This is beyond ridiculous
Every single American should be outraged. President Bush has just vetoed one of the most necessary pieces of legislation this year from his nice, comfortable chair in the White House (see post below). Meanwhile, around the country, nine million children lack the health care coverage that keeps them healthy now and does a great deal to ensure their health in the future.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, SCHIP is a state-federal partnership that basically acts as Medicaid for our youngest citizens (and therefore provides them with preventative and other types of much-needed health insurance). It has drastically reduced the number of uninsured children since its inception, and is a very necessary piece of the puzzle to ensure that the children of our country can receive the health care they need when they need it.
“Why would Dubya do something this heinous,” you ask, “especially when so many Republicans and state governors have asked him not to?”
Great question. Bush’s camp says that this bill costs too much.
Meanwhile, experts estimate that the Iraq war is costing us somewhere between $300 and $720 million every single day.
Bush’s people have also woven something into their messaging that I don’t understand: “Administration officials have argued that the bill would have moved children from families earning up to $83,000 per year into government insurance. . .”
First of all, it is my understanding that the $83,000 figure only applied to New York state, as the cost of living is so much higher there. It is also my understanding that this exception to the bill was not passed/included in the bipartisan bill, anyway, so the point is moot.
I agree that SCHIP is not a permanent fix to a huge and complex problem, but the fact remains that American children without health insurance need it NOW, to meet their health care needs right now, today. So while y’all fight over a permanent fix, please make sure our children are covered in the interim. It’s something that almost everyone in our country agrees on. . .except you, Dubya.
posted by A. Lo @ 11:10 AM
3 Comments:
I know how much you "dislike" the current president, but I really wish you would take a step back and look at what actually happened. When it came time to renew SCHIP, the democrats decided to increase the maximum income level from 200% above the poverty level to 300% above the poverty level. This increase allows those who could normally pay for health insurance to now receive it on the government's dime.
If the democrats had decided to continue the program at the 200% level, there would be no problems. This is nothing more than political maneuvering by the democratic party. I have yet to see anything that suggest the need for the increase from 200% to 300%.
No offense, but I'm pretty sure it's harder to see a need for an increase when you have health insurance.
First of all, let's look at the Republicans vs. Democrats side of this argument. From the looks of things, Republicans wanted this increase as well, and many of them asked Bush NOT to veto it. So it seems to me that your point is moot, but let’s explore it anyway.
About the federal poverty level (FPL)--according to the Washington Post, a "recent Urban Institute analysis found that 70 percent of the children who would gain or retain coverage under the Senate bill, which resembles the compromise, are in households with incomes below twice the poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four." That's 200 percent of FPL. So even if there was an increase to 300% of FPL, it wouldn’t make a huge difference, it seems.
But let's look at the difference between 200 and 300 percent of the federal poverty level anyway. For your reference here are the 2007 guidelines from HHS.
And here's a chart that shows the percentage uninsured among non-elderly population by family poverty status. Of course the percentage uninsured decreases as income increases. However, you’ll notice that 20% of the non-elderly population between 200 and 300% is without insurance. That’s only 8 percentage points different than the 150 to 199% of FPL.
For a family of four, 200% of FPL is $41,300. Imagine trying to insure all four of those members and clothe them, feed them, send them on field trips, buy school supplies, etc. on that salary, especially in an area where the cost of living is unthinkable like parts of California or New York. I still can’t imagine doing that at 300% of FPL, which is $61,950 for a family of four. (That may sound like a lot to you, but probably because you are single in an area where cost of living is pretty low.)
So, even if the debate was between 200 and 300% of FPL, it doesn’t seem like a really huge difference, at least to me.
Oh, and also, this really isn’t the government’s dime—it’s being paid for with an increase tax on tobacco, which is fine by me.
"I really wish you would take a step back and look at what actually happened."
I really wish you would get your information from somewhere other than FOX news.
The Senate passed the changes to SCHIP 67-29, in a consensus bill that was sponsored by two Republicans, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Charles Grassley of Iowa. The House passed the SCHIP bill 265-159, with 45 Republicans voting for it even though they could have toed some non-existent party line and allowed it to pass without their votes.
But even if it had been a straight party-line vote rather than a bi-partisan landslide ... SCHIP at 300% of poverty level is still a good program. SCHIP is intended to make sure that *all* kids can go to the doctor when they need to.
"I have yet to see anything that suggest the need for the increase from 200% to 300%."
Maybe you haven't noticed the skyrocketing costs of health care. My boss continually complains about the obscene amounts of money our company spends on health care ... and if your employer doesn't provide health care, good luck. According to the NCHC, in 2005 the health care premium for a family of 4 was averaging about $11,500, and I'm pretty sure the cost has doubled since then. Even middle-class families of four making $60k need help paying for insurance, and the SCHIP bill (funded by a cigarette tax) ensures that children, at least, get that help.
So why would a "compassionate conservative" like George W. Bush veto? From the analysis I've heard, Bush vetoed the bill to make the Democratic congress look like a do-nothing congress, and to retain some shred of credibility with "fiscal responsibility" voters, who are pretty pissed about how Bush and the Republican congress managed to obliterate Clinton's budget surplus.
In other words, you have it exactly backwards. SCHIP is an overwhelmingly bipartisan program that provides needed health care coverage for American children. The bill was misrepresented and vetoed by president Bush to try and create an image of market conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, kids go without health care. If anyone is guilty of playing politics, it's not congress, it's the president.
Post a Comment
<< Home