S-CHIP Bill Vetoed Behind Closed Doors
President Bush this morning quietly vetoed a bill with broad bipartisan support that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Unlike previous vetoes on federally-funded stem cell research and Iraq troop withdrawals, this veto was executed without ceremony or television cameras and behind closed doors.
The shyness of a president who seldom misses a photo-op stems from the reality that his veto is a liability for Republicans already facing an uphill fight in the 2008 election.
Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate to pass the bill, enough to override the veto. But in the House of Representatives, supporters fell just over 20 votes short of a successful override margin.
The compromise bill would expand the popular $5 billion-a-year S-CHIP program by an average of $7 billion a year over the next five years for total funding of $60 billion for the period. That would be enough to boost the program’s enrollment to 10 million, up from 6.6 million, which would reduce the ranks of uninsured children.
The president and opponents of the expansion say that it is an end-run toward nationalized health insurance and would cover children whose family’s incomes put them squarely in the middle class although today in America it’s not just poor people who need a leg up to get access to health care.
Two days earlier, Bush had issued a proclamation declaring October 1 to be Child Health Day.
Said the president on that occasion:
“Our Nation is committed to the health and well-being of our youth. . . . My Administration supports programs that give parents, mentors, and teachers the resources they need to help and encourage children to maintain an active and healthy way of life.”
Except when it doesn’t.
More here on the veto.
35 Responses to “S-CHIP Bill Vetoed Behind Closed Doors”
Yay?
It’s hard for me to believe that anyone out there seriously thinks Bush gives a damn about the American people.
Protecting the American people isn’t just about terrorism, and access to oil. Thousands of American lives could have been saved had our President focused a little more on domestic health and safety.
[...] House S-CHIP Bill Vetoed Behind Closed Doors » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
Bush vetoed the bill, and now the predictable whining and Outrage! [tm] will begin.
Let’s see if the veto can be overridden.
DLS,
At least it’s outrage about something that actually matters. I hope the news media gives this story the coverage it deserves, instead of feeding us more crap about MoveOn.org, Rush Limbaugh and OJ Simpson.
There is outrage over this because it is a popular bill. Including popular among a fair number of Republicans.
This is Bush at his most predictable.
He stands on principle when it suits him, the very definition of what lack of principle is.
I get the feeling that Bush and his Republicans remember their ‘principles’ only when it undercuts Democrats.
From up-and-down votes, we’ve gone to nonstop filibusters.
From the Drug program, we’ve gone to vetoing SCHIP.
The only principle I see there is the principle of ‘get the Democrats’.
The outrage is childish. The program was meant to help the poor and it’s underhanded of the Democrats to expand the scope of the program. If more people require assistance, then the Dems should be honest (yes, I know, that is unlikely) and offer to expand Medicaid or even Medicare to the non-poor. What you see with the outrage is childish tantrum because people aren’t getting the entitlements they actually expect to see handed out.
Many are ignorant of the details of the program’s actual scope, and are reacting from emotion rather than reason.
Let’s see if the veto is overridden. Oh, and if there is such outrage that Republicans who would act to sustain the veto panic.
They’ll probably unleash their obvious liberal and Bush-bashing politics big time, if history is any guide. Is that what you’re hoping for?
Its meant to help the people get their children health insurance because they can’t afford it. What would you call it? Of course there will be outrage because this is an outrage. We can spend $8billion/year in tax breaks for oil companies that are making record profits but he vetoes healthcare for children. Conservatives can dress it up any way they like but thats what this boils down to. Screw the poor and hand money to the wealthy in terms so black and white it takes your breath away.
House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Pete Stark (D-CA): “The Medicare and Medicaid portions of CHAMP have been abandoned for rhetorical and/or political reasons that are unclear to me.” (Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), Dear Democratic Colleague Letter, 9/20/07)
What Sam said.
It is an underhanded expansion of the program (it covers adults as well as children, the non-poor as well as the poor, not only poor children), to attack or challenge Bush while buying more Democratic votes prior to the 2008 elections.
Along with the sneaky behavior in Congress, some state officials are playing games (Spitzer, predictably; see below) and this game-playing needs to stop, and hopefully the veto at least forces some reconsideration.
