« Sabato’s Crystal Ball: PERFECTING THE PRESIDENCY
The Party Bong of Misleading Statistics & Other News on Mess-opotamia »
The S-CHIP Veto Push Back Begins
Within hours after George Bush signed the fourth veto of his presidency, rejecting a compromise bipartisan bill expanding the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Democrats and advocacy groups began pushing back.
With enough votes in the Senate to override a veto, S-CHIP supporters turned their attention to House Republicans who voted against the bill and may be vulnerable in next year’s election.
Because of the popularity of S-CHIP — which is a block-grant and not an entitlement program — the bill is an opportunity for Republicans to oppose the president without facing the kind of political blow-back that might accrue from, say, voting against the Iraq war.
House Democrats are about 20 votes short of a veto-proof majority, which means that at least 10 Republicans — if not more — would have to change their nay votes. There are early indications that some GOP congress-folk are considering doing just that.
After vetoing the bill on Wednesday, the president said he was open to compromising with Congress by spending more money on the program than his budget proposed, but did not make a specific offer about how far he would go to meet the $35 billion expansion in a program passed with substantial Republican support.
Democrats and some Republicans responded that they will try to overturn the veto before entertaining any deal on S-CHIP, which was created 10 years ago for families that make too much money to be covered by Medicaid but too little to afford insurance on their own.
Veto override votes have been put off for two weeks while unions and and other activists run TV ads condemning Republicans who sided with Bush.
Said Nathan Gonzalez, political editor of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report:
“You never want to be portrayed as against children and against health care. It certainly could come back to haunt the Republicans.”
In New Jersey, where S-CHIP has been extremely popular through Democratic and Republican state administrations alike, the ads will target recalcitrant Republicans, including Representatives Rodney Frelinghuysen, Scott Garrett and James Saxton. There were unconfirmed reports that Saxton was considering changing his vote.
(Among the nay votes, notes TMV co-blogger Robert Stein, was Dennis Kucinich, who wielded a big philosophical brush in going against fellow Democrats.)
More here.
33 Responses to “The S-CHIP Veto Push Back Begins”
“You never want to be portrayed as against children and against health care. It certainly could come back to haunt the Republicans.â€
Hard to imagine they could be in any more need of an exorcism than they already are, but they’ve proven so good at breaking new ground when it comes to embracing things that are anathema to America (and other countries) I’ve learned not to underestimate them.
Does anyone really want a government that cannot meet its Constitutionally mandated budget deadlines to really be running healthcare in this country.
S-CHIP in 2008 is stem cells from 2006, a virtually bogun issues that some consultant figured out using focused groups to use to beat up the Republicans.
The S-CHIP program is being massively oversold to people who do not understand that the government does not really have any money.
I guess that as the U.S. becomes a one party state, everyone will be lining up for more government handouts and more entitlements. Of course, President Bush and the Republican Congress has zero credibility in discussing restraint on entitlement programs.
The old joke used to be that the U.S. would fail when more than 50% of the people could vote themselves freebies. With the inept leadership of the Bush Administration, the U.S. has reached that point.
SD-As someone who worked for a Pediatrician trying to treat uninsured and underinsured children, I can assure you, SCHIP is not a bogus issue. We once had a child with a fractured arm, that no orthopedist would see, because they didn’t take the child’s insurance- she had a type of Medicaid. We had to send her to the ER at Childrens National Medical Ctr to get her seen- it was the only place that care would not have been refused. And this was someone with insurance!
I think you have no idea of the real effects of the healthcare crisis in this country.
I don’t think its bogus that over 70% of voters in America would rather see 7 billion a year spent on children’s healthcare than see 190 billion spent in Iraq. We already know that the Maliki government is weak and corrupt through and through, yet we are bleeding taxpayer dollars out the wazoo for that effort, with poor results to show for all of that spending. Conservatives love to attack domestic programs that actually do help people in our own country- but have no qualms about wasting billions on Maliki’s government, which has produced nothing.
SD:
It sometimes blows my mind how out of touch you are with Main Street. In this instance you’re not only out of touch, you’re looking down the wrong end of the telescope.
It’s just ducky to say that the government should not be busting its own budget or that it shouldn’t be providing “handouts” to people who aren’t living in poverty. The same can be said of a certain war and profligate foreign government.
But here’s the reality, my friend:
S-CHIP is not an entitlement program. It is a block-grant program that gives governors in both red and blue states substantial discretion to help make ends meet for families that make too much money to be covered by Medicaid but too little to afford insurance on their own.
