12-Year-Old Will Battle Bush For Democrats On Children’s Health Care Issue
If the Democrats win big in 2008 partially due to the furor over President George Bush’s impending veto of a bill to fund children’s health care, they can thank the “little people.”
Kids like a 12-year-old boy who the Democrats have picked to give the Democrats’ answer to the President’s weekly radio address tomorrow.
And expect this to be the opening volley in young faces and voices putting a “human interest” spin on a veto that could be the worst political relations blunder since the Republicans shut down Congress after disputes with President Bill Clinton:
A 12-year-old boy who received life- saving care through U.S.-subsidized health insurance will speak for Democrats tomorrow in their response to President George W. Bush’s weekly radio address.
Democrats chose Graeme Frost of Baltimore, instead of the lawmakers or governors who usually provide the party’s Saturday- morning broadcast, to press what they see as a political advantage from Bush’s vow to veto expansion of a kids’ health-care program.Congress is sending to Bush legislation, given final approval yesterday, that would add $35 billion over five years to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Bush, who calls the measure a step toward “federalization” of health care, will veto the legislation even though Republican lawmakers in close re-election campaigns will come under pressure if they stand by him, Bush press secretary Dana Perino said today.
“No doubt that it’s difficult, especially politically” when “there are advertisements running in your district saying that you don’t care about children, which is preposterous,” Perino told reporters at the White House. “They have to think about the principles here.”
The Senate passed the measure yesterday with enough Republican backing to override a veto; the House fell about two dozen votes short earlier in the week. The measure would more than double funding for the program, letting states enroll an additional 3.8 million uninsured kids.
Expect Frost to dramatize the issues since his address will get substantial national and international notice, adding another story to the negative imagery surrounding the White House and representing another nail into the coffin of the image of “compassionate conservatism”:
Democrats are counting on Frost, who was hospitalized for traumatic brain injury after a 2004 car accident, to deliver the message that Bush is picking the wrong fight.
“My message is that the president needs to sign this bill because there are many, many kids who depend on this,” Frost said today in a telephone interview. “There are many kids who may not have survived without this.”
In a transcript of the radio addressed provided by Democrats, Frost said his hard-working parents “always make sure my sister and I have everything we need, but the hospital bills were huge.”
Editors like to put human-interest faces on issues because readers relate to those kinds of stories. At the least, expect some sound-bytes and prominent display — which will push the issue more to the forefront. Yet another Rush Limbaugh verbal missile (and controversy) could follow but it will be hard to demonize a child (although that was once said about anyone mocking ailing actor Michael J. Fox, too).
Writes The Politico’s Martin Kady:
The way Democrats see it, President Bush’s promised veto of the children’s health insurance bill is a gift from the political gods.
To that end, Democrats are planning to slowly play out their hand on this issue, taking their time with a veto override vote while vowing more votes on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program in the coming weeks.
In fact, thanks to a temporary extension of SCHIP placed in the continuing resolution to temporarily fund the government at the start of the new fiscal year Monday, Democrats have until at least mid-November to keep children’s health front and center.
Kady also notes that this issue is a big one with independent voters — the voters the GOP seems to be alienating on a host of issues these days…voters who helped give the Democrats control of Congress, but not on a massive scale. Issues like this — punctuated by human interest stories about children who would have or have been helped by such funding — could increase the Demmies’ margin even more:
According to a poll conducted by Democratic research firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, 58 percent of independent voters say they would back a Democratic congressional candidate who votes to expand SCHIP. And numbers like that have led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to run ads in dozens of districts held by Republican incumbents, chastising them for voting against the program.
“Democrats who have played politics on the war have now turned to domestic policy. … They’re used to doing the politics first and the government second,†said Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-N.Y.). “We see the gamesmanship being played here.â€
Reynolds, like most Republicans interviewed about SCHIP, was quick to assert that he favors extension of the program, but says Republicans simply need to stand on conservative principles and avoid expanding health care to families that make 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $60,000 for a family of four.
That problem is that this approach likely won’t work.
It has been shown repeatedly that issues that go beyond polemics, partisan attacks and debating points and take on a “human face” due to media coverage that takes the issue out of the abstract and puts it into human terms (even if it is not entirely accurate in some cases) makes the issue less abstract — and moves people.
And what could be more moving than a “plight” story about a child?
The GOP could stand with the White House on conservative principles on this issue and the bill could never be signed.
But it’s likely that on Election Day some of the Republicans who have stood with the White House may find that the barge they were standing on has sunk.
ADDITIONAL RELATED NEWS STORIES:
–Google Comment by a childrens’ health care advocate.
–The great debate on kid’s health care
–David Broder says Republicans are “following Bush over a cliff.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
23 Responses to “12-Year-Old Will Battle Bush For Democrats On Children’s Health Care Issue”
I wrote about this elsewhere, already. The Democrats have no shame! Although such emotion-rather-than-reason-based pandering to those who think this is all about The Children! [tm] rather than the federal expansion into health care that is the real issue is fully predictable and is shameful, but hardly surprising.
