S-chip is a Republican program. The Bill was vetoed because it was an
effort at expanding the program to the point that it would hurt the
poor because fewer dollars would have been allocated to their needs.
McConnell and the President support the program and will increase
funding to the program when the Libs in Congress quit playing politics
with the lives and medical needs of poor children.

Bush's
proposed increase would have allocated much more money to the poor than
would the Democrat's plan. The Democrats are seeking only to expand the
program to include the people the Dems call wealthy when the argument
is about taxes.

Of course for those capable of nothing but hate it is a prime opp...

S-chip is a Republican program. The Bill was vetoed because it was an
effort at expanding the program to the point that it would hurt the
poor because fewer dollars would have been allocated to their needs.
McConnell and the President support the program and will increase
funding to the program when the Libs in Congress quit playing politics
with the lives and medical needs of poor children.

Bush's
proposed increase would have allocated much more money to the poor than
would the Democrat's plan. The Democrats are seeking only to expand the
program to include the people the Dems call wealthy when the argument
is about taxes.

Of course for those capable of nothing but hate it is a prime opportunity to reveal themselves as "drooling morons".

Bush could care less about childcare, nevertheless the other people that support him, just don't seem to understand.
The people that go on SCHIP are tax payers as well, and are entitled to the extra help.
Funny thing is that most of the people that are against the program that has proved to be successful are the ones who do not have children, I said most of them.
Furthermore they would rather fund an illegal war, then to help the children.- ( Almost 2 trillion in the cost of the war ),
It's a sad day when people are so selfish to the ones who are in need, " THE CHILDREN" but when they are the ones in need, they are the first in line with there hands out.
So it is OK for you to get help when ...

Bush could care less about childcare, nevertheless the other people that support him, just don't seem to understand.
The people that go on SCHIP are tax payers as well, and are entitled to the extra help.
Funny thing is that most of the people that are against the program that has proved to be successful are the ones who do not have children, I said most of them.
Furthermore they would rather fund an illegal war, then to help the children.- ( Almost 2 trillion in the cost of the war ),
It's a sad day when people are so selfish to the ones who are in need, " THE CHILDREN" but when they are the ones in need, they are the first in line with there hands out.
So it is OK for you to get help when you need it, but it is not OK for the children?
This truly shows the type of people that live in the world, and why there life is so bleak.
I guess it clearly shows how a person is raised, but don't blame the person, only blame the parents.

He said it "would result" in covering children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year, which isn't true. The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what is in the current law.
He also said the program was "meant to help poor children," when in fact Congress stated that it was meant to expand insurance coverage beyond the poor and to cover millions of "low-income" children who were well above the poverty line. Under current law most states cover children at twice or even three times the official poverty level.
Bush a...

He said it "would result" in covering children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year, which isn't true. The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what is in the current law.
He also said the program was "meant to help poor children," when in fact Congress stated that it was meant to expand insurance coverage beyond the poor and to cover millions of "low-income" children who were well above the poverty line. Under current law most states cover children at twice or even three times the official poverty level.
Bush also says Congress' expansion is a step toward government-run health care for all. It's true that some children and families with private insurance are expected to shift to the government program. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that such a shift is relatively low considering the number of uninsured these bills would reach.
If it was a republican only program, then why did they vote against it?
There is more to it then what you think, Bush is using this as a cut to compensate for the overspending on his illegal war.