Here's the story:

Link



To be debated:

1. Was the President right or wrong to veto this expansion? Why?

2. Right or wrong, what will be the political implications of this veto?

Right. SCHIP was devised by Republicans (that's right) for POOR children. Democrats in their (mistaken) zeal for national healthcare have been expanding this program far past it's intended scope. 82,000USD isn't poor or even close to poor. Trust me when I tell you 82K/yr is plenty to get you and yours taken care of.
Well there's a few. Bushco is WAY past the point of being able to look remotely like fiscal Conservatives so this veto while welcome will do nothing to help the US Public forget that Bushco spent money like drunken sailor on shore leave. Also this will put the Republicans in the crosshairs of Democrats who will demonize them as trying to kill children much like the school lunch kerfluffle years back. It wasn't particularly effective then, it will be less so now. That won't stop the Democrats from doing it and it won't stop the Republicans from foolishly trying to deflect it.

Finally it will make Healthcare THE issue for 2008. No one, I mean no one, wants to talk about Iraq. The Republicans certainly don't and the Democrats really can't as they've gotten themselves in a pickle with potential voters as they don't have a unified platform on the topic. The Republicans are clearly going to stay the course. So are the Democrats but they really can't say that. As such this veto will play a central role in 2008, at least initially.

1. Was the President right or wrong to veto this expansion? Why?

He was right in doing so, although I am surprised he did it.

Missouri Rep. Sam Graves has a decent explanation why he voted against this expansion of SCHIP and why the President was right in vetoing it.

http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/302077.html

There isn't a debate really about re-authorizing the program. It is this expansion that is the issue, especially the illegal immigrant angle. The revision simply requires a name and a Social Security card instead of the multiple forms of ID currently required.

2. Right or wrong, what will be the political implications of this veto?

It will be used to (once again) distort the Republicans view on health care. BA is correct in the fact that Iraq will not be the center of focus for the 2008 election issues since even the leading Democrats will not commit to withdrawing troops by 2012. This may become the focus or one focus.

HE was probably right- had he EVER been so fiscally conservative before this- and he will tar all Republicans with the same brush here- it is very easy to say "Oh, they spend money on all kinds of useless things, like a trillion dollars on babies in Iraq- but don't want to spend a dime on American kids"- and they would be right.

If you are going to be fiscally conservative- you have to be consistant with how you spread the pain- and this is the first time he has vetoed anything that spends money on Americans- he has given hundreds of billions to Iraq, massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and spent money on useless and stupid programs, lied about the cost of the medicare drug program- and now he vetoes care for children.

Way to go Bushco!

I think it will be very easy to portray Republicans in a very bad light over this one- since they were NEVER so fiscally responsible before this bill.

I think some people have touched on this, but SCHIP's expansion really would've allowed a large portion of Americans to be able to get their kids covered, even if they were at 3x the poverty level (I think).

WHAT? When does it stop?

I think that the SCHIP should stick where it is. Calling Bush names, CR, doesn't negate that he's right on this one. Nanny nanny boo-boo.

1. Was the President right or wrong to veto this expansion? Why?
as right as you can be. A program designed for the “poor” was to be expanded to folks with incomes up to $83,000 where by the way most are covered by private insurance now. The result would have been to move them to “public” paid for healthcare! A really stupid idea aimed at socializing medicine.
2. Right or wrong, what will be the political implications of this veto?

Naturally since the Dems gloss over the details and just point to Bush as being “mean” to kids. This ploy will work with some and the Republicans need to come back with something to get more really “poor” kids into the existing program.

1. Was the President right or wrong to veto this expansion? Why?

I think President Bush was right in vetoing the bill. This veto isn't about the health care of the kids; he requested $5 billion to continue the program. The veto is about the additional $30 billion.

2. Right or wrong, what will be the political implications of this veto?

Last year the democrats attacked the republicans portraying them as not caring about finding cures to many diseases. If you watched the commercials, you would think that the republicans were rooting for Michael J. Fox to die. This can not be further from the truth. Bush was the first president to fund stem-cell research, it is the expansion that has been vetoed. Same as this issue, the democrats will now attack republicans again without sharing the facts. I just hope that the republicans will step up and fight back and tell the public the facts instead of ignoring the attacks.

As long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families. As long as Marriage exists, Knowledge, Property and Influence will accumulate in Families.

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814

You missed the first part of my answer- he was probably right in vetoing this one- HAD he shown fiscal responsibility in the past. Now is just smacks of mean spirited scrooges that care more about handouts to Haliburton than any real fiscal discipline.

You can't really be considered to be using fiscal disciplined and then spend money like a drunken sailor -

Had he vetoed some of the crazy spending during the Republican majority times- he would have some credibility here- so far- the only spending he seems concerned about is health care for children- in that he thinks it is a bad idea to spend money on middle and lower economic rung children.

Ya gotta be consistant if you are going to be doing these things- otherwise, it seems pretty hollow, and at the least, too little, too late.

Bushco never saw a spending bill he didn't like- until this one.

Precisely my point. It's really just a time for you to bash GW. I'm not a G Bush fan, but seriously... this law was absurd. What you're saying is that because the war is expensive, that the nation should set precedent and give health care to the kids of a vast majority of perfectly able to pay Americans? The very fact that liberals in this nation support it is proof positive that the best way to convert a liberal is to make them move out of their parent's garage. I'm literally fed up with my exacerbated taxation going to crud like this. I'd rather a missle over a person who makes $60K+ and lets the government give away free healthcare.

Doesn't anyone in this nation have pride anymore? Is anyone ever ashamed of free hand-outs?

