Children's Health Insurance Bill Veto

[ryberg]

Hey, interesting tagline there, Sol! Did you put that in or was that one of those James ideas?

Steve

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Mark must be gone lately because he's out preparing for it or something.

Steve

I read a book sometime ago that explained it to me. There are plenty of statistics that back it up. It is the natural reaction of capitalism when completely unrestained by any pretense of morality or laws.

Thr big question is how much worse it will get at the bottom before there is a likelihood of action. Action which is aimed away from the slums, barrios and colonias. By the dwellers therein.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by Sol

Edit.

You are being less than clear here. Please speak up.

[Sol]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Hey, interesting tagline there, Sol! Did you put that in or was that one of those James ideas?

Steve

Thanks! It was all mine.

[Sol]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

You are being less than clear here. Please speak up.

It is clear that Bush wants that money for the war. His excuse that supporting children's healthcare would imply that the government supports federally funded healthcare is a very weak. Increasing the monies for children's healthcare would help those families who do not qualify for Medicaid because they make a bit more money and as a result, are not eligible. His answer is private insurance and medical care. Will he be going after insurance companies to either lower premiums or work on sliding scales and the government will make up the difference? If he could commit to working on something like this and succeeding, then perhaps his decision wouldn't be such a slap in the face to so many children. Ten million children could be helped with this money...talk about messing with the future of the United States.

[ryberg]

You know, that makes me think: isn't it about time those 1,000 points of light reported in and got to work solving all our problems?

Or, that is to say, all the problems we don't want to try and solve with our government, even though it's all established and in place and is supposed to, you know, make things better?



Steve

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I read a book sometime ago that explained it to me. There are plenty of statistics that back it up. It is the natural reaction of capitalism when completely unrestained by any pretense of morality or laws.

Thr big question is how much worse it will get at the bottom before there is a likelihood of action. Action which is aimed away from the slums, barrios and colonias. By the dwellers therein.

Well, I suspect that denying health insurance for their children is a good way to stir up the masses.

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by eccentrictinker

President Bush may not have had so much of a problem with the bill if hadn't covered some families earning up to $80K/yr and children? up to the age of 25.

Still waiting for that link JL politely requested.

Or how 'bout this...

If you're just regurgitating some right wing propaganda you picked up on some stupid right wing blog somewhere, why not just save yourself some time... Lets cut right to the chase, come out and say it: "Sorry, the war is more important than our children."

Think about this though, ET, by all accounts the conservatives plan to have massive troop presence in Iraq for the next 20 years. If y'all aren't willing to provide for medical insurance for low and low-middle income families, where will you find your healthy young recruits when the time comes to ship them on over there?

[melliedee]

Some responses to the veto. My favorite from Richardson:

"The Grinch came three months early this year and stole children's health care." _ Presidential candidate Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M.

Folks might think about quitting smoking and poor children get healthcare? We can't have that kind of insanity...what an embarrassment.

FOXNews.com - Reaction to Children's Health Veto - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

[horizon200]

SCHIP program
The Associated Press
A look at the State Children's Health Insurance Program and the bill vetoed Wednesday by President Bush.

Whom the program serves: The SCHIP program, enacted in 1997, is designed to subsidize health coverage for families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. More than 6 million children participated in SCHIP in 2006.

Also, 670,000 adults received SCHIP coverage as a result of waivers granted to some states. The bill Bush vetoed would have expanded coverage to 10 million children and moved some of the adults to Medicaid.

Eligibility: Most states cap eligibility to families whose income is less than twice the government poverty level, or $41,228 for a family of four in 2006. The bill would have limited the full federal match to families with incomes less than three times the poverty level, or $61,842 for a family of four.

Cost: The federal government spends about $5 billion a year on the SCHIP, covering about 70 percent of its costs. States subsidize the coverage. The bill would have raised the program's annual cost to the federal government to $12 billion.

The higher costs would have been paid for with a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes. That tax is now 39 cents a pack.

Uninsured: The Census Bureau estimates that there were about 9 million children who did not have health insurance at some time in 2006. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that about 3.8 million of those uninsured children would have gotten government coverage under the bill. It also estimates that about 2 million children covered by private insurance would have switched to SCHIP.

What's next: Bush has recommended a 20 percent increase in the program's size, to an average $6 billion over the next five years, and administration officials have indicated a willingness to negotiate.

