I am going to back carlitoswhey up on the fact that we can discuss funding for this program or any other health care program at a federal level without having to discuss every other bit of federal funding too. I would prefer that we did. I think a subject like funding for health care is important and sustantial enough to stand alone and be discussed and debated on independently. Some issues transcend their monetary costs, the health of a child I believe would be such a thing.



I think the reason this program has been so readily and easily expanded by states implementation of it is because of the Bush admin's own initiative HIFA. Bush's veto does not eliminate this, and his reasonings for his veto seem to totally ignore his own policy's role in it all.

And I find the latter questionable, surely the Bush admin is aware that there has been criticisms and even legal concerns over their misuse of SCHIP funds. I agree with your point here, why are the funds that the Congress made available to children's health care programs being allowed by not only supervision of the HHS, but encouragement, to be spent on adults and even childless adults? The GAO asked this of the executive and the executive did reason an answer ...


source

I read that and it makes me stinking mad, to know that we as tax payers are not only duped out of our money but duped under the pretense of helping poor, sick children. Bush should be ashamed of his veto for many reasons and this just adds to the whole distaste of it. And that is my side of this issue, from your perspective I would assume you felt Bush was sticking to his long held principles of what the SCHIP's funding was intended for and the above disproves this.



I support Federal funds to the states for health care, and I believe that SCHIP covers about 68% - that is the highest level of return, as I noted in my previous post the funding is distributed and made available at all different levels in accordance to the context of need. SCHIP in fact gives the highest Federal return on health care funding and so that is why we see it being used in place of Medicare and ultimately not only for poor, sick kids. So the poor politicking is obviously not being carried out by just the Democrats, I think the Bush admin has a lot to answer in regards to misappropriations of SCHIP funds and a lousy presidential veto is not enough for me. I have to wonder why it is for many of the conservatives here tho?

And yes we do have a very basic disagreement on the purpose of government and that is fine, that is why I have appealed to you in the direction I have gone above. Do you really feel Bush should be absolved of his role in all of the SCHIP funding games with just a symbolic veto?

But bucket, certainly the answer to inappropriate waivers of the guidelines are not redefining the guidelines so that states don't even need to apply for a waiver to cover adults, is it?

Sorry but I don't buy the argument that because Bush's underlings made one decision in the past that they need make the same mistakes going into the future. SCHIP is not meant to cover adults, it is certainly not made to cover adults with no children at all, and it definitely is not intended to cover middle class people.

Enrollment in SCHIP has increased from 660,000 people in 1998 to over 6.6 million now. The CBO estimates that 2 million people who currently have insurance will be covered under the new guidelines. That would be 2 million children moving from private health insurance to government run health insurance.

Sorry, but the Congress can come up with better guidelines so that we don't have millions of children moving from private insurance to government health care.

By the way, I agree that arguing this funding versus that funding (especially domestic versus foreign spending) is a non sequitur.

You’ve done well at memorizing Republican talking points. Bush would continue the war with funds already available and Republicans would accuse Democrats of not supporting the troops.


You know carlitoswhey, I've heard similar arguments for decades - in times of war and in times of peace.

Based on that, I must conclude that people, who are taking Bush's side, would do so even with no war going on. Wars are variable, socially regressive elements are constant.

Personally, I'll take what I can get when it comes to any slowdown of domestic entitlements. We just can't keep growing them ad infinitum and hope to stay solvent. SCHIP gives the "highest return" on health care funding? Well, OK, but I don't want the feds investing in health care, but like you said we disagree.

Specifically though, I don't understand what you mean by 68%. 68% of kids? 68¢ return per dollar invested? If the number of participants has increased by tenfold due to people switching to this better program, has there been a commensurate reduction in the number of people on Medicare? If that's the case, I may change my view, since SCHIP at least removes some control back to the states, despite federal 'strings' being attached.


Bush's absolution will come from an authority higher than me. I don't forgive him for the expansion of government, no, but that's "compassionate conservatism" for you.

The Democrats have absolutely no class, now they continue to use the children as human sheilds to obtain their political ambitions.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/110...e_on_SCHIP.html

I guess it was apparent that the Out of Iraq Hispanic caucus demanded illegal Mexicans be guaranteed SCHIP authorization in order for them to vote on today's Iraq War bridge funding as they hold their noses. SCHIP is dead and now only a political tool for Democrats.

CW- you main argument is "it helps too many Americans" correct?

Okay- what does our money go to in Iraq? WAY WAY WAY more than 35 billion to do what? Get basic health care for the population is one of the major components, as is education and infrastructure building.



What is dumb is to NOT link them together- whether one thing is a "non-sequitor" is silly as well. You can't seperate giving poeple in foriegn countries MORE benefits than you want to give you your own citizens.

Domestic spending on social programs, infrastructure repair and education should be at least 1.6 Trillion, as spending on our country for security, social programs and infrastructure is a priority to spending it on other countries.

If we cease all spending on Iraq, then we can focus on NOT helping American citizens a bit more.

I mean, you and Amlord's only complaint is "it helps too many poeple".

Hello, if I may provide an opinion on this topic. First let me introduce myself. I am a southern democrat, a conservative democrat, if there is such an animal. Some may label our kind as "bluedogs", but I prefer not to observe "labels", as one can tell more by someones actions rather than their words. I am sure everyone will find that I am more an independent than a politician. I place the "position" and "safety" of our nation above any certain party agenda. I lean toward the constitution and conservatism with an understanding that certain social programs have their place, if managed correctly and are not provided just for the "political power" that the distribution thereof my hold. Just a politically correct way of saying vote for me, let me buy your vote with "free" government funding. An oxymoron if ever there was one, for free at the expense of the taxpayer is anything but free. Just another term for the government to place their hands on my back pocket. For any government program to meet "my" standards, it must first be vetted for need and practicality.

First, I understand that national defense is not an "option" or a "political position", but rather a constitutional "mandate". And said mandate must always be the first political "bird" to dip its beak in the federal coffers, any thing that is left over after "infrastructure" and interstate trade concerns have been meet then can be offered up to the alter of "socialism". For, without a secure country, what need is there for socialism?

I have read several of the posts and find it amusing that some mention the ONE AND HALF TRILLION DOLLARS spent on national security concerns over the past half decade without ever mentioning the ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS spent on the war on poverty over the past several decades with but a FRACTION of a percent gained on the POVERTY LEVEL in this nation. In fact the only thing that we have to show for this war, is an increase of over 300% in the crime level of this nation. So to say that we have at least been "static" or holding our own in this undeclared war, would a misrepresentation of the facts. So my opinion, for what its worth is this, if we intended on "declaring defeat" on any war due to "monetary concerns", I would suggest the "war on poverty" should be the first place in which a "strategic withdrawal" should be considered and re-evaluated, for a more "successful" positioning thereof, and not for the purpose of just "buying" votes. www.associdedcotent.com/article/323986/eleven_trillion_lost_in_war.html or even a more conservative estimate by the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation has the "lost" funding at around of 5 trillion dollars just wasted. www. hertiage.org/Reserarch/Religion/EM364.cmf. RED DEVIL

Disgusting Democrats play politics with the CHILDREN once again. http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/ I hope the President uses his bully pulpit to eat them for lunch.

White house press release follows: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20071102-2.html