Did you see the income levels people could have and still get free insurance for their kids? Are we living in a bubble? Seriously- if that's what liberals in America want, move to Australia. Their health care is free... and umm... great if you're in no hurry. This is America. We shouldn't be giving freebies to people at those income levels. When I was in college (of course years ago) and had to work to keep the lights on... umm... I still carried my own health care.

The alternative is to give free health care to everyone. That's always a good one. That would work PERFECTLY. Good Luck with that.

So, aevans, how is your argument regarding this law different from your argument when you advocate lower taxes? I say, tax people in high income brackets - they can afford it. You say, don't give free healthcare to kids whose parents can afford it. You say "but by letting the rich have more of their money we're investing in our economy because of trickle-down effect - they have more money to invest, etc. etc. etc". I say exactly the same thing - if the people in $80K bracket don't have to pay for their children health insurance, they have more money to put into our consumer-driven economy. Same effect, isn't it?

And, by the way, ask Australians how many of them would like to move to American model . Or Canadians, or Germans, or French.


The President was wrong to veto this expansion, but it doesn't make me one bit sad - hopefully Dems will play this one right and milk it for everything it is worth come election year. That's why the veto was done with as little fanfare as possible, behind close doors - he knows that it's a popular law, especially in light of billions we are spending on "rebuilding Iraq".

Not really the people in the higher brackets already pay more and where the biggest bite come in is mostly above the 80K – but that said this is about “socializing” medicine. Do we want the “government” to pay for the healthcare of people who can afford to pay themselves? If so why stop at 80K – lets cover all kids.

And this then is what the Dems are heading for. Government paid (single payer) health care. IMO we need to decide if we really want to do this before doing it piecemeal.

But IMO this is also part of the Dem plan for the capture of the White House. Lets have constant issues that the Dems can use to portray Repubs (wrongly) as mean, cheap, bla bla bal……………………




Ya do that – but ask the sick ones who wait for months to see a doctor.


Government-run health care in Canada inevitably devolves into a dehumanizing system of triage, where the weak and the elderly are hastened to their fates by actuarial calculation. Having fought the Canadian health-care bureaucracy on behalf of my ailing mother just two years ago -- she was too old, and too sick, to merit the highest-quality care in the government's eyes -- I can honestly say that Moore's preferred health-care system is something I wouldn't wish on him.

In 1999, my uncle was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. If he'd lived in America, the miracle drug Rituxan might have saved him. But Rituxan wasn't approved for use in Canada, and he lost his battle with cancer.

But don't take my word for it: Even the Toronto Star agrees that Moore's endorsement of Canadian health care is overwrought and factually challenged. And the Star is considered a left-wing newspaper, even by Canadian standards.”

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/07/30/...ystem-moore.php

I find myself in the middle on this one. Three things bothered me about the expansion of SCHIP:

- Extension of the age ceiling to 25 (I think it was 21 previously, not sure). Unnecessary, if you're over 21, get a job that gets you insurance or find a way to buy it. You're not a C(hild) under this program, imo.

- Relaxing of identity requirements. I don't have as much an issue with illegals being here as I do creating greater opportunity for them to take part in the government dole. Keep the ID requirements the same and prosecute fraudulent use of the system.

- The income requirement I'm on the fence about. Is 83k enough to raise a family of four in NYC AND provide insurance? I don't live there so I can't say. I know the cost of living in NYC is higher. Folks should bear in mind, however, that 83k is an exceptional example since it only applies to NY. Spitzer wants to sue to get this requirement so I'd like to think he isn't trying to insure the entire middle class. To be clear, most states would not get the 400% exemption NY wants. I think 300% of the poverty level is the max and the legislation is clear about focusing this program on the sub 200% groups for priority in coverage.

Those things not withstanding, I think the program should be expanded. BA's proposal wouldn't have even included proper budgeting for current enrollment levels, much less providing for improved enrollments. I understand the (true) conservative objections to the legislation, but at the heart this program is well intended.

If the veto stands, I'd like to see them dump the 3 changes above and send Bush a new bill. He'd have a lot shorter leg to stand on if they did. Worst case, they need to temp extend the program so that millions of kids don't suddenly lose their access to health care.

Politically, this is kiddie football, which is a shame.

I think the title of this thread is rather disingenuous. Because it is set out to make it look like Bush wants to harm children. I'm no Bushbot, but misinformation is bad anyway you look at it.

As Doclotus said:

We aren't talking about 'children' here... This headline is also being used by the media and democrats to make Republicans look bad. Yay misinformation!!

I think that's a crucial point to the argument. I did a little research, I went to three different apartment guides online and did a search for apartments in New York. The lowest price I could find was 800 a month for a studio apartment in Harlem, built in 1914. There were other studio apartments in Harlem that went for 1400. Granted, a studio apartment isn't exactly an ideal place for a family with 4 kids, so starting at 2 bedroom places, I found that the cheapest places were around 1200 a month. You start looking in Manhattan, and those prices start at around 2000 a month.

I don't live in NY, so I can't say anything about the locations, but when I think of the cheapest places in Phoenix, those are the places I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. 800 a month can get you into a nice 1 bedroom apartment here in a gated community. 1200 a month, you can pretty much live anywhere you want and at that point, you might as well buy a house, the payments won't be too far off.

So, 83k isn't sounding like too much to me now.

I guess the other thing I'm stuck on is the age of 25 thing..... 21 makes sense, they stay at home while going to school, but unless they're going for their doctorate, 25 seems a little overboard.

One thing that surprised me is the fact that this bill had the support of 44 governors and even Orrin Hatch(Sen. of Utah) said the veto was a mistake.