Maybe they’ll do something similar again during their 2008 convention. They did it with Reeve once.
[...] Here is an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptCongress is sending to Bush legislation, given final approval yesterday, that would add $35 billion over five years to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Bush, who calls the measure a step toward “federalization†of health … [...]
[...] admin wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThey’re used to doing the politics first and the government second,†said Rep. Thomas Reynolds (RN.Y.). “We see the gamesmanship being played here.†Reynolds, like most Republicans interviewed about SCHIP, was quick to assert that he … [...]
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today!.Here’s a quick excerptA 12-year-old boy who received life- saving care through US-subsidized health insurance will speak for Democrats tomorrow in their response to President George W. Bush’s weekly radio address. Democrats chose Graeme Frost of Baltimore, … [...]
What’s wrong with a federal expansion into health care where the markets fear to tread? Because in spite of the exaggeration of Bush and his loyalists the compromise bill that was agreed upon will do very little if anything to displace private insurers.
The real issue is why does Bush care more about private insurers than he does about whether the children of the working poor are covered? Bush is on the wrong side of this issue.
Dems should jump on it to show that Bush has no problem spending 200 billion a year on an endless war that was started by mistake, but develops a 11th hour conservative conscience when it comes to spending 6 or 7 billion on our kids healthcare. Where was he for 6 years when he never saw a spending bill loaded with pork that he wouldn’t sign???
I’d want to know more about the history of such things before I express an opinion. While it is important to have a human face on the issue — because the debate is about BOTH the federal government’s extension into health care AND the humans, children here, who suffer when the choice is made not to extend — it’s also treading on thin ice to bring children into politics.
So I agree with DLS in my wariness of using children to make a political point and would rather the Dems did not move in that direction. I disagree with him about the nature of the issue because the decision here is about both the role of government AND the people who are affected by a lack of government. If it’s just about the role of government, then it’s an open / shut case. Nobody wants bigger government. But people also want health care for their children.
It’s like taxes. If you just ask people if they want more taxes, the answer is of course ‘no’. But they also want roads and a military, so now things become interesting. Of course it works the opposite way. If you just ask people if they want health care for their child, then everyone says ‘yes’, but if you ask them if they will pay higher taxes for it, the answer changes.
Without the veto pen.
The insurers have long trodden “there” already; the issue here, of course, is that beneficiaries will leave the insurers (for subsidized public insurance).
It’s left to readers to check the details and know who is exaggerating, upward or downward: Approximately one-third (33 per cent according to the CBO) of the increase in beneficiaries will be people who switch from private to public insurance, not what people ordinarly consider a proportion that constitutes “very little, if anything,” or is seen as negligeable, or trivial.
All that can be argued in a positive sense about this is that such a crowd-out level is, also courtesy of CBO (Orzag), as low as can be expected with a program like S-CHIP. It could be worse, i.e., higher. (Two other studies in a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation publication I looked at gave estimated ranges of 38-77 per cent and 0-50 per cent.)
I admit I’m not crazy about using a child in the campaign- but the larger gain is worth it in this case. Americans should be sick and tired of seeing the treasury looted for “a bridge to nowhere”- now there is also a matching proposal for an 84 million$ “ferry to nowhere” that is to be used by 40 people, and by money to well-connected contractors who have failed time and again to produce results.
Why shouldn’t a fraction of it go to actually benefit our most vulnerable citizens- our kids?? Investing in their health is a smart bet, as it will free up emergency rooms and offer preventative care to forestall more serious health problems that develop when families lack insurance. If it looks like there’s a huge number that are cancelling private policies, the numbers can be tinkered with.
I’d want to know more about the history of such things before I express an opinion.
About “crowd-out”? In addition to the CBO cost estimates, and the CBO report on S-CHIP (crowd-out is on page 21), you can read about crowd-out itself here (general; see appendix III for two S-CHIP studies), and about S-CHIP, proceed to here (a page with links to several reports). Sorry to say, I cannot find the testimony by Orszag but he says that the crowd-out is as low as can be expected; it could be worse.
The regressivity of the boost in tobacco taxes is obvious, as is that this is an expansion of the scope of this program, not merely offering more care to the same kinds of people that were helped before, and the expansion of scope of the program is what is opposed more than the additional expenditures.
Oh, that’s the central issue: Many are opposed to government health care for their children. I’ll also rush to concede that also the attitude toward having government provide health care for their children (and for themselves, too) continues to become more in favor of it the more frustrated or angry people get with insurers. With this bill, though, the proponents should be honest. It’s not as it was originally meant to be, helping the poor get health insurance for their kids. The scope is much more broad in this bill. Why not just offer Medicare for all children? They’re sneaker and more finely incrementalist than that in writing and passing this bill, but they obviously aren’t limiting themselves to helping the poor who are known to need help with insuring their children, which is how it is still being described by proponents.
