Now Only One Democrat Opposes Health Care for Children

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

Click for larger version
(click for larger version)

Earlier we mentioned the House leadership was bringing up S-CHIP again. They did. And it passed again-- with 43 Republicans joining all but one Democrat. We'll get to that in a second. But first I want to share with you some of the responses from our GOP congressmember who refused to vote for children's health care. Please bear in mind that all of their families are covered by far more sumptuous healthcare (at taxpayer expense):

First from the scumbag whose concern for the welfare of children made him cover-up his colleague Mark Foley's serial molestation of underage male pages for years so as not to endanger a GOP-held seat in Florida: Tom Reynolds, one of the most vile and despicable creatures to crawl around the halls of the Capitol-- "The bill puts lipstick on a sow. Today is raw politics-- trotting out a vote just for the sake of a vote." If you'd like to help put an end to the disgrace of this pile of vomit's career, the name of his opponent is Jon Powers, someone who very much cares about children and, in fact, started an organization to care for war orphans after returning from the war in Iraq. Please consider helping him at his Blue America page.

Last year we mentioned that rubber stamp Republican Ginny Brown-Waite was certifiably insane after she demanded that the U.S. dig up all the bodies of American fighting men buried in France and return them home. Her embarrassed Republican colleagues just ignored her. Her consciously false reason for voting again children's health care today was because she said it will be a "magnet for illegal aliens." As she is-- assuming she is vaguely literate-- aware, the bill specifically excludes undocumented immigrants in order to address Republican xenophobic hysteria. But she voted no anyway-- and then lied about it to her constituents.

But no deception rises to the level of Michigan crook Mike Rogers. In a convoluted excuse for his anti-family vote he "said that rich children could still qualify for benefits because states, in determining eligibility, could ignore or disregard part of a family's income." Mike Rogers, whose entire career has been one championing the prerogatives of the rich and powerful over ordinary Americans, whose entire career has been 100% dedicated to serving, slavishly, special interests-- basically his campaign contributors, is afraid states will bend the rules to cater to the children of the rich? Give me a break! Does anyone listen to this stuff with a straight face?

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.