So, it just doesn't sound as black and white to me after all I've read so far. I think they need to revise it a little and send it back through and see what happens.

Well, the dems don't have to make the President look bad- he is doing a fine job at that- if nothing else -

once again- if you are going to show fiscal restraint- that time passed long ago. Why this one, and why now is the main questions to be asked- since he doesn't seem to have problems spending money the last 7 years, on truly stupid things.

And Aevens- as for decency- how about stopping the lying about other countries health care systems vs ours? We can't compare to any country as far as long waits, high costs and bad service, unless we only compare ourselves to third world countries, and even some of them have better health care than we do.

Time to drop the lies. That is- if ethics are REALLY your thing.

Oh really? Third world you say, CR? Do you consider Canada to be third world? Let's check one little thing shall we? Wait times, or say for an MRI......

From here we get the following.....



TWO and a HALF YEARS for an MRI? Now, I don't know how things are in the great frozen north, but here in sunny LA I could still get an MRI this afternoon if I needed one. And, it's almost 4 o'clock on a Friday.


You know, before you run around calling people liars, you might want to do a little fact-checking yourself.


Edited to add....

They're even running specials on them..... This place for example advertises $380 and I bet you they serve a latte while you're waiting.


Aquilla

If you want to go on believing that somehow the Canadian system is worse than ours- go right on- reality has never been something the right has had a healthy dose of - I had to wait 3 months for knee surgery myself- and I have outstanding insurance- of course- those having to wait anytime in any country are better off than our 43 million poeple that have no health care AT ALL.

Our health care system is a disgrace- and this program was probably not a good fix to all that- just another piece of patchwork that would probably not help all that much.

Bottom line is- GW picked a funny time to decide to be fiscally conservative.

Sorry, Doc, I can't find either of these provisions mentioned in what I thought was the legislation in question. I'm going by the text of S. 1224, so maybe I'm looking at the wrong bit of legislation or a different version or something. Do you have a source for these provisions in the bill that was vetoed? When debating legislation, I prefer looking at the legislation itself, not articles about the legislation. Before I respond here, I'd like to know what I'm talking about. Thanks.


EDITED TO ADD:

Or, if Doclotus isn't around, maybe Sleeper or Ataal, who've also cited the 25-year-old expansion, could provide a link - thanks!

It's not a question of "belief" at all. When a child in risk of cancer has to wait two and a half YEARS for an MRI that I can get in a couple of hours, that's not a belief of a broken system, that's a fact. Since we're swapping anecdotal information about your knee operation, I'll share my experience of waking up on a Saturday morning with a strangulated hernia. I was in the OR late that afternoon and discharged from the hospital in time on Sunday to catch my Bronco football game on TV. Back to work on Wednesday, and all I had was plain old Blue Cross insurance. And yeah, a lot of people don't have health insurance, I went without it myself for awhile because it's pretty expensive if you're a small business person. But even then, if I had a medical emergency, I could have received medical care. And in a timely fashion.

The problem with this program is that it's a classical liberal entitlement program and we all know what happens with those over time. They grow and grow and GROW. Try cutting back on one of those in the Beltway and see what happens to you. Even reducing the amount of increase in a program gets you labeled as "hurting our children", or slashing the budget. Once started, these programs take on a life of their own and it's impossible to get rid of them. Hell, it's like growing Yucca here in California. Plant one and you can never really get rid of it. It propagates like a family of rabbits. We already have too damn many rabbits in the federal budget as it is. We don't need any more.


Aquilla

Sure-= whatever- okay- you made your point that you are all against social programs- and you buy hook line and sinker whatever Rush and the GOP send your way-
however- GW has not been so hateful of big goverment- he has embraced it whole-heartedly-
so- why this program, why now?

But cool- he gave anti-Bush types a hole you can drive a truck through, and be totally truthful.

Bush is all about spending big money on his Halburton and Blackwater pals- but when it comes to health care for children- whoa nellie- can't be wastin money on American children when we can be spending (and outright gouging tax payers) money to giant corporation to build more bombs to kill other countries children.

Man- this stuff practically writes itself.

All dems have to do is tie any Republican they can to the moron-in-chief- and they will get a veto-proof majority- but will probably hand Hillary the presidency as well.

1. Was the President right or wrong to veto this expansion? Why?

2. Right or wrong, what will be the political implications of this veto?

This all depends on where you are on the economic scales. It depends on how much debt you've taken on during periods of unemployment, how much college costs for Johnny and Janey, if hospital bills have crept up or come on in a deluge, if the levee broke, if a whole lot of things. I can see where an 83k income could be eaten up quickly with the current costs of living plus past debt during hard times. The idea of getting back on your feet doesn't quite work if you have to take lower-payed jobs and/or start from scratch into a new career path. Then there's the ARM crunch.

But let's not dwell on harsh realities. Sure, 83k is plenty to raise a family on, if you can count on that income. I once made around that, and a certain doofus ran the company into the ground and now serves time in Mississippi somewhere. I'm thinking of writing a poem, My Last Doofus, in honor of that crooked capitalist who sent me into a financial tailspin.

Then I could do one called My Previous Doofus, Ronald Reagan, who lifted the anti-trust lawsuits off of IBM and sent StorageTek into Chapter 11. Yep, got dinked on that one too. Geez I've got rotten corporate luck! However, I certainly don't feel alone these days. Conditions have gotten worse, and each time the Doofus strikes, more people end up in the tight spot between the rock and a hard place.

So if the national mood does swing toward national health care insurance, we only have the Doofuses among us to thank.

Anyway, some think Bush did good. I rather suspect that most don't. I personally think he handed the Demos a peach and the Repubs a lemon. Let's see how good the GOP is at making lemonade.