House Democratic leaders say they will vote on a veto override but not immediately. The bill's supporters in the Senate have enough votes to override Bush's veto. House supporters say they are about 15 votes short of the two-thirds majority required for an override. In the meantime, Congress has passed and Bush has signed legislation continuing the program at current spending levels until mid-November

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by eccentrictinker

President Bush may not have had so much of a problem with the bill if hadn't covered some families earning up to $80K/yr and children? up to the age of 25.

He is partly correct. The Program here in Delaware caps out at $83,000 per family...however, you must have 10 family members to reach that income level.

Here is a link to the program by state

Insure Kids Now! Linking the Nation's Children to Health Insurance

[roni]

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

From Eugene Robinson's column. Full column at link above

Bush's stated reasons for vetoing the SCHIP bill left even reliable congressional allies -- such as Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Charles Grassley of Iowa, both of whom supported the legislation -- sputtering in incomprehension. As for me, I don't know what to call the president's rationale but a pack of flat-out lies.

The president said Congress was trying to "federalize health care," even though the program in question is run by the states. The president said that "I don't want the federal government making decisions for doctors and customers," even though the vetoed bill authorizes no such decisions -- the program enrolls children in private, I repeat, private, health insurance plans.

And here's my favorite: "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me." But the bill he vetoed prohibits states from using the program to aid families who make more than three times the federal poverty limit, or about $60,000 a year for a family of four. Most of the aid would go to families earning substantially less.

Bush's spurious $83,000 figure comes from a request by New York state to use the program for some families earning four times the poverty limit. That request was denied by the Bush administration last month -- and that upper limit is not in the bill Bush vetoed. End of story. If New York or any other state were to ask again to be able to raise the income limits, the administration could simply say no.

Bush seems to be upset that Congress didn't adopt his pet idea to tackle the health insurance issue through -- guess what? -- tax breaks. None of the major players on Capitol Hill thought this would work. When the White House persisted, Congress moved ahead on its own.

Hatch said he believed Bush had been given bad advice by his staff. He didn't take the next step and draw what seems to me the obvious conclusion: Either Bush didn't understand the bill he vetoed or he's just being petulant -- with the health of 4 million children at stake.

"I hope the folks at home raise Cain," Hatch said. Oh, I think they will.

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by horizon200

He is partly correct. The Program here in Delaware caps out at $83,000 per family...however, you must have 10 family members to reach that income level.

Here is a link to the program by state

Insure Kids Now! Linking the Nation's Children to Health Insurance

Well, of course, any family with a household income of $83K and TEN CHILDREN are probably using $100 bills for kindling in their fireplace...

As I mentioned to ET before, be careful when you pull your "facts" from a right wing propaganda blog site, as you may end up with egg on your face. (Of course, I'm sure that family of 12 making $83K a year is eating eggs benedict every day for breakfast, so... )

Bottom line - another crappy move by our crappy president. Before the 2006 that man NEVER met a spending bill he didn't like (and sign!) All of a sudden he wants to veto insurance for children? What an idiotic schmuck.

I cannot WAIT until his ONLY relevance to this nation is in the dark, sad chapter in U.S. history books covering the first few years of the 21st century.



So where are the rest of the righties on this one? Don't any of y'all wanna try and support and rationalize this numbskull veto? (Boy, I sure do miss Mark... )

[MikeW]

This is being paid for with a small tax increase on tobacco.

What was the original reason for taxing the hell out of tobacco? Decrease usage. Is it working? Probably. If it works as it should, then funding will run out for this program increase.

Another possiblity, but unmeasurable; this small tax increase on tobacco (on top of the large amount of existing taxes on tobacco) will push more bootlegging of tobacco. Possibly lowering the amount of money actually collected than expected.

Or we could free up monies by not being an offensive military nation.

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by MikeW

This is being paid for with a small tax increase on tobacco.

What was the original reason for taxing the hell out of tobacco? Decrease usage. Is it working? Probably. If it works as it should, then funding will run out for this program increase.

Another possiblity, but unmeasurable; this small tax increase on tobacco (on top of the large amount of existing taxes on tobacco) will push more bootlegging of tobacco. Possibly lowering the amount of money actually collected than expected.

Or we could free up monies by not being an offensive military nation.

Well... There is that...