If the Usual Suspects howl about this and the plight about the children, they risk once again exposing themselves as fools and troublemakers once the details of the program and its actual scope and its sought expansion are made known to more people.
They should do it, or attempt it, honestly next time.
“With approval from the state Legislature already received, the Spitzer initiative was to hve taken effect last Saturday. Specifically, it would increase the eligibility limit for the state program known as SCHIP from 2 1/2 to four times the poverty level — effectively expanding a form of Medicaid eligibility to families of four earning up to $82,000, or even families of five earning almost $96,500. … The Congressional Budget Office reports that for every 100 families enrolling kids in SCHIP, 25 to 50 will have dropped private insurance plans for taxpayer-subsidized coverage. Meanwhile, a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research determined that for upper-income families — like those targeted under the Spitzer plan — the parents of 75 in every 100 kids enrolling will have dropped their private coverage for government insurance.
While critics will most likely accuse Bush of heartlessly refusing to expand health coverage to the needy, there is legitimate reason for the administration’s concern.”
Evil Bush. ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Wouldn’t it be nice if the people arguing against the bill would quit referring to the version previous to the compromise made between the House and Senate versions?
NJ and NY Governors are suing Bush over this- when two of the most powerful Governors in the country sue you, it’s time to wake up and smell the Starbucks. You are a wicked, naughty boy George Bush!
DLS-
People dorp private coverage for governemtn coverage, because the cost of private coverage is bankrupting them. In addition, the kind of private coverage that is affordable is often bare bones coverage involving very high out of pocket costs, which they can’t pay. Guess who pays the cost of not covered medical expenses that he consumer can’t pay?- You.
If you’re going to present arguments, it woudl help if they were related to the actual exprience of actual people
DLS is all in a tizzy because some people that can theoretically afford health insurance will get it from the government. What a horrible disaster that would be.
Isn’t it funny how giving normal people a break is the worst thing our government can do, but giving rich people a break is good economic policy?
All I know is this, I’d rather my government use my money to give health insurance to people than use it to kill Iraqis and line the pockets of Blackwater/Halliburton/Exxon.
sorry I’m coming in late…
Chris, to throw back at you the type of argument used by your side in arguing about Iraq, if you think giving poor kids free health care is so important, why aren’t you doing so already? Take some bucks out of your wallet and help underwrite the insurance for some kids? And if you don’t make enough, go out and take a second job and send the proceeds to some middle class family so they can have free health care for their kids. Until you do, stop whining about how uncaring Republicans are.
As for Shaun’s point, if I were Bush and I really cared about sustaining the veto, I certainly would not have vetoed it hiding out in the White House, where doing so cedes the stage to the Democrats. I would have done it in a public ceremony where I could make my arguments directly to the public that matters… the roughly 20 or so GOP Congressmen who I need to sustain the veto.
And I wouldn’t have bothered with making the silly ‘it’s too expensive’ argument, a non-starter in these days of trillion dollar budgets. And I wouldn’t have offered a ‘insure the poor kids first’ defense, as middle class voters could care less if poor kids are getting insured; what matters to them is the thought that they’d be getting something for free that they now have to pay for.
And that is where I would attack the program. We argue that this is a facade, that middle class voters would get ‘free insurance’ for their kids only in name only: the coverage would suck, there’d be limited choice as to doctors, waiting times would be longer, deductibles and co-pays would be higher, and…. the premiums for their own insurance would go up. The end result is that they – yes, they – would end up paying more and getting less (the opposite of the Wal Mart theme).
The only way ‘America’ would turn against this – or any other socialized giveaway – is if they can be convinced they’d be better off without it, that it isn’t the free ride the Democrats pretend it is. And doing so requires effort, not hiding out and sending out his pretty, but ineffective, Press Secretary to argue for him.
Oh well,
steve,
If charity were the answer to all of societies ills, then well, we wouldn’t have any. Charity has rarely solved problems on the scale we’re talking about with uninsured kids. My ROI would be far higher if I could channel my energy into getting S-CHIP passed.
As for government run health insurance being worse, there is very little evidence that this is the case. Despite being the richest country on the planet, and spending more per person on healthcare than anywhere else, we have some pretty poor outcomes and are consistently outclassed by our socialized friends in Europe.