They start off fine and then go in the tank. They are inefficient and too expensive because they lack competition

Only a Doofus, as you say, would want this disaster here.

And deliberatly moving people who are insured to public funding makes no sense to me at all.

Section 306 seems to be changing a requirement of SCHIP to optional, as it relates to citizenship requirements. Basically, a fake SSN card is all that is needed to receive coverage.

Section 403 also gives states the option of covering legal immigrants under the program. That may be where some of the references are coming from.

As for age of eligibility, I'm unable to find that provision the in the senate version. Unless it was added in the conference report, which I cannot find, it looks like its staying at 21.

CR, we get it... you think the Republicans messed up. Can you provide a link or a quote for any of the other *stuff* you're posing because otherwise you're rapidly losing credibility on this topic.

Like what? Like that anyone thinks that somehow the canadian system is worse than the American system? You would have to ignore reams of evidence to the contrary- that has been posted many times on this board, and ignored by right wingers that don't like the truth too much- the American health system costs every individual in the country more, for worse service. What is to dispute about that? There are poeple on this board that somehow believe that the American health care system is better than pretty much anything in any other western country are so ignorant it just isn't worth the time to post the truth for them over and over and over again- at least 5 or 10 threads worth, that show we are in the toilet when it comes to health care.

Just type in "American health care worst" into about any search engine- pic a study- any credible study.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

Start with this little factoid:

Health Care Expenditures (percent of GDP) (1)

United States 13.4%
Canada 10.0
Finland 9.1
Sweden 8.6
Germany 8.4
Netherlands 8.4
Norway 7.6
Japan 6.8
United Kingdom 6.6
Denmark 6.5


Yet, for being cheaper than the US system- there is still this:

Percent of population covered by public health care:

ALL NATIONS (except below) 100%
France, Austria 99
Switzerland, Spain, Belgium 98
Germany 92
Netherlands 77
United States 40

Life Expectancy (years):

Men Women
Japan 76.2 82.5
France 72.9 81.3
Switzerland 74.1 81.3
Netherlands 73.7 80.5
Sweden 74.2 80.4
Canada 73.4 80.3
Norway 73.1 79.7
Germany 72.6 79.2
Finland 70.7 78.8
United States 71.6 78.6
United Kingdom 72.7 78.2
Denmark 72.2 77.9


Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):

United States 10.4
United Kingdom 9.4
Germany 8.5
Denmark 8.1
Canada 7.9
Norway 7.9
Netherlands 7.8
Switzerland 6.8
Finland 5.9
Sweden 5.9
Japan 5.0

Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):

United States 101.5
Japan 92.2
Norway 90.2
Denmark 85.1
France 84.9
United Kingdom 82.2
Canada 82.1
Netherlands 80.3
Germany 77.6
Switzerland 72.5
Sweden 64.7
Finland 53.3

Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):

United States 203
Switzerland 175
Canada 161
France 156
Finland 154
Norway 128
Germany 122
Denmark 120
United Kingdom 114
Sweden 109
Japan 96
Netherlands 90

Note: the murder rate for the above age group is 48.8 per 200,000. Even
subtracting this entirely still puts the U.S. near the top of the list.

Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people):

United States 5.8 years
Denmark 4.9
Finland 4.8
Canada 4.5
Germany 4.5
United Kingdom 4.4
Norway 4.3
Switzerland 4.1
Netherlands 4.0
Sweden 3.8
Japan 3.3


IT doesnt' take an MBA to do the simple math that Americans pay the most, and get the least, for health care.

I would support sending this bill into the toilet if we removed all the GW expeditures and replaced them with something better.

Where'd this come from?

I am not against coverage for all and in fact like what Romney . . .

I did not write that. Did you? Got your tags out of whack? It can't be a deliberate attempt at putting words into my mouth, can it? Only a Doofus would try such an obvious ploy. I'll give yah the benefit of the doubt, and it's free.

Lots of things don't make sense to me. Fearing national health care insurance is one of them, simply because as bad as it might get, what we've got is worse -- if we have anything at all.

CR posted the numbers. GWB vetoed the bill. The Demos have been trying to do something about this for quite some time, and only fear has kept change away. Fear of change. I can see the reasoning for that fear from those who profit from the present system. Yep, doesn't make it right though.



I think you mean people who have employers that offer low-cost insurance, relatively speaking. That insurance goes away upon unemployment, then it's over to either no insurance or the expensive free-market insurance that's supposed to be so efficient and inexpensive.

As for Romney, just for the record, I don't trust anything that guy says. This should not be a surprise, but I don't want anyone getting confused due to misplaced quotation tags.

It is a little thing called "reality" that really throws a wrench in the anti-health insurance for everyone crowd.

Here is the reality.

Oh? and what ARE your choices- (assuming a family of four, or even three)

1) No insurance
2) Insurance paid by employer- which means you COULD get into what is called "job lock"- where you can't really afford to leave your job, because the alternative is no inurance
3) pay for insurance yourself. Around 1200 bucks a month. You will probably have a deductable- and a preferred provider list (if you only pay 1200 a month that is- if you want to drop about 2000 thousand a month or more and a 5k or so deductable) that means you have to go to the Dr they choose. As it is with about 90% of the plan in the US.

It is no more restrictive in single payer insurance plans (as opposed to straight socialized) than anything about 99.999999999% of Americans are in, if lucky enough to have any kind of health care at all.

You can say you don't want socialized medicine, you can say you want a system with choice, you can say you want a capitalist, market driven system- then fine, I agree.

To bad we don't have system like that either.