The middle class is in crisis in this country and S-CHIP happens to be a particularly neat fit for some of those families, which accounts for its great popularity among both R and D families, and I have it on good authority that even some Republican-voting dads and moms are having a teensie bit of trouble making those house, car and college education payments.
Let look at some of the talking points.
1. Connecting any issue to Iraq. Remember, Iraq will be over in a year or two but one entitlement programs start they are there forever.
2. It’s for the children. I guess no one asks the parents to open up their personnel expenses and see if the help is really justified. It is very poltically incorrect to point out how many people who will get this insurance buy cigareetes, liquor, lottery tickets, satellitel dishes, etc.
will take it.
3. It helps the middle class. That is the ultimate warning sign for an entitlement program that is going to grow out of control. Maybe the middle class are suffering because of the 40% in taxes that they pay, the additional costs of government regulations, the depressed wages caused by open borders and illegal immigration, and the high property and auto insurance costs boosted by high crimes and once again, illegal immigration. Externalizing costs is never good in the long term.
4. The government program always works well. You can be assured that few providers will end up taking the insurace and the reimbursement rates will be set very low. I know from personal experience how insurance works and how providers do not take all insurance.
5. Sin taxes to pay for it. Sin taxes never produce the funds that the politicians predict. Eventually other funds will be used. Also, the costs are always vastly underestimated, thus the future expenses will almost certainly be much higher. There is also the future scandal that shows people who own BMW’s, who travel to Vegas, etc who have their college aged children on the program whereas some actual working poor will be left off.
I do have serious doubts that our government can effectively solve the big problems we face as a nation, like healthcare. It’s going to take a lot to overcome partisan bickering and the influence of big money.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take these baby steps toward proper solutions. Then we can tweak our way to efficiency. In the mean time, at least some more people will get healthcare. It’s not fair to make unfortunate children wait for proper care because we don’t have the perfect solution on hand.
That reminds me of a certain quote: “you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want”
“There is also the future scandal that shows people who own BMW’s, who travel to Vegas, etc who have their college aged children on the program whereas some actual working poor will be left off.”
So, because a few that really aren’t eligible get onto the program, we should condem the ones who really could use the help to getting nothing??
Might as well cut all Federal spending to just DoD and State Dept, everything else is not as perfect. There have been ‘scandals’ about Pell Grants, about Student Loans for college, medicare, food stamps. Sure, things need to be cleaned up, but, again why condem the majority for the ills of a few??
Christine,
Since not all families are eligible if they make less than a certain amount, it means the smartest and least ethical will have a huge advantage of getting their kids on the program. It is the same for college need based financial aid.
I have always been amazed that what people will do to get “free money.” A middle class entitlement is the ultimate free money entitlement.
SD,
You say the word “entitlement” like it’s straight from the forked tongue of Lucifer.
And didn’t Shaun already explain that S-CHIP is not an entitlement program?
SD- I’d have to disagree with some of your premises-
First, no one is predicting we’ll be out of Iraq in a year or two, except candidates like Bill Richardson or Ron Paul- who aren’t taken seriously on this issue.
Second, while there are government programs that don’t work well, this one does. It has the support of many Governors, many groups from the insurance industry, a majority in Congress from both parties, and 72% of voters, precisely because it has been working so well.
Third, is it really fair to demand that parents give up all discretionary spending to prove that their kids need the help? Most non-discretionary expenditures have ballooned so that many in the middle and working classes, have little or no money for extras. Even if the parents do spend money on the lottery- its not the kids’ fault is it?
SD, Have you ever applied for food stamps?? You’re assuming that everyone is out to get ‘free’ money and that the agencies supervising the programs are too stupid to do their jobs to determine eligiblity.
Chris,
Just because someone calls an entitlement program something else does not make it an entitlement program. As soon as one $40K per year families gets “free” insurance and another family does not, it will become a huge entitlement instead of just a moderate size entitlement program.
I wonder how soon the Atlantic Monthly will be singing the praises of its “low administrative costs” and how it should be expanded to all children?
Christine,
I have worked with a junior college’s financial aid office and yes, many people saw the financial aid as free money. The government has done a poor job of policing the issue. Remember, the Democratic Party opposed the government cracking down of wasteful welfare spending. It took President Clinton’s triangulation strategy to get welfare reform passed.
Also, I worked my way through undergraduate as a delivery man and saw a huge amount of wasteful spending from the poor.
I have an idea that under a SD presidency, our country would take a giant step backward to a Dickensian landscape- with poor living in workhouses and dying regularly of consumption and dysentery.