The reason is because it’s not seen as a legitimate role of government, though enormous numbers believe that it is, and that fraction is growing all the time, especially if they see no other alternative.
Bridge to Nowhere, Iraq…those make it easier.
If it looks like there’s a huge number that are cancelling private policies, the numbers can be tinkered with.
The answer is that it is a large number, but as a fraction, with this program it’s on the lower end of the range, according to the CBO; it can be claimed to be a small fraction. “As good as can be expected” or something like that, without adding laws that make employer insurance coverage mandatory, “employer mandates” (or, for that matter, individual mandates, Hillary Clinton’s new “non-government program” solution to health care for all). The number of those switching from private to public insurance (at the possible expense of additional poor people who have no private insurance at all) is much smaller than those poor children who would additionally benefit from the program.
DLS- In your opinion, of course. Some of us think the way money is being spent by the administration is a travesty with huge amounts going to graft and war profiteering. My point is there are much bigger fish to fry if you are going after programs that waste money or are ineffective. Many of the private companies the govt has contracted with are bankrupting the treasury without producing. Here’s something that has a chance to make a difference in so many kids lives- why would you want your money going to weapons that are being lost or sold overseas on the black market to our enemies, but take a “principled” stand here???
The Democrats are going to go after this issue in 08, and with the GOP frontrunners decision to skip last night’s debate at Morgan State will easily make the Republicans look like bigotted monsters who only want to enrich themselves and their cronies. It will be a massacre.
Of course there’s one problem with DLS’s citation of CBO data. Look at the date it was written. It does not in fact address the bill that the president is now vetoing. This bill is the compromise bill that did not exist in May when the CBO paper was written.
And DLS also claims
Why is this incorrect? Because the only coverage that the insurance companies offer that individuals in this income level can afford might as well not exist. It takes a big chunk of the income of those who are anywhere near being poor and offers little in return. And never ever forget the insurance companies’ most valuable employees, the ones that dig around looking for ways to not pay on claims. The poor are not profitable if they have any health problems at all. And the only thing that private insurers are about is profit. When they can’t make a profit off of a customer they dump them. Never make the mistake of thinking that corporate medicine is about the patient.
Not that it’s actually important, but to clarify my earlier comment, what I would want to know the history of more is using children in political campaigns. It’s routine in used car commercials, but there isn’t an industry of people whose only purpose is to tear down the messengers of opinions they disagree with in the commerical world like their is in the political one. Will there be blog entries and radio shows and more venues talking about a 12 year old and, either making fun of him directly, or talking about his manipulation and the stupidity of his parents? It’s a world I would rather have children stay out of, if at all possible.
The objections to health care bills like this are based on yesterday’s model for how private corporations, or capitalistic systems. work. They simply don’t work the way they did itn the past, where services were delivered for a profit, but profit was not the primary focus, sevice was.
Since that’s no longer true, and insurance companies cut services and staff to increase profit, regardless of consequences, the public can’t play by old rules either, if they want to survive
It’s a terrible atmosphere all around, and more and more of the thoughtful among businessmen are beginning to voice warnings about a colaapse of societies that don’t keep a proper balance and dierection in their economy.
Our economy is terribly askew, and a severe backlash is in the wind.
The isolationist reaction to trade, for example, is backlash to not managing trade properly. That’s just the first warning bell.
We have these type of bills because services are not delivered in the traditional manner.
All arguments based on yesterday’s economic and business models are obsolete.
Since no one is addressing the root causes. We need to do what we can to plug holes in that which is destroying the lives of an increasingly large sector of society. Not doing it is liable to have much worse consequences.
Using a child may be sleezy, but in an ocean of sleeziness, I’m going on strike against wasting my time evaluating the relative sleeziness quotient of each new political incident.
.
PS I jsut rememberes:
The March of Dimes poster children were accepted as a bonifide means of appeal, and using them was productive.
That this has a political connotation makes it different, but I’m not going down the road of how different, when different, who different or to what degree different.
Other people can thrash that out.
As someone who has worked in the past with medicaid plans and children’s healthcare, let me tell you that even when poor kids have coverage the plans make it difficult to use in the real world. There is incredible red tape in getting authorizations and often the rates that they pay providers is so low that they can’t get specialists to take the insurance. The parent either has to drive 50 miles or so or take the child back to the emergency room for care. Whatever is done, I hope its a vast improvement on this government “entitlement” that conservatives often begrudge poor kids.
And most of what you’re seeing, Kim, is what was put in place purposefully by those same conservatives who now use it as an excuse to put down the idea of government services.
[...] picked a kid to deliver the counter address. We wrote THIS POST that noted how effective it would be and the kind of media coverage it would get — putting a [...]
[...] picked a kid to deliver the counter address. We wrote THIS POST that noted how effective it would be and the kind of media coverage it would get — putting a [...]