Wrong. Again and as usual. Bush and his backers of the veto have reached into their little bag of rhetoric and denounced the expansion of SCHIP as "socialized medicine." But is it really?

Properly speaking, socialism is when the state owns or controls the means of production. Thus "socialized medicine" is when the doctors are state employees; when the hospitals, drugstores, home health agencies and other facilities are owned and controlled by the government.

Only one part of the U.S. system really is socialized medicine: the veterans' health-care system, which is wholly owned and operated by the federal government. Veterans love the system and vigorously oppose any suggestions of dismantling it and integrating them into civilian health care. By many measures, this bastion of socialized medicine may constitute the highest-quality and most efficient part of American health care.

... the SCHIP bill Congress passed would increase government funding to provide health coverage to more children. But the bill would not change the delivery system. Children would still get their care from doctors in private practice and through the regular hospitals, home health agencies, etc. that the rest of us use.

It is absurd to call an expansion of government payments for health care in the existing private delivery system socialized medicine. Politics may be full of hype, exaggeration or partisan bickering, but there should be no place for overt deception. A serious debate about whether and how to reform the American health-care system requires that we eliminate comments whose only purpose is to mischaracterize and misinform.

Those who invoke the specter of "socialized medicine" should answer this question: Do you think the government should help fund medical care for those who cannot afford it, just as it funds education for children whose parents cannot afford to educate them? If not, say so explicitly and justify your position. But, please, spare us the derogatory language.

washington post 10/7/07

Those who prefer to demagogue this issue have their hyperbole down pat, but thus far all they have shown is a fundamental lack of understanding of how health care is delivered in America and a even slipperier grasp on what socialism
really means.

2. The political ramifications is a "win/win" scenario for the Democrats. If they play their cards right and Bush's veto is overturned, the expansion of SCHIP goes through, the President is embarrassed and the Dems can claim to have broadened health care to millions of children who need it.

If Bush's veto is sustained then the Democrats will have an issue that resonates with many voters and they will beat the Republicans without mercy as a party that doesn't care about sick kids. Nonsense, the GOP will snort. The liberals are trying to socialize health care in America in a back-door manner. Yeah, good luck with that. The Republicans can have their indignation. I'd rather have a 30-second commercial of a sick kid and a crying mother who can't get help because of the SCHIP veto.

Oh, it will be shameless and scandalous and cynical as hell, but it's just plain old hardball politics and played the right way it makes Bush and the Republicans supporting his veto look terrible. Aevans176 put it best when he wrote, "I'd rather a missle over a person who makes $60K+ and lets the government give away free healthcare. "

That's gonna be a tough sell to a parent with a sick kid who could use SCHIP to get them help. Especially at a time when the United States is spending a billion dollars a week to keep the puppet government in Iraq upright. Billions for guns, but nickles and dimes for children? Tsk, tsk, what kind of "compassionate conservatism" is that?

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.

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. link

This issue is a trap set by the Democrats and Bush stupidly walked right into it. Let's see in a few weeks how many of his fellow Republicans join him in giving the Dems a big ol' club to pound them with.

BUT WHO PAYS. Say what you like but this is single payer and the government is the payer. No competition just government.

Now if the government was paying for people to buy heath insurance that would be somewhat different.

Once the Dems sneak everyone on this disaster then we will have socialized medicine.




I read it was 4 X but who cares it is still way out of the range of the original bill for “poor kids” _ NOT kids 3- 4 times removed from poor and already covered. And it can cover “kids” up to 25 years old.

This is a trap all right. A trick to get a big start on socialized medicine and a ploy to make it sound like its for “poor kids”. Typical Dem tactic we can be sure we will see lots more of this crap as the election nears.

Well Ted, doesn't seem that competition is working in our present system. Looks like government does a much better job of keeping overhead low:

National Health Plan Could Save Billions

The article is almost three years old. I've seen this type of comparison in several other articles too, this one just happened to pop up on the search results first.

Maybe competition is the myth. Maybe government being always incompetent is the myth. Might Republicans be wrong on national health care insurance? Could be. They've been known to be wrong before.

Percent of population covered by public health care:

ALL NATIONS (except below) 100%
France, Austria 99
Switzerland, Spain, Belgium 98
Germany 92
Netherlands 77
United States 40

And I think this is too high. No where in the Constitution does the federal government have the power to provide healthcare. If you want the individual states to provide healthcare, then so be it. This is a state-level issue. The feds have way too much power over your life now, why expand it?

Life Expectancy (years):

Men Women
Japan 76.2 82.5
France 72.9 81.3
Switzerland 74.1 81.3
Netherlands 73.7 80.5
Sweden 74.2 80.4
Canada 73.4 80.3
Norway 73.1 79.7
Germany 72.6 79.2
Finland 70.7 78.8
United States 71.6 78.6
United Kingdom 72.7 78.2
Denmark 72.2 77.9

Does this really illustrate the healthcare problems, or could the fast food lane also be an issue, how about drugs and alcohol? Don't these other issues that are not healthcare related play into account on life expectancy?


Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):

United States 10.4
United Kingdom 9.4
Germany 8.5
Denmark 8.1
Canada 7.9
Norway 7.9
Netherlands 7.8
Switzerland 6.8
Finland 5.9
Sweden 5.9
Japan 5.0

What direct relation between these statistics and the need for socialized healthcare is illustrated?

Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):

United States 101.5
Japan 92.2
Norway 90.2
Denmark 85.1
France 84.9
United Kingdom 82.2
Canada 82.1
Netherlands 80.3
Germany 77.6
Switzerland 72.5
Sweden 64.7
Finland 53.3

Again, car accidents, SIDS, murder, and other accidents are included, how do those numbers compare when they are removed from your statistics?

Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):

United States 203
Switzerland 175
Canada 161
France 156
Finland 154
Norway 128
Germany 122
Denmark 120
United Kingdom 114
Sweden 109
Japan 96
Netherlands 90

Note: the murder rate for the above age group is 48.8 per 200,000. Even
subtracting this entirely still puts the U.S. near the top of the list.

How old is this report that you got the numbers from? Thousands of U.S. Soldiers have been killed in combat, what about taking those out? What about auto accidents? When you actually look at the numbers that are directly related to health insurance, what picture do you actually see?

Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people):

United States 5.8 years
Denmark 4.9
Finland 4.8
Canada 4.5
Germany 4.5
United Kingdom 4.4
Norway 4.3
Switzerland 4.1
Netherlands 4.0
Sweden 3.8
Japan 3.3


IT doesnt' take an MBA to do the simple math that Americans pay the most, and get the least, for health care.

IT Does take someone that is willing to look at the facts to realize increasing taxes in order to award those that don't contribute to society in a productive way is unjust. It also only takes a quick look at the Constitution of this Nation to see that this is not a federal level issue. This issue belongs to the States. (For reference, look at the Tenth Amendment) Finally, when you can provide statistics that show the mortality rate of those that could have lived had they had health insurance, all other numbers mean nothing towards this debate.

I love your statistics, but they are meaningless in reference to health care. They don't account for environmental factors, eating habits, lack of exercise, genetics, or any factors excepting what happens in a hospital setting.

Americans pay the most for health care because we have a self-inflicted wound called "Big Business Insurance", and an exacerbated cost of health care due to lack of need for competition.

Why does McDonald's sell a burger for $1? Because Burger King does.

Why can I buy a Ford truck for $25K? Because Chevy trucks are $25K.

How many people shop doctors based upon "value"? Very few. We might find one we "like", but the fact is that a more expensive doctor, for us, rarely costs us more. The Doctors "in-network" know what they can charge for certain things, and they hit the top of the scale as often as possible, and/or find other ways to augment revenue (i.e. charging $25 for bandaids).

If you were paying out of pocket for health care, and knew that Hospital #1 was 1/2 the price of Hospital #2, and that the care was very similar... where would you go? Easy answer.

People in the US will never seem to get this. I'm not sure why. It's a very simple economic notion.

When it comes to children in the US, a Children's Health insurance bill that covers families 3x the poverty line only creates a larger opportunity for hospitals to milk the government. Right now, if a hospital only treats Medicare patients, they earn less money than privately insured patients. HOWEVER, it IS common practice for some "irreputable" hospitals to have "additional treatments", etc for such patients.

Think of Dialysis patients as good examples. If I give patient X a treatment that will last 2 days or send him home with peritineal dialysis (at home), I earn less. If I keep him/her in the clinic 4x/week, I have an overall earning potential that increases. HENCE- I make policy that shows that it's "better" for the patient to be in the clinic more. Then I bill Medicare. You better believe that happens. If I am the bean counter CFO, and I get together with the SVP of Patient Care, I say "my bottom line increases by ___ if we do ____". Then I say "SVP of Patient Care, is it not better for the patient to be in the clinic under the care of a professional staff?" ... to which the answer is YES! Bam- patients in the clinic all 'round the clock. Would the patient be happier and nearly (or as) healthy with an alternative treatment? Maybe. Probably. Most likely. But it doesn't make money in the same fashion. Keep the chairs filled, that's the game. If I have a Nurse on the clock with 3 patients, it's not nearly as profitable as if she has 6. (Yes, I know this happens. For 100% fact)

What would happen with kids on the government dole? Parents would also go more. If Billy has the sniffles now, and it costs a $25 co-pay + a $10 prescription to go, I might give him something over the counter and some chicken noodle soup. If it's FREE, I'm going to Doctor to get the free care and the free prescription. If I'm the hospital, I'd be ELATED to do business like this... because then I'd also know that I could bill the government for the chest x-ray, and make a policy that increases x-rays. Why would it matter to Billy's mom/dad? It wouldn't. Now, under my insurance, if I don't need the X-ray it may not be prescribed, because then I have more co-pay. If it's free... x-rays galore.

It's the way of the world really. Poor kids SHOULD get free health care, but I wonder if the parents should still have some "ability to pay" responsibility. Maybe if I make <$18K/yr, I pay $2.50. If I make <$30K I might pay $10, and so forth. Make the $$ meaningful, but not overbearing. It may seem like pennies, but would still make someone think about necessary healthcare versus frivolous care. Free and unlimited, with no accountability, is rarely a good answer.

Why does McDonald's sell a burger for $1? Because Burger King does.

Why can I buy a Ford truck for $25K? Because Chevy trucks are $25K.

aevans176:

Ah, the competition argument again. Here's the difference: You don't need the $1 burger to control your blood pressure, and the medicine you do need for this costs a lot of money. So do the doctor visits, which a $1 burger does not need.

Sure, a $25k vehicle costs more and you might need the transportation, but it's really hard to find used doctor exams on the market.

Another difference is you don't have an HMO saying they'll cover 80% of the $25k, but only if it's a Nissan from this particular dealership, and if you don't have a dealership near you, tough bounce. I guess you could hitch-hike, but the ride you get might cause a heart attack, being that the medicine and doctor visits are too expensive.

In effect, our present system delivers less for more, and the trend keeps on going and going until health care is gone. There's really no defense of the status quo. It had its chance to work and blew it. Free enterprise and medicine do not mix. That's for burgers and trucks.