You seem to begrudge them any type of pleasure at all as long as they are getting any help from the government.
Look at it as an investment in our future- healthy children turning into healthy adults who can then join the workforce and spend their earnings, leading to an economic boom.
Two quick points:
1). SD: Your comment about talking points would suggest you think Iraq exists in a vacuum. Get used to it being connected to lots of issues for a long time, and brought up over and over – as well it should be. The accountability thing works much better when people aren’t in a hurry to forget stuff.
2.) krit: I think feudalism would be more like it. Been there, done that. I think it worked out pretty well – if you were among the small handful of folks who lived in the castle on the hill.
Iraq is definitely related to this issue and many others. It helps illustrate the priorities of our government.
krit,
Having the government pay for more clinic visits will have almost no affect on the overall health of children and thus no affect of the economic productivity as adults. Your statements are a great example of the overselling of S-CHIP just like stem cells have been oversold. The biggest negative impacts to children health come from the actions of their parents. subsidizing the lifestyle of the parents will have little positive affect on the children and could have a negative effect. Increase in seat belt use and bicycle helmets along with decreases in parental smoking will do much more for children’s health than clinic visits.
Making people think that the government is responsible for your children’s health and that the government will pay for it is probably not a good solution.
And you base that assertion on what? According to the WHO it certainly seems like it’s working out for a large number of the 36 countries ranked ahead of us.
[...] Read TMV’s earlier post about the veto pushback HERE. [...]
[...] Clark The S-CHIP Veto Push Back Begins » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
Are there welfare cheats? yes.
Is there corruption in Washington? Yes
What is the lesson here?
Should we shut down our governement and let the poor die in the streets?
Or should we work on ideas like improve,and streamline?
When I was in school, many people got it and invested it.
* * *
Perfect timing:
“A safety net, not a hammock!“
It better illustrates the propriety of government, what its role is, what it should do and shouldn’t do. The burden of proof falls wholly on proponents and supporters, not opponents and critics, of entitlement and welfare programs, especially by the federal government.
SD- No offense, but I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Of course second hand smoke is bad for kids. But there are many other factors that affect their health.
You are completely ignoring the benefits of preventative healthcare. People who have insurance bring their kids in for immunizations, TB testing, developmental checks etc. Many problems if detected early in childhood can be treated. All kids should get hearing and vision screens regularly because those exams directly affect how well they do in school. Many need speech therapy or they won’t be able to communicate normally.
Also, When kids are forced to wait until a condition like an infection gets so bad that the parents take them too an emergency room- it can be much more complicated to treat. It also adds to the long waits that we’ve all experienced.
Be careful not to oversell them in response, K. How many people now, who already have preventive care, choose not to take advantage of it? Preventive and chronic care are logical and cost-effective in theory and in fact (which is why employers now are pursuing “wellness” programs and paying special attention to chronic diseases*, as is at least one Democratic candidate for the Presidency). But personal lifestyle decisions that are injurious continue to be made and people continue to neglect preventive care even if it is available to them, just as people will continue to neglect to be tested regularly or screened for chronic illness, or comply with therapy (blood sugar control for diabetics, medication and exercise for hypertensives, for example). This is personal responsibility and this may be at risk of being additionally reduced, not only for one’s self but also for one’s children, when people are, as S.D. said, led to “think that the government is responsible for your children’s health.”
* Just beware at work. Yes, it stands to reason that the practice of “cherry-picking” by insurers could also one day be extended to hiring and layoff decision-making, given the personal medical data the wellness programs are known to be analyzing.
Several states are suing the Bush administration to get a court to overturn changes to eligibility rules in S-CHIP. (Congressional Democrats’ first action is likely to be to attempt to override the veto of the expansion bill.)
I remember the days when entitlement was still welfare. When death taxes were still estate taxes.
When pro-life was still anti-abortion.
Now things are named by using antomyms to what they really are.
Sort of like the arguments against facing up to the health care crisis in the country and every attempt at a remedty, no matter how partial.
Don’t be surprised if SCHIP is renamed to be ‘child killer’.
[...] Democrats are about 20 votes short of a veto-proof majority to override President Bush’s veto of the State Childrens’ Health Insurance Plan, which means that at least 10 Republicans — [...]
DLS-
“How many people now, who already have preventive care, choose not to take advantage of it? ”
Okay, How many? Innuendos aren’t facts, you know.
The whole line of argumentation based on how people will take advantage of this or any other government program is senseless hot ari.
Will capitalists not take advantage of workers if it means more profit? