Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > September > 26 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USMarshall: Why I voted against SCHIP bill
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
In an attempt to assuage fellow Democrats at home, U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall of Macon just put out this statement about why he voted against the SCHIP expansion bill on Tuesday:
“Earlier today, the House voted to extend SCHIP’s authorization until the debate over the program’s expansion is resolved. There’s no question that I support expanding SCHIP.
“But I also have an obligation to the citizens of Middle Georgia to do everything possible to make sure that the program in its final form fairly distributes the burden and fairly distributes the benefits.
“Expanding SCHIP is among my highest priorities - and it should be among everyone’s highest priorities - but it’s also critically important that Congress and the President get this right.”
Marshall was the only Democrat who didn’t vote for the bill that passed Tuesday with a less-than-veto-proof margin. We’re told that Marshall had several problems with the measure: the size and instability of the tobacco tax increase; the lack of a standard applications for every state; and a lax identification process. Marshall appears to agree with Republican Nathan Deal, who has argued the ID standards would make the program easy for illegal immigrants to abuse.
The implication being that he expects to vote for the measure when it comes up again, if his objections are satisfied.
Services »
Comments
By todd
September 26, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this
I supported it before i voted against it.
By Churchill
September 26, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this
Illegals and 24 1/2 year old “children” living in a home that makes over $70,000 do not deserve tax-payer funded health care. Why not pass a bill that funds health care for legal, truly poverty-stricken children?
By ToddH
September 26, 2007 8:56 PM | Link to this
I call b.s. on Deal and Marshall. According to Section 132 of the bill it specifically forbids the extension of health care to illegal immigrants.
By ToddH
September 26, 2007 8:57 PM | Link to this
I call b.s. on Deal and Marshall. According to Section 132 of the bill it specifically forbids the extension of health care to illegal immigrants.
By Nick
September 27, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this
COWARD
By Connie
September 27, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
Who is the coward? The one who dare go against his party, or the anonymous name caller.
By Connie
September 27, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
Who is the coward? The one who dares go against his party, or the anonymous name caller.
By Nick
September 27, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this
I didn’t post as anonymous I put my name to it. As a long time Marshall supporter I am disappointed that he was a “coward” on this vote and didn’t do right by the children of the 8th district of Georgia!
By You're So Over Jimbo
September 29, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this
We spend $2 billion a week in Iraq.
But to take care of American children here, Jim Marshall says screw ‘em.
You are over Jim. Hope you enjoyed the ride, but forget running for guvna or anything else.
By Jeff
October 3, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this
No child left behind, huh? More like, no child left a dime.
By Mary Alice Carter
October 3, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this
Mr. Marshall voted correctly on this issue. He states that he is not satisfied with the identification process and I agree. Also,a standard for every state. Would you want the children in State of New York to receive more benefits and better care than those in Callifornia? It is a boondoogle and why are we paying for healthcare of children whose parents are too lazy to get an education to earn a living to get health insurance. I am against supporting those who are 400% above the poverty level.
By Michael Ki
October 4, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
The simple fact of the matter is this:
Anthony Wright is with the non-profit group Health Access. He says some 800,000 California children are covered by SCHIP. Wright says more money is needed to sustain the program.
Wright: Even if we had flat funding for this program in the next year, which is a likely fall-back position, California would have to dis-enroll 250,000 children from this program.Whoever still supports this idiot of a man (probably another Right Wing Tool like Joe Lieberman), is just as blind as the Republican party that puts a rubber stamp on everything this Administration stands for.
By Michael
October 4, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
“Anthony Wright is with the non-profit group Health Access. He says some 800,000 California children are covered by SCHIP. Wright says more money is needed to sustain the program.
Wright: Even if we had flat funding for this program in the next year, which is a likely fall-back position, California would have to dis-enroll 250,000 children from this program."Mary Alice Carter, you are a tool.
By Audree
October 4, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this
How dare you Mary Alice state that families who earn above the poverty level should not get assistance w/ health coverage. My family was denied private health coverage-my husband and I are both college educated and work full time. We needed coverage to protect our children. We PAY for our state coverage, it’s not FREE.We are working middle class family who struggle w/ getting health insurance. Programs like this will protect families today. Get educated Mary Alice and try to listen to real families who struggle w/ this every day.
By Bill
October 8, 2007 9:03 PM | Link to this
First of all, all children in this country deserve adequate health care. It does NOT make any sense, though, to foot the bill for this care on the 35% of lower income adults that smoke. Take money to pay for childrens health care from the people who can’t afford to pay for their children’s health care, completely backwards. So what is next, if you are poor you will not be allowed to eat red meat? French fries? Drive to work? Take the money from some of the other useless programs that government currently pays for. How can we pay 100 billion a year to fight in Iraq but can’t find the money to take care of our children without punishing those that can least afford it.