking about irresponsible parents and drug addicts here. Have you checked the number of employers that can no longer afford to provide health care benefits for their employees and their families,it's staggering! Insurance through my wife's employers (My job does not offer any!) runs us over 300.00 a pay period for health, dental, vision, and an HMO type program, that's 600.00 a month. Throw in the divorced single parents trying to put food on the table or keep their lights on, which one do they give up??!!

You mean "the ugly head of reality?"

Gee, do people even once think about holding off on children until they can afford to raise them on your own? Your children's healthcare is **YOUR** responsibility - NO ONE else's. The government is not here to play Robin Hood so that people can have children they can't afford.

Just shut-up!

Just shut-up!


I am sure that no one has children without believing that they cannot afford them. Most responsible parents like myself will and have worked two and three jobs to make sure that they have EVERYTHING they need. However, one parent families that at some point started off having 2 parents and for whatever reason find themselves over their heads or they get divorced etc. no matter the cause, did not forsee an abrupt change in their lives. Can you honestly sit there and say those children do not deserve any health care simply because their parent's employer does not offer it? So do they just quit any job just to get health coverage, take a cut in pay in addition to the cost of coverage? Pay the outrageous costs of purchasing health care as an individual so that multi-billion dollar insurance companies can get richer? That my friend is the reality!! You are addressing people having children out of wed-lock or having more babies to receive more welfare benefits I am guessing. I have issues with that type of behavior too but there are many good people out there that find themselves in the situations I mentioned before do you just turn your back on them and say tough luck? Surely you cannot be that cold. Wait-a-minute, you are a Republican aren't you? Never mind, I answered my own question.

Let's review this once again....

.....because it doesn't seem to be sinking in... I don't care if you're an unemployed, crack addicted baby factory, or an entry level lawyer making $50k a year - YOUR child's healthcare is YOUR responsibility, not the taxpayers'. In the case of SCHIP, it's absolutely outrageous that spend-happy politicians want to expand a program that's already being abused. This nation has $350 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities (that's everything from projected Social Security and Medicare shortfalls to Medicaid to Treasury notes, bills, and bonds)......and you want to pay health insurance premiums for people making $83k a year???!!!

No excuse?

This program actually pays healthcare premiums for children in families making up to $83k a year in some states!!! This is "the free lunch program" run amok! Has anyone realized that we're never going to win by REWARDING people for having kids they can't afford? We're reinforcing their irresponsible behavior with EIC, WIC, TANF, Medicaid, and SCHIPS. After Bush's veto, Ted Kennedy was bellowing about "the kids coming first," but there's something that MUST come ahead of kids - a conscientious, mature evaluation by prospective parents as to whether or not you can AFFORD a kid. No one has a RIGHT to have a child they can't support.

Common sense? Sounds more like senseless!

Why not just come out and say it! Let's just sterilize any male or female that does not share your religious or socio-economic status. How dare 2 people who could raise a child with values, love, and respect be allowed to create one without the proper health insurance and fat bank account!!! Spoken like a true right-wing conservative. It is about the kids you id*&t!! They have no voice here! Why should they suffer because they were born poor and without the priviledges you obviously have in abundance?

Born poor?

Take the time to investigate WHY the bill was vetoed. This program is already paying health insurance premiums for children in families making sixty, seventy, even eighty-thousand dollars in some states. The LAST thing we need is to expand it and create another unfunded/under-funded entitlement program. Let me turn your question around - why should other people suffer financially because your brain can't effectively manage your reproductive organs? One would conclude that as a caring, loving parent you would WANT to have "the proper health insurance and fat bank account" BEFORE you brought a child into this world. Of course, that would require responsibility, maturity, and judgment....impossible by today's standards. In lieu of this bill, the government would be far better off funding the program at the level the White House proposes and using the money Congress wants to spend like drunken sailors (buying votes) to fund abortions for the needy, after overturning the Hyde Amendment. After all, since the taxpayers are going to be soaked because of other people's reckless decisions, it would make far more fiscal sense to spend one-thousand dollars rectifying the situation now, than tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars raising the child to adulthood. If we return to offering funded abortions to the poor with the stipulation of a mandatory tubal ligation during the second abortion, we'll start to reap the financial benefits immediately, and see a windfall in fifteen to twenty years. If the politicians were sincere about ending poverty (they're not) they'd stop encouraging the proliferation of poor people by subsidizing their lifestyle.

What If

YOU,(common), had a child born with lukemia or some other form of cancer? After the doctors milked you good and dry, You would like some help too. Maybe you would just let them die and save all of your precious money.

Money is not the point

Responsibility IS the point. As far as my hypothetical child with Leukemia, I'd of course do eveything within my power to help the child as long as there was a hope of he or she being cured. That would be MY responsibility. If the money being spent on that child started to severely impact the general quality of life for the remainder of the family, then I'd have a tough decision to make.....but I'd make it. This nation would be a lot better off financially and mentally if we once again accepted that we are all reaching the same end eventually, some sooner than others. We spend an absolutely ridiculous sum of money keeping people alive when there is no hope of recovery or cure. Medicare would have paid for my eighty year-old mother's second cornary bypass surgery - SHE was the one who refused to waste that much money. So in the case of my sick child, if there was absolutely no hope, I'd do everything to keep the child spolied rotten and comfortable until the time came, but I would not pay one dime to keep the child teetering at death's door for months or years, too sick to enjoy life. Oh, regarding those doctors who want to milk you dry....? They're simply giving the public what they want, which is pushing death to the back burner for as long as possible. Meanwhile, they have to protect themselves from the lawyers the next-of-kin will hire to second guess every decision the doctor made and try to get all that money back (plus a whole-lot more). Death is as much a part of life as being born. We Americans are too afraid of it to effectively deal with it any more.

God you're cold. I can't

God you're cold. I can't believe you believe that way about children. Not some 80 year old that has lived - two totally different circumstances.