Children's Health CareA less than compassionate veto from Bush

For six years now, Republicans and Democrats alike have waited for President Bush to tap into his inner fiscal conservative.

The wait is over. And the timing could hardly be worse.

The president took out his veto pen this past week, striking down - at least for the time being - the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP. It was a curious, unfortunate and misguided rejection of a vital piece of legislation that would provide an additional 3.8 million youngsters - mostly poor children - with health coverage.

Hatch also dismissed the president's claim that the bill would have allowed families earning up to $83,000 a year to qualify for subsidized insurance. He noted that that could only happen if states applied for a waiver from the federal government allowing them to raise benefits that high - and if the administration granted it.

Only one state, New York, has applied for such a waiver, and Bush - justifiably in our view - denied the request. In general, depending on state guidelines, the program will be limited to families earning up to two or three times the federal poverty line.

No votes yet

October 2, 2007, 11:06 am
States to Sue Feds Over Kids

The real issue is that health care costs are out of control. Aguing over a limit of $51K or $83K will make for good patisan politics but it will oscure the fact that multinational corps. in the health care INDUSTRY will continue to reap oscene profits.

These multinational corporations are major sponsors of many congressional campaigns, both Reps. and Dems. It behooves them to see this issue become bitterly partisan. We need to call out our congressmen and tell them not to play this shell game and address the real issue.

Senator Hatch, Sen. John Cornyn,

I have no definition of what a conservative is, the people say they.

Is it about winning the political battle or actually ensuring that kids have health insurance?

Stance on health care today?

But Ronald Reagan thought the issue of hunger in the world

How disappointing that no one, particularly the two serious bloggers, Maggie Thurber and Meighborhood Concerns ignored my comment. Either they didn't feel it merited a response or they didn't know how to respond.

In any event I won't give up this easily. Perhaps what I am experiencing is what the philosopher Nietzsche, the destroyer of false values, describes as the "will to ignorance."

I did not ignore it.

I agree with you that something needs to be done about the spiraling health care costs.

But when medicines and the practice of medicine are businesses that are intended to make money, what are we to do?

People do not want the government involved and people do not want to pay more each and every year and as costs go up, how do we achieve what we want, which is the 64K$ question.

Maggie Thurber and Neighborhood Concerns


I am printing them right now.

I agree with you that something needs to be done with regards to the health care in the U.S.

I tried to purchase individual health insurance. All pre-existing is denied, no coverage for type two diabetes, chronic pain and depression.

Monthly cost over 800$ and no scripts for the pre-existing are covered. That adds about 200$ a month more.

"We also need to realize that advocating against government involvement is a misdirection."

It is true to an extant. But what is the misdirection too? To keep business happy with more customers or is it that some cannot stomach more governmental growth while offering no solutions, real solutions.

Many purported free market advocates rant against government involvement in business and many people accept their veracity. While the public's attention is focused on the heated discourse, pro and con, these same free market advocates are quietly using government to help them eliminate competition and limit people's choices in the pursuit to maximize profits. If we truly had a free market system operating within the health care industry health care would have been transformed ten years ago.

The reality is this: We are at a tipping point. In spite of corporations spending billions on media hype, funding research and buying political influence to maintain control the public's growing frustration with traditional medicine combined with an ever increasing awareness of the viability of alternatives has brought us to a point where we can take control of our own health care.


the lib/dems determine to have all illegals covered for FREE medical coverage at the expense of US taxpaying citizens.
Illegals, of course, goes without saying. Cover all of them (while American citizens go without).

I'm astonished but shouldn't be that MSM fails to explain this fact in every article:

the proposed S-CHIP cap is $30,000 for a single parent, $60,000 for a "working family" with husband and wife both working.

"Children" in the proposed bill would be offspring up to 25 years of age!!!!!

This is one more brick in the Rat/Socialist program to get 52 prcent of voters on some kind of federal dole and paying zero federal taxes, while leaving 48 percent of us to pay the tab, receive zero services, and voting conservative.

$60K is right about at that breakpoint.



"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".


'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

September 21, 2007
The president mischaracterizes congressional efforts to expand the SCHIP program.
President Bush gave a false description of proposed legislation to expand the 10-year-old federal program to provide health insurance for children in low-income working families.

He said it "would result" in covering children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year, which isn't true. The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what's in the current law. (The compromise bill that was released a few days after Bush's press conference does rescind an administration effort to block New York state from increasing its eligibility cap to that level.)

