PDA

View Full Version : Screw the kids, let 'em smoke


joebob
03 Oct 2007, 11:19 AM
Bush vetoes child health plan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health)
Bush vetoes child health plan
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago



President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

Democrats unleashed a stream of harsh rhetoric, as they geared up for a battle to both improve their chances of winning a veto override and score political points against Republicans who oppose the expansion.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto."

"Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America."

Democratic congressional leaders said they may put off the override attempt for as long as two weeks to maximize pressure on Republican House members whose votes will be critical.

"We remain committed to making SCHIP into law — with or without the president's support," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., referring to the full name of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

The White House sought little attention for Bush's action, with the president casting his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage. He defended it later Wednesday during a budget speech in Lancaster, Pa., addressing a welcoming audience organized by the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry in GOP-friendly Pennsylvania Dutch country.

"Poor kids first," Bush said. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."

But he seemed eager to avert a full-scale showdown over the difficult issue, offering that he is "more than willing" to negotiate with lawmakers "if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children."

The program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president argued that the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far beyond its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He has proposed only a $5 billion increase in funding.

Democrats deny Bush's charge that their plan is a move toward socialized medicine that short-changes the poor, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But in the House, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override, despite sizable Republican support. A two-thirds majority in both chambers is needed.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's expected veto.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out."

It took Bush six years to veto his first bill, when he blocked expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells last summer. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research.

In the case of the health insurance program, the veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads Monday attacking eight GOP House members who voted against the bill and face potentially tough re-election campaigns next year.

And Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups was staging more than 200 events throughout the nation on Thursday to highlight the issue. The group, which includes MoveOn.org, and several unions, also has a goal of more than 1 million contacts to Congress through calls, letters and e-mails demanding that lawmakers override Bush's veto. The coalition is spending $3 million to $5 million on the effort.
To summarize:

Bush's fourth veto behind stem cells, troop withdrawal, and stem cells redux.
Bi-partisan "pay as you go" legislation, expressly funded by an increase in tobacco taxation.
Vetoed behind closed doors without a public statement (yet).

Hogarth
03 Oct 2007, 11:45 AM
I'm only speculating, but this sounds like the Tobacco Lobby's handiwork.

This is dumb on so many levels. Thank you President Bush for restoring the Democratic Party to power.

On that note, why do so many Republicans stick with this guy, when he continues to torpedo the party. Are these guys that eager to start collecting their congressional pensions? The GOP should change its symbol to a lemming, 'cause they're all going off a cliff together.

Docta
03 Oct 2007, 11:57 AM
culture of life my ass...........

Hogarth
03 Oct 2007, 12:00 PM
That only counts until you're born.

Docta
03 Oct 2007, 12:04 PM
That only counts until you're born.

or before you are discarded by the fertility clinic

markalot
03 Oct 2007, 12:05 PM
Rejoice in this veto and the chance the house can't override it. Unfortunately I think the repubs in congress will wise up and provide enough votes for an override, but there's always hope.

bankstreet
03 Oct 2007, 12:31 PM
Does anyone actually know the specifics of the bill. Let me say that I'm not a Bush fan but....I remeber hearing where the bill could give benifits to children in families making up to 80 grand a year and that children up to the age of 25 would be covered. Although this could have just been from Altria.

My point is the headline sounds horrible but what are the real specifics of the thing. I hate the media because they always give you the 5 second headline and don't give any real information. I thought the news was supposed to answer the five W's but most the time it is more like kind of just "What" happend. I'm sorry if the American public is so stupid but I actualy want the details :mad:

jneale
03 Oct 2007, 12:39 PM
Oh I never thought I’d agree with the little tyrant – but on this one – he is right.

Companies have sprung up to help organizations manage their benefit enrollments. Their goal is to move people OFF of the company’s insurance. Our broker works with one of the companies – I’ve met with them several times. For a fee they’ll help me move people OFF of my plan. SCHIP is their biggest tool to reduce the number of people on my plan.

In a nutshell – the earnings maximums to qualify for SCHIP are pretty lenient – I don’t recall the numbers – but I had employees that would qualify for the coverage EVEN though I offer insurance @ a pretty reasonable cost. SCHIP doesn’t care if the parent has affordable coverage – it sets limits assuming the child has no insurance.

Kids – believe it or not – aren’t much of a liability on a plan. Yeah – they get the sniffles – but generally (once they are born) they don’t add much extra cost in experience dollars to a plan.

I’d agree with SCHIP if there was an element of review as to what options the parent has for coverage. Some companies contribute zero dollars – the EE foots 100% of the bill. Yes those parents have it available – but it isn’t feasible – I’m all for their kids getting coverage. We offer it, it isn’t cost prohibitive - they shouldn't be allowed to move off my plan.

