Gephardt voted against health care for low income children...

[sfecap]

And against balancing the budget...and against health care for legal immigrants...and against assistance for low income Medicare patients...and against expanding Medicare coverage.



Balanced Budget Act - Passage

Bill Number: HR 2015
Issue: Health
Date: 06/25/1997
Sponsor:


Roll Call Number: 0241
Bill passed
Full Member List


Representative Richard Andrew 'Dick' Gephardt voted NO.

Vote to pass a bill to provide for a balanced budget by 2002. The bill reduces spending by $289 billion over five years, including reductions of $115 billion in the rate of growth of Medicare spending. The bill includes a $16 billion block grant to the states to provide health insurance to low-income children, allows Medicare recipients to chose alternative payment programs, and restores SSI and Medicare benefits to legal immigrants who arrived before 8/23/96, among other provisions.

HR 2015: The Balanced Budget Act

Vote to pass a bill to provide for a balanced budget by 2002. The bill reduces spending by $289 billion over five years, including reductions of $115 billion in the rate of growth of Medicare spending. The bill includes a $16 billion block grant to the states to provide health insurance to low-income children and $9 billion to restore Supplemental Security Income and Medicare benefits to legal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before 8/23/96. Other provisions of the bill provide $1.5 billion to help low-income Medicare recipients pay their premiums, expand Medicare coverage of some additional medical procedures and allow Medicare recipients to choose from alternative programs, including Medical Savings Accounts, among other provisions.

(Bill passed 270-162 on 6/25/97)

Bill Status:
Bill Number: HR 2015 - 105th Congress (1997-98)
House Passage Vote: 06/25/97 - Outcome: Passed
Senate Passage Vote: 06/25/97 - Outcome: Passed
House Conference Report Vote: 07/30/97 - Outcome: Passed
Senate Conference Report Vote: 07/31/97 - Outcome: Passed
Presidential Action: Signed on 08/05/97
Public Law Number: 105-33 111 Stat. 251

http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=1369&can_id=H2180103

[dsc]

1. This was quite likely a huge bill

and thus he may have had a good reason to vote no.

[clar]

2. He may well have had a good reason

and I may be wrong but I think sfcap is demonstrating that all these guys have votes or comments that can cast them in a bad light.

[sfecap]

4. Yep.

And gee, how it can be spun...kinda like Dean's comments in 1995.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

5. People who live in glass houses

shouldn't throw stones, as is pointed out by the content of the original post. Dean has shown restraint in pulling up votes like this which paint the candidates in a bad light based on half of a story. This is the kind of crap that Kerry was trying to pull in this week's debate, saying Dean was trying to hurt seniors when clearly he was trying to help them (and succeeded).

I hope Dean continues to not resort to these kinds of tactics, and Kerry and Gep find true issues with which to compete with Dean.

[sfecap]

3. He voted against an increase in Medicaid funding...

FY 2001 Labor/HHS/Educ. Appropriations-Passage


Bill Number: HR 4577
Issue: Health
Date: 06/14/2000
Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Porter, R-IL


Roll Call Number: 0273
Bill passed
Full Member List


Representative Richard Andrew 'Dick' Gephardt voted NO.

Vote to pass a bill that would provide $351.8 billion for the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments and related agencies for fiscal 2001. That funding level would be a $12.3 billion increase in discretionary spending and $11.5 billion increase in mandatory spending over fiscal 2000.

HR 4577: Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001

Vote to pass a bill that would provide $351.8 billion for the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments and related agencies for fiscal 2001. 71 percent of the funds allocated are for mandatory spending which pays for programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and Supplemental Social Security. The $351.8 billion funding level would be a $12.3 billion increase in discretionary spending and $11.5 billion increase in mandatory spending over fiscal 2000. Among other provisions, the measure includes $18.8 billions for the National Institutes of Health, $8.4 billion for Pell Grants, $6.6 billion for special education and $1.8 billion for the Teacher Empowerment Act.
(Bill sponsored by Porter, R-IL)
Bill passed 214-211: R 145-71; D 67-140; I 2-0 on 06/14/2000.

[Lefty48197]

6. I'm glad he opposed the Republican economic plan

He's right. They're wrong. Get it straight.

[Cha]

8. "get it straight"? It 's been shown that geppy voted against

health care for low income children. It's Damn Staight.

[sandnsea]

7. A mixed bag

This bill had good and bad aspects. It's another one of those things where I can see both sides to the vote. It's also what gave Howard Dean the ability to enact the health programs he did, while he now blasts the do-nothing Washington insiders.

[sfecap]

9. But Gep claims Dean opposed this Bill...

And Gep is the champion of Medicare, right?

Why did he vote against increasing Medicare benefits?

[sandnsea]

10. Link?

I don't think Gephardt ever said Dean opposed this bill. He said Dean supported the earlier Medicare bills back in '93 I think. The ones that shut down the government. And I don't know everything this bill did, so I'm not sure why he voted the way he did. If this is the bill implementing Medicare HMO's, he may well have done the right thing. That has been pretty much a disaster.

[KittyWampus]

11. At times the virtue of a balanced budget is debatable

That's ALL I'm saying.... nothing more or less....

and I base that small statement on Krugman's writing.

[wrkclskid]

12. I bet almost all Dems voted against it

This is the same with the budget resolutuion, they vote against it nt because they are against the spending but because they don;t think it spends enough. Beleive it or not, even under Republican control domestic spending increases, yet the Dems try to spend more.

[Cocoa]

13. yep, most dems voted no, including Kucinich

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1997&rollnumber=241

REPUBLICAN 219 YES, 7 NO
DEMOCRATIC 51 YES, 154 NO

[JohnKleeb]

14. that makes sense

[genius]

15. Dean cut their health care funds

Doctors couldn't afford to treat them.

[Duder]

16. During our "darkess hour"

[wrkclskid]

17. I understand u being mad about that

But what does it have to with the current topic of the thread?

[quinnox]

18. We already have a president that the NRA loves

Time for a change, no more NRA lovers like Bush or Dean in the White House.

[pandatimothy]

19. Totally disagree

My candidate has to be pro-gun and Howard Dean is very open on all gun issues.

[blm]

20. sfecap just doing his job.

that's all.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. He takes shit so the rest of us don't have to.

If the people surrounding the chronic flamebaiters can rein in the three or four that are guilty in this forum, I can guarantee you that sfecap will cease and desist.



Edit to add: If you haven't noticed yet, sfecap goes on a spree of posting this crap after we're up to our necks in those 3 or 4 other's crap. It's not a coincidence.

[blm]

22. C'mon...more than a few of you

have been playing real rough for many months now. I don't mind rough, as you know, but TOO rough sucks and doesn't really help promote Democratic issues.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. I have never, I repeat never, started a flamebait thread.

I agree that there's not much Democratic issue promoting going on. But hey, look on the bright side: Only 3 months to the first primary...It's going to get real interesting around here then!

[sfecap]

24. Too rough does suck...

Kinda like the Kerry supporter (and serial basher) implying Dean and Clark racist? (Funny how Clark wasn't mentioned in the header, tho.)

And BLM, you are no angel..., but I bet you're very nice when not trashing Dean. :-)