The statistics are not on your side, just fantasies about waiting lists.
[...] 3rd, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën Earlier today, US President George W. Bush has vetoed the bill that would’ve expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance [...]
“Take some bucks out of your wallet and help underwrite the insurance for some kids?”
We already did Steve, they are called taxes. And I’m more than willing to let mine fund this program. Instead its being spent in Iraq, being imbezzled by KBR, and offering up tax breaks to Exxon.
Excellent point Sam. And it is important to keep in mind that we end up paying for the uninsured one way or the other. This proactive approach happens to be cheaper for us and better for the unfortunate.
Chris, with all due offense, the energy you’re expending to get this passed has absolutely no impact whatsoever on its outcome, I repeat, none (and, to be fair, neither does mine or anyone else reading or posting here). But why limit your contribution to helping middle class kids to the ‘effort’ you’re putting in? Where’s the real sacrifice? Take some money out of your pocket and put it towards helping someone who’s rich enough to be paying AMT pay for their kids’ health care. C’mon, chickenhawk, pony up? If you’re not taking extra money out of your pocket to pay for this, how dare you ask anyone else to?
And here you go again, throwing out the canard that we somehow have it worse off than other countries… to which I will respond with the conservative stock answer, ‘and what is the ratio of Americans going overseas for medical care compared to foreigners coming here?’. How long do people have to wait for appointments in America compared to in Canada or the UK? And you really think you’re worse off having your employer (you are employed, right, and not just a total leech on society, right?) deciding what is covered under your health care than having a government bureaucrat do so? Why are the drugs that save millions of lives a year mostly developed by American pharmaceutical companies? Why is most of the best research being done here in the US?
As for Sam, your liberal teachers must be proud of you, for only someone so indoctrinated in that line of thinking could think that not taking 100% of one’s income ought to be considered a tax break. By that definition, the 75% of your paycheck that doesn’t go to income tax is a tax break, right? So, as I asked of Chris, why not step up and send that ill-founded gain of yours to the US treasury to help pay the nation’s obligations? What, you want that money because you earned it and you have a right to spend it on what you want? It’s only a tax break when it’s someone else getting to keep some of what they earn, right?
And in any event, as I said, it’s not a question of whether there’s money available for this, it’s a question of whether it’s a good idea. And it’s not.
Let me ask a not entirely tongue in cheek question of the group here: given how little America thinks of Congress (and Bush for that matter), why should we think that anything they do is a good idea? Why shouldn’t we think that every proposal – whether from Democrat or Republican – is put forth with only the intent of paying off one’s contributors and increasing their power over more of American society?
Typical consevative Steve. You need to take any logical arguement and drive it to absurdity to make your point. We all have to pay taxes, we kick in a share of our individual wealth so that we can get big things done, but not so much that we can’t run our lives. I have no idea where you got this 100% bs arguement but SOME of our income has to go to the federal gov’t or else we don’t have anything at all.
The gov’t takes care of a host of things that the private sector does poorly. Military, courts, roads, banking, basically providing the infrastructure that so many people take for granted yet is so crucial to our day to day lives. Without it the fertile ground from which our economy grows would be a barren wasteland like some third world nation that can’t even feed its people.
And yes, because our national healthcare is so screwed up right now I think this rather small part of the already hugely mismanaged budget is a wise expenditure. Also I’d really like to see some of those stats about foreigners coming to the US for treatment. I’ve known quite a few and not one of them was here for medical treatment or knew anyone who did so. Personally I think its total crap made up my people that somehow defend a medical system that is bankrupting our gov’t, our businesses, and anyone else who tries to use it without insurance.
DLS, do you ever give up on distorting the facts?
From an NPR story on the passage of the compromise bill comes this
Please notice the Republican Senator stating that the compromise took adults out of the program. Yet over and over and over again you claim that the bill that Bush vetoed deserved it because of the inclusion of adults. You write that if only people really knew of the scope of the program they’d hate it as much as you do. Well, guess who really knew the scope of the program? Not you.
So if I think anything is a good idea, I must devote all of my financial resources to it? Damn, argument over. You win.
Not that it will stop any conservative from distorting the facts, but ‘free’ health care is not involved here for anyone that can afford to pay.