The media & my party is making it sound like Bush wants kids to go without – when in reality – it the argument is why should the government pay when there may be better more affordable coverage available?

I would have vetoed it.

joebob
03 Oct 2007, 12:58 PM
Does anyone actually know the specifics of the bill.
The purpose of the SCHIP program is to act as a safety net for approximately 4 million uninsured children that aren't covered by their states' Medicaid programs for whatever reason. Most of these state programs have been crippled over the years through money-mismanagement or a simple lack of funding from taxes and federal subsidies. When the state systems fail, and there is no safety net provided by the federal government, what happens to these children? Jneale has a point, kind of - there are programs out there that these kids should be on. Unfortunately, the fact remains that these programs, at present, can't accomodate these 4 million kids.

Jneale also offered another tasty thought nugget: is insurance for children really necessary, or just something nice to have? "Generally" speaking, of course.


Glad you spotted the sarcasm.


This legislation Bush vetoed would have renewed the SCHIP program for a measly 18 months and, unlike a lot of Congressional bills, contained suggestions for funding this extension. This veto wasn't some sage penstroke by our president. My belief is the same as Hogarth's: the 61-cents/pack tax proposal constitutes a 140% increase. It was up to the president: be certain of 4 million more kids' health security; or protect that $4m in tobacco industry campaign contributions that pours in every two years, more than 75% of which is given to Republicans.

Docta
03 Oct 2007, 01:02 PM
i'm ok with the possibility of paying for a kid's healthcare who's parents might be able to "afford" private coverage if it covers 1000 other kids who's parents cannot afford private coverage.

using a rational that we should not fund a government program because businesses will abuse it is not an argument i'm swayed by, especially if it means we are denying kids the ability to get real healthcare (not just emergency room "care")

BigSugar
03 Oct 2007, 01:03 PM
oh come one jneale!! Party line! Bush wants to kill and eat children and that's all that needs to be known! ;)

and i still love the "43 million w/o health insurance" line they continue to use, which includes every illegal alien in the country (10-15 million), every 18-25 year old that chooses not to pay for insurance b/c they are otherwise healthy and don't care (including most college students who get health plans through their colleges with their tuition!), and a slew of others that i forget right now....the number of citizens without insurance who truly can't afford it, and would purchase it if it was available at the right cost, is actually under 10 million.

and let's not forget that illegals have a health plan....it's called the ER and they use it for everything and then skip on the bill most of the time, costing avg. joe insurance payer to pay higher premiums for their already outrageous insurance plans.

how much pork did the Dems/Repubs attach to this sucker? I'd love to know that number!

Docta
03 Oct 2007, 01:12 PM
i don't understand why businesses have not pushed harder for universal healthcare when it would mean they could drop a significant cost from their balance sheets.

look at the auto industry for god sake, how much more profit are honda and toyoda making per car because they do not have to pay healthcare costs for every living employee and retiree.

joebob
03 Oct 2007, 01:13 PM
how much pork did the Dems/Repubs attach to this sucker? I'd love to know that number!
Hit up http://thomas.loc.gov and use the program title to pull up all House and Senate amendments. There are quite a few, but of the ones I looked through, most were attempts to streamline funding or glean extra monies from other related programs. No statues or troop withdrawals or condom distribution programs...

markalot
03 Oct 2007, 01:14 PM
BAH,

you all are arguing reality, I'm talking politics.

joebob
03 Oct 2007, 01:15 PM
i don't understand why businesses have not pushed harder for universal healthcare when it would mean they could drop a significant cost from their balance sheets.
Simple answer: the insurance industry is the 7th largest contributor to candidates in the United States. Source: OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.asp).

Hogarth
03 Oct 2007, 01:25 PM
The thing I don't understand is who loses, other than nicotine addicts and their pushers? This is a low cost, high reward bill for politicians, and Bush still vetoed it.

Unless the health insurance industry doesn't want it either. Which may make some sense, if kids are low cost care users. Perhaps, if kids are shifted off insurance, then profits may decline. So Bush has alligned with the tobacco industry and the insurance industry, the pond scum of coporations. I'm sure that will look smart next year.

joebob
03 Oct 2007, 01:41 PM
I'm sure that will look smart next year.
It's a posturing move, no doubt. Repubs, to retain any shred of hope next year, have to return to the big gun arguments of the '80s and '90s: less (government) is more. Dems want welfare society. Your taxes pay for others' frivolities. It's all they've got, and if enough unthinking voters listen to that tripe, it's all they need.

jneale
03 Oct 2007, 02:01 PM
It does seem a bit odd for him to suddenly become fiscally conservative on such a charged issue.

I dare anyone to use the slur “tax and spend democrat.”

dragonflier
03 Oct 2007, 02:07 PM
and i still love the "43 million w/o health insurance" line they continue to use, which includes every illegal alien in the country (10-15 million), every 18-25 year old that chooses not to pay for insurance b/c they are otherwise healthy and don't care (including most college students who get health plans through their colleges with their tuition!)

I have degrees from U. of Cincinnati, Wright State, and Utah State. None of these institutions offered me health insurance as a benefit of paying tuition. They all offered health insurance, but it wasn't free and it wasn't part of my tuition. I doubt that you'd find many instances of universities that truly offer free health insurance.

Unrequited
03 Oct 2007, 02:13 PM
I dare anyone to use the slur “tax and spend democrat.”

Indeed. The Bush Administration has made that knee-jerk criticism of the Dems obsolete.

jneale
03 Oct 2007, 02:31 PM
I have degrees from U. of Cincinnati, Wright State, and Utah State. None of these institutions offered me health insurance as a benefit of paying tuition. They all offered health insurance, but it wasn't free and it wasn't part of my tuition. I doubt that you'd find many instances of universities that truly offer free health insurance.

his point is - the data isn't exactly truthful - # of people without coverage includes those that could but don't have it.

I had an employee that waived coverage - had a baby on the government's dime - she would be coutned as "uninsured" when the truth is it was of her own doing.

I'm a grad from UC - it was dirt cheap & you had to get it OR prove you had it from another source - no it wasn't free - but how many schools offer it & kids don't take it.

bankstreet
03 Oct 2007, 03:00 PM
OK here is what Fox News had Bush saying. I did love how he said the 61 cent tax on cigs is regressive....give me a break

The veto — the fourth of Bush's presidency — took place without fanfare, though the president addressed the matter while in Lancaster, Pa., where he gave remarks on the budget and spending.

"I just vetoed a bill today, and I want to explain to you why. It's called SCHIP, children's health insurance policy," Bush told the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry. "The intent of the program was to focus on poorer children, not adults or families earning up to $83,000 a year. It is estimated that if this program were to become law, one out of every three person(s) that would subscribe to the new expanded SCHIP would leave private insurance. The policies of the government ought to be to help poor children and to focus on poor children."

The president has said that the 61-cent tax on each pack of cigarettes to pay for the measure is regressive, and the government should not be providing health care to families whose income is as much as $80,000 a year. He also expressed concern that the offer of low-cost, government-provided health care will encourage many people who already are covered by private insurance to switch, adding considerable strain to the government system.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday that Congress sent the bill to the president knowing that he wouldn't sign it, and it's now up to lawmakers to come up with an alternative. Bush had requested $5 billion more for the program over five years.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299129,00.html

Breeze
03 Oct 2007, 03:09 PM
Indeed. The Bush Administration has made that knee-jerk criticism of the Dems obsolete.
Not really. The GOP is more about cutting and spending.

REMgirl
03 Oct 2007, 03:14 PM
Here's another source for the numbers:

http://www.factcheck.org/

Click on the Bush headline about childrens' health insurance.

berzerker
03 Oct 2007, 03:38 PM
Not really. The GOP is more about cutting and spending.

Which is much worse, in my opinion.

bankstreet
03 Oct 2007, 04:00 PM
Here's another source for the numbers:

http://www.factcheck.org/

Click on the Bush headline about childrens' health insurance.

Now that is some useful information :D You get brownie points. The best part was the Butt Out the Truth section. Essentially poor people would be paying for this. So are the Dems sticking it to them and Bush helping them out :confused:

Hogarth
03 Oct 2007, 04:03 PM
The more Bush does this kind of stuff, the more likely Hilary Clinton will be our next president. Enjoy y'all.

classicgrrl
03 Oct 2007, 04:06 PM
I have degrees from U. of Cincinnati, Wright State, and Utah State. None of these institutions offered me health insurance as a benefit of paying tuition. They all offered health insurance, but it wasn't free and it wasn't part of my tuition. I doubt that you'd find many instances of universities that truly offer free health insurance.

Agreed. I've NEVER heard of free health insurance with college tuition. You can go to the clinic on campus but they suck ass and will give you an antibiotic for suffering from depression.

if we had any kind of universal health care this wouldn't even be a discussion. anybody read Jerry Springer's idea for OH for healthcare? It's really very intriguing and well researched...

Measure Up!
03 Oct 2007, 04:45 PM
anybody read Jerry Springer's idea for OH for healthcare? It's really very intriguing and well researched...

If Jerry was a good Ohio citizen he'd hand over his plan to someone with a little more credibility.

DaHood
03 Oct 2007, 05:03 PM
anybody read Jerry Springer's idea for OH for healthcare? Transgendered dominatrix hillbilly doctors for everyone!