PDA

View Full Version : Bush's Lies About S-Chip



Gayle in MD
10-05-2007, 08:39 AM
Bush's Veto Lies
___

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, October 5, 2007; Page A21

To say that George W. Bush spends money like a drunken sailor is to insult every gin-soaked patron of every dockside dive in every dubious port of call. If Bush gets his way, the cost of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon reach a mind-blowing $600 billion. Despite turning a budget surplus into a huge deficit, the man still hasn't met a tax cut he doesn't like. And when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, Bush might as well have signed their pork-stuffed spending bills with a one-word rubber stamp: "Whatever."

So for Bush to get religion on fiscal responsibility at this late date is, well, a joke. And for him to make his stand on a measure that would have provided health insurance to needy children is a punch line that hasn't left many Republicans laughing.

Bush's veto Wednesday of a bipartisan bill reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program was infuriatingly bad policy. An estimated 9 million children in this country are not covered by health insurance -- a circumstance that should shock the consciences of every American. Democrats and Republicans worked together to craft an expansion of an existing state-run program that would have provided coverage for about 4 million children who currently don't have it.

It was one of those art-of-the-possible compromises designed to advance the ball toward what has become a national goal. Health care is arguably the biggest domestic issue in the presidential contest and, while the candidates and the country may be all over the map in terms of comprehensive solutions, there's a pretty broad consensus that some way has to be found to ensure that children, at least, are covered.

Make that an extremely broad consensus: According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week, 72 percent of Americans supported the bill Bush vetoed.

The program Congress voted to expand provides health insurance for children who fall into a perilous gap: Their families make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but don't make enough to afford health insurance. The cost of covering an additional 4 million children was estimated at around $35 billion over five years. That's a lot of money. But in the context of a $13 trillion economy -- and set against Bush's history of devil-may-care, "buy the house another round" spending -- it's chump change.


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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR2007100401921.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

<font color="red"> I don't suppose any righties eallized that this effort was bi-partisan, and supported by 72% of our country, hmmm, what is 72 from 100? A NUTTY 28% /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif </font color>

Chopstick
10-05-2007, 08:48 AM
What's an S-chip?

Gayle in MD
10-05-2007, 09:36 AM
State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Chopstick
10-05-2007, 02:09 PM
Oh. Makes sense. One of my first big jobs was to build a database to track childrens social services for the State of Illinois.

eg8r
10-07-2007, 03:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
An estimated 9 million children in this country are not covered by health insurance -- a circumstance that should shock the consciences of every American. <hr /></blockquote> Any guesses where the bulk of this 9 million resides? My guess is with those families that are already on welfare and continuing to do the things that got them there.

Since the left does not care about the Constitution and believes the government should house, feed, and heal the poor, they should also have no problem forcing birth control on these same women and men so that the problem will end with them.

eg8r

Bobbyrx
10-11-2007, 05:25 PM
Do you know how the Dems propose to fund this thing? How about a 61 cent per pack tax on cigarettes. By far the highest percentage of smokers are in what group of people? No, besides pool players. Yep, the poor. So your'e taxing the poor to pay for health care for the middle class. No wonder a few Rupublicans went along with it..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

LAMas
10-11-2007, 08:55 PM
SCHIP should be for children--not adults
U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) | Hinsdale
October 11, 2007
In "Override the SCHIP veto" (Editorial, Oct. 5), the Tribune urges members of Congress to "take a second look at the facts" before voting to sustain the president's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance program (SCHIP). While I agree that the president's proposal for a $5 billion extension is not enough money to cover all low-income children, that's where our agreement ends. The only way to fix this bill is to sustain the veto and get back to the table to work out a bipartisan solution that does more than provide fodder for the political parties' next round of negative campaign ads.

A "second look at the facts" reveals more than a few problems with the bill. This is a program designed to provide health care for low-income children. But in Illinois, 45 percent of the SCHIP recipients are adults -- not children. According to the state's own projections, Illinois will spend more SCHIP money on adults than on children during the next fiscal year. Meanwhile, it's estimated that nationwide, more than a half-million eligible low-income children are not being covered.

The problems go deeper. Some states have used the program to enroll illegal aliens, higher-income families, and those already covered by private insurance. As with adult enrollment, this bill would permit all three.

bamadog
10-11-2007, 11:37 PM
OH! Now you've done it LAMas, you've gone and used FACTS in your argument. The next thing you know the foaming-at-the-mouth Bush-haters will be screaming about your personal attacks.

How about this novel idea:
Don't expect me to pay for the health care of your children!
If you can't support them, don't have them!

LWW
10-12-2007, 04:12 AM
Anyone who defines "poor" as an average family of 4 making $60K is, IMHO, an idjit.

I find it hilarious that the best poster child they could find for this was a parent who couldn't supposedly come up with $100 to take a kid to the dentist.

The LWW doctrine would be that the kid gets fixed and the dad works off the Franklin on weekends on the county road crew.

LWW

SKennedy
10-12-2007, 09:13 AM
M wife is a licensed social worker in the medical field. She was just telling me last night about an older couple, who get a decent amount of disability ($50,000/year) and are sitting with no septic system, no heat or A/C, no washer or dryer, no hot water heater, etc. Why, they elected to put a double-wide trailer out in the middle of a pasture and then sit back and wait and demand that the government provide them with all these things. They currently have a "port o potty" outside the front door of the house and they take a bath in cold water outside in a kiddie wading pool. This is by their choice. The man is a college professor! They have the money and ability to live in an apartment with proper amenities, but choose otherwise....all at taxpayers expense. My wife, who sees this stuff everyday, tells me that the number of people living off the government, who demand the government take care of them, despite being capable of taking care of themselves, is frightening large and growing. Of course, these are democratic votes and the more we "enslave" these folks on government dependency, the more votes for democrats who appeal to these types. They are growing their own government-dependent voting base. It is just a matter of time before it all comes crashing down.....
Dental, as you mentioned, is something that is not taken care of via medicare or medicaid. In some circumstances it certainly should be. This is what infuriates my wife....when there are legitimate needs and services which should be provided and we cannot because of a lack of money, but we throw money away like crazy on people who are lazy and underserving. As to medical care for children, adults, etc.....in this part of the country no one gets turned away from medical care, whether you have insurance or not. There are those who would have us believe that only the rich or those with medical insurance can get medical care. This is a big falsehood. My wife sets up free care for those in need everyday.....and when she finds a needed service that the government won't pay for...like certain very expensive medications...guess who will many times step up and provide the medications free of charge? That's right....the drug companies...of course you'll never hear about that in the main stream media.
No doubt Gayle will disagree with my comments. In this debate I'll put my money on my wife over Gayle any day, except my wife would never bother. She doesn't waste her time like I do.