I have seen this $1200 figure bandied about in several "talking points" type political pieces recently. Where did you find that figure? I went to a few online insurance sites, entered ZIP code 99503, created a family of four and received quotes between $300 and $700 per month, depending on deductible. And that's in expensive Alaska.

Did anyone see the no-health-insurance kid that the Democrats had respond to Bush's radio address this Saturday? He goes to a $20,000-per-year prep school and his dad owns his own business. Of course, they are a "working family" because he pays himself and his wife only $45K in annual salary. I bet they can't wait for John Edwards to come in and take care of his own people.

Just to clear up any confusion, you and I are in total agreement. You quoted me as saying that it doesn't take an MBA to figure it out, but I was just using cruisingram's post to make a point. I am steadfast against socialized healthcare. I am just new to this board and haven't figured out how to do the quotes properly.

One other point I would like to make is the target audience for the insurance companies. They don't focus all of their marketing efforts for their health insurance to individuals. Their target is the businesses that employ the individuals. If insurance companies had to sell to the individuals instead of the companies, costs would plumet because it would then be a true capitalist competition. Since they get to sell in bulk to the companies that employ the people, they can sell for a lower amount per person and still charge higher rates to the individual. If they were only marketing to the individual families, competition would increase and prices would decrease.

Paid by the state, offered due to his brain injury, I hear.


You know this from a 16-year old wedding announcement, I presume?


Also from a 16-year-old wedding announcement?


What people is that?

Grats on Jamil Hussein 2.0. With honest bloggers like Michelle Malkin (and the support of equally capable Freepers like icwhatudo) it'll be no time before Rush Limbaugh helpfully tells us that only phony needy kids go to prep school. Commie Islamofascist 12-year-olds everywhere, beware! You gotta love cross-media synergy.

Someone's got to tell me how photo op-ing with kids around stem-cell vetoes is political gamesmanship, not exploitation, so I can give the playbook to Democrats.

As for the debate questions, I share Doc's doubts. Heck, I wouldn't object to lowering the maximum age to 18 with and without attending college. But like I already responded on his blog I've always thought Bush's first objection to SCHIP is his real objection: Think of poor insurance companies! He didn't have a problem giving Big Pharma a nice fat paycheck a few years ago, and if Democrats would "sweeten" the deal in that direction I think he could get over his objections.

I dunno what AM and Aevans are talking about. There's no competitive health services system with or without "socialized medicine". I'll tell you what, though: You can honestly argue the free market's superiority when taxpayers stop subsidizing at least a third of all medical R&D and between "$500,000 to one million of the costs of educating each physician". If I can't get my taxpayer's worth I don't want to give. If epidemics break out and/or people die as a result, oh well. At least I won't be giving private sector practitioners and for-profit corporations something for nothing.

Actually it's about 1600USD/mo in NY for my entire family if I do it on my own. We have when I was strictly consulting. There are better plans available now if you look to say nothing of the free HC you can get for your children (sorry the name of the program in NY escapes me.) *found it

So 1200USD/mo doesn't sound too off.

1. Was the President right or wrong to veto this expansion? Why?

I think he was wrong, but of course, I’m a bleeding heart liberal.

I have to agree with CR; there may be problems with the bill as written, but it doesn’t look good when free-spending George vetoes a children’s health bill. I certainly don’t agree that the age limit should have been raised. If you’re 25, join the rest of us working schmucks scrounging to make a buck.

From what I understand, SCHIP is a program that provides health care to kids whose families make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private health insurance. The average salary of families using this program is in the $50,000 range The dramatic $83,000 figure applies only in NY state, but it sure does get thrown around a lot. Considering the cost of living in NY is twice that of any other state in the country, $41,500 should be the number tossed out there. It’s probably not understandable to someone living in Backside of Nowhere, Kentucky, but $83K barely gets a family by in New York, especially when you consider the average rent is $2553).

With fewer employers offering health insurance (40% don’t – see 2nd link below), more middle class families have to get it on their own hook, and it ain’t cheap.

SCHIP has been very successful, though “chronically underfunded”. It has reduced the number of uninsured children by a third.



How many of you could afford another $900 monthly bill? I know I sure as hell couldn't, and I don't have kids.

2. Right or wrong, what will be the political implications of this veto?

It’s almost as if Bush wanted a Democrat in the Oval Office in 2008. It’s a horrible political move, especially since he hasn’t seen a spending bill he didn’t love in the last 6 years.

1.Was the President right or wrong to veto this expansion? Why?

Wrong.

I spend a ridiculous amount of money a month on my children's healthcare, on health insurance AND on everything my health insurance does not cover. Obviously health costs for a family in the US are at a level well above poverty and this places health in America at a premium. Should the health of our children be set at a premium and unattainable for some? I personally think not, and I am not a supporter of socialized medicine, but I feel that providing school aged children who are most likely in public schools basic healthcare is hardly akin to socialized medicine.

There is in my mind a right balance to be achieved and I feel that asking children to pay for their parent's poor choices OR circumstances when it comes to health care is neglectful of us as a whole, as a society.

If we provide public schooling and require immunizations, eye tests, some basic hygiene, hearing tests all as part of the requirements for these children's admittance, if we can provide them food while at school and transportation and after school childcare and tutoring, if we can supplement education and learning for those with special needs and/or social disadvantages, if we can provide every school with a health room and a team of certified nurses who attend to our sick and injured children and who administer them medical tests and medication. If we can take no issue with all the above how can we claim that attending to these same children's medical or health needs somehow places our social intentions for our children at an extreme or somehow a too great of a burden? This seems like an argument that exists completely outside of the realties of the system itself and the needs of our children. I just can not understand how we claim so much responsibility and stewardship in one regard and then so little in another. How is this distinction being made? I personally believe that any school aged child in America should have basic health care coverage and I fail to see how we can claim otherwise in the context of public schooling and I fail to see how our children's education and health are exclusive of one another.