This is about AFFORDABLE health INSURANCE.
[...] S-CHIP Bill Vetoed Behind Closed DoorsThe Moderate Voice – quietly vetoed a bill with broad bipartisan support that would have expanded the State Children s Health Insurance 10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by [...]
Gee Steve, you seem to know so much about how awful socialized health care is, how high the US healthcare system ranks amongst other systems in the world and how much other countries citizens pine for having a system just like the US.
Oh wait….
Turns out Steve, the US ranks 37th in the world ranking of healtcare systems. Funny that. And you might rightfully ask, why do so many people go to the US for care? Because the US does, in fact, have some of the best clinics and hospitals in the world…for the rich. The healthcare ranking is a global measurement that takes into account just how covered the population of a country is. You see, lots and lots of people don’t think that having a few thousand getting the best care in the world evens out several million not getting any care at all.
This brings me to my next point. I have yet to come across a European (I live in Spain, 7th on the list, if you’re curious) who doesn’t shudder at the thought of having the US system installed in their country. Oh we complain, and yes some things are problems (though the mythical bureaucrat deciding on your care is non-existent and laughable, my doctor decides what’s best for me), however we really do take the view that just because the patient (the system, in this case) isn’t in pristine health, that doesn’t mean you kill him. To EU citizens, the thought of dying from cancer simply because you’re too poor to afford treatment is totally alien, as much so as it would be for an American to not learn to read because he couldn’t afford school (somehow public free education is deemed a right, but basic healthcare isn’t, mind boggling). And don’t forget, private practice still exists in all EU nations, the market hasn’t been eliminated. If you wish and can afford it, you can access private doctors and private hospitals, but if you can’t afford it, you won’t be left to die.
The US remains the last bastion in the developed world that doesn’t consider healthcare to be a side by side with education and having your streets policed or cleaned. That is changing though, I expect that in my lifetime public healthcare will become a reality and the current situation will become what it already is in the rest of the civilized world, just another footnote in history.
Excellent comment Lynx. Thanks for digging up the rankings and pointing out the discrepancy between care for the rich and the poor. We do indeed have an excellent healthcare system if you’re fortunate enough to afford it, but the reality is that fewer and fewer can afford it each day.
Yes, and conservatives want to keep it that way. They don’t believe that the poor and middle class have the right to the same standards of healthcare as the ultra-rich. Inequality has always been a by-product of capitalism, but compassionate societies temper its excesses with laws like SCHIP. I’m not seeing any compassion coming out of our conservative commenters, who are terrified that the undeserving masses will actually get some benefit out of their government under a Republican regime.
Remember Bush’s Medicare prescription plan? It was passed with largely Republican support, even though it expanded government by creating an entirely new entitlement that we couldn’t afford. Why? Because Bush needed to pander to Seniors in 2000 to win the state of Florida. So some Conservatives in our government only have “principles” when a Democratic Congress is in the majority.
“Crowd-out” is where people who are paying for insurance currently (i.e., they can afford it) choose the subsidized insurance instead because it costs them less out of pocket.
Like your claim that a percentage in the thirties of crowd-out is trivial or negligeable? I’ve never begun to do that.
The Bush administration had earlier granted waivers to the states to let adults benefit from the program and there is no reason to disbelieve that this would happen again in the future, not to mention that it would be sought by the Democrats in the fuure. More important is that despite new rules to fight crowd-out (described in your quote with the words “At the same time it rewards states for covering more of the lower income kids. It puts the lowest income children first in line”), the rules have been opposed and they could be changed in the future. More important still is that the rules are not bulletproof, states will still be able to permit families to qualify at well above poverty level (New York is seeking 400%), and at those levels crowd-out will become more serious.
So often, time after time, my critics are wrong. Prove your statement.
It may or may not become a horrible disaster but the more that get it, the more costs the rest of us will face and there will be problems. I have no doubt we’re going eventually to Medicare or the equivalent for everybody within 10-20 years, probably on the sooner side, but you are naive, to say the least, if you think it will magically solve all our current health care problems.
Do you advocate termination of this entitlement?
(I realize the point you were making is that Bush has been a big spender and program-expander in the past.)