He also said the program was "meant to help poor children," when in fact Congress stated that it was meant to expand insurance coverage beyond the poor and to cover millions of "low-income" children who were well above the poverty line. Under current law most states cover children at twice or even three times the official poverty level.

The president also says Congress' expansion is a step toward government-run health care for all. It's true that some children and families with private insurance are expected to shift to the government program. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that such a shift is relatively low considering the number of uninsured these bills would reach.

...some conservatives would say that anyone voting to expand the federal government and put more people into government programs aren't, by this very act, 'conservative'...hence, the joke...

It is a step in the compromise that the President is making when he caught the heat and saw that his fellow party members for what ever reason there may be were going to support the bill.

"..ensuring that kids have health insurance?"

And it is about ensuring that some kids who meet the guidelines qualify.

...failing to make a comment doesn't mean that your post was ignored...

Chico - you should not read failure to comment as anything other than that...sometimes, it's just what it is and doesn't imply anything about the poster, the quality of the post, or the ability of the reader to respond.

btw - please don't take this the wrong way, but your post reads: "how disappointing that no one...ignored my comment." I think you meant 'responded to my comment." :)

In all honesty, I just didn't want to get into a discussion about your definition of "obscene" profits. That's a matter of perspective and is rather subjective. Unlike many others, I think that the 'social responsibility' that is often referenced belongs to the INDIVIDUAL and not to a corporation. A corporation's purpose is to make money for its shareholders/owners/etc... and your description of 'obscene profit' might not be the same as someone else's.

So what's the point of debating or discussing subjective criteria? In the end, it's your perspective and you're certainly entitled to such...

What is the plan.

Change is good and inevitable.


September 17, 2007
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL):

"If he vetoes the bill, it's a political victory for us."

September 20, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

"The President Is Wrong When He Says Democrats Want A Political Victory."



"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".


'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Some of the most conservative Senators are for the bill.

You do not think that the current people are not conservative enough?

How can they be more conservative?

Expand the government as did Reagen with the support of fellow conservatives?


Shamelessly taken from another blog:

The "Not So Poor" 12 Year Old Who Rebutted Bush on SCHIP Veto
Multiple, Baltimore Sun ^ | 10-07-07 | self

Graeme Frost, who gave the democrat rebuttal to George Bush


'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

...that would depend upon your definition of 'conservative.' ROFL! that someone who claims to be conservative, in the traditional meaning of the political description, would not be voting to expand a government program or spend more tax monies taken from one group to provide something for another put it in very simplistic terms.

Therefore, someone who would vote this way, would not qualify as 'conservative' despite their other positions...

For goodness sake, NC....what part of this is so hard to understand? Just because someone calls themself a conservative doesn't make them one ... and someone who is conservative in their core philosophy couldn't, in good conscience, support programs that go against their conservative principles.

Just because someone says they're a conservative doesn't mean that every action they take is reflective of that conservative philosophy. That's part of the problem...

A conservative?

There are people nearly worshiping him for his ideals.

What is a conservative, then.

darkseid - people like you described really burn me.

(note - I'm well aware that a huge proportion of the uninsured truly can't afford medical coverage. My rant is strictly addressed at those who can afford it, but choose to spend their money on other things)

My husband lost his job in June, our health care coverage ended in July. Sure, living only off my income and the meager amounts he gets from unemployment has made us tighten our belts...a lot. But somehow I have managed to find a way to pay for health insurance coverage for us.

Rather than pay for a full policy with all the bells and whistles, I chose a very affordable hospitalization only policy that will act as a safety net in the event that something catastrophic happens. (Which, I should note, is what health insurance was originally designed to do...not to cover everything under the sun.) The couple of stray office visits we've had I've paid for with cash - doctor's offices are pretty good about negotiating a reduced cash price for a single office visit (after all, their billing office won't be spending time billing and collecting for your visit if you pay up front).

The family you cited above could have easily purchased such a policy, but instead *they chose* to prioritize their money on expensive private schools, home remodeling projects, etc. I think the last line of what you posted sums it up pretty well:

"One has to wonder that if time and money can be found to remodel a home, send kids to exclusive private schools, purchase commercial property and run your own business... maybe money can be found for other things...maybe Dad should drop his woodworking hobby and get a real job that offers health insurance rather than making people like me (also with 4 kids in a 600sf smaller house and tuition $16,000 less per kid and no commercial property ownership) pay for it in my taxes."

If only there were a way to effectively separate the people who truly cannot afford to pay for coverage vs. the people who could afford it but would rather spend their money on other stuff. Grr.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.