I find most who argue in favor of Bush's actions disingenuous as we never hear this much disapproval when it comes to the government's own medical and health care supplements, how many in Congress are living at or below the poverty line?

CR, you of all people that I am getting to know on this site should be in favor and full support of the veto on this no matter the reason. As a Libertarian, you should be agains any federal social programs, but in these posts, it seems that you are in favor of them. Are your arguments here only to bash the nasty repubicans and GW, or are you really speaking on behalf of your political beliefs? If you are simply bashing, you are simply losing credibility, at least from me. I don't know about everyone else here.

Are there no depths to which the Republicans won't stoop?


I somehow missed this. Graeme Frost, 12 years old, was chosen by the Democrats to give their weekly radio address. He spoke about the SCHIP program and how it saved he and his sister's lives after a serious car accident, and pleaded with the Bush administration not to eviscerate the program. As a result, he and his family were promptly eviscerated by the right wing blogosphere and Republican politicians. Accusations that this family didn't need any help, since they lived in a $400,000 house (untrue), the father owned his own business (also untrue), and the kids went to private school (they conveniently neglected to mention they are on scholorships). This family of 4 earns less than $50,000 yr. As soon as the inconvenient facts came out, the righties quickly dropped the attacks. Kentucky newspapers (I wouldn't think they are known to be screaming liberals, either) are nearly unanimous in their condemnation of Rep. Mitch McConnell's attacks on a disabled boy. Some of the smear tactics he used even caused some people to call the Frosts with death threats.

And these are the kinds of people selected to lead this country.

Nice.

Are you preaching or debaing? CR can make uip his own mind on individual issues.




Not only has the right-wing fringe gone after 12-year-old Grame Frost, but the parents of 2-year-old Bethany Wilkerson, who was born with a heart condition.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/16/bethany-attacks/

It will be interesting to see which elements on the board defend these smears. I can almost guess.

Looking back at my posting, I stand corrected on the comments regarding Graeme Frost.

As for the veto, I again agree with it. Please get government (and employers) the hell out of health care. Out.

Iam all for PRIORITIES my man. If I want to cut my budget at home, and I make 4k per month, but spend, say, 6k per month on bullets and guns, instead of stopping the debt, I try to cut 1.88 in band aids- sure, I may not need the band aids all that much, but what the heck is the 1.88 vs the 6,000.00 that I have been spendin.

WE need to frame the budget in terms of priorities. If we cut 100% of all monies spent overseas FIRST, withdrew all our troops from every locale on the planet- and stopped that sucking chest wound in the budget- then I could put some neo-sporin on the paper cut.

There is no point to cuts to children when we bleed off so much money. There is no part just denying health care to the middle class because we don't like socialized medicine. We have to start with the AMA, we have to start with opening up the entire medical system to true capitalism. If you want freedom, then do it- don't just do it to the poeple at the bottom of the pile only, and then say it is much better because " we don't want the goverment in healthcare".

If we don't want goverment in healthcare- start at the top. Make it illegal for any drug manufacturer, any hospital CEO, all corporate contact with lawmakers be under oath and in public hearings only. They can't be allowed to contribute in any way into any campaign. They have to have proscribed contact with any elected official, that is open and transparent. Make the AMA illegal, and disallow any further restrictions on Drs numbers entering medical school- make that purely a function of the university that wants to certify a medical program. Make routine non-payment of insurance claims punishable by corporate death- totally dismantling the company, throwing the board of directors in jail, and disolving the stock. Make any insurance company have to put up a bond, pay immediately, and then start a lengthy appeal process to get the money back, make the burden of proof as to why they WON'T pay on the insurance company. Make quadruple charges against any company that fails to pay all medical bills within thirty days of submission by the primary member etc.

1. In my opinion the President was correct to veto this legislation. Well, he explained the reasons to the public but I would add the following: I watch the operations of the House of Representatives and the Senate on CSPAN and note that since the beginning of the 110th Congress the house more than not operates under "closed rule". For those not familiar with the rules of the House I would suggest that you learn more about the rules. Under this system the Comittee writes the legislation and the Comittee is of course managed by the Majority as the house. The problem is under the closed rule no representatives of the other states that are not assigned to the comittee or leadership are allowed to make the bill or law better through amendments, this includes members of the majority. For this reason it is making law similar to the Catholic Theoracy, or law as seen by the elected hiarchy. The Republicans also used these rules on their behalf when they were in majority but not to the extent that this congress has. The result is reflected in current holds in legislation and veto threats from the President when the additional power of the Senate rules do not allow representation of "all the people".

2. The political implications are still up to the House Leadership. They have choices of sending an almost same bill forward that will again be vetoed or working with the minority and the Administration. I think the American people are smart enough to see that the Democrats cannot scream the Republicans are responsible for killing or harming young poor children. Reasonable people will ask why not demand the SCHIP program be reauthorized at an acceptable level under this administration? Because reasonable people would conclude that if "the people" aren't satisified with the final bill as required by this administration they fully have the opportunity to elect more members of the Majority Party along with a Democratic Executive to allow amendments to increase the program to the desired level. For the Democrats to run on a punch line that the Republicans killed the SCHIP when in fact an olive branch was extended they will blame the Democrats for failing to legislate.

I normally don't post opinion columns here, but a few paragraphs in this one in particular capture what I was trying to say earlier regarding the Democratic "response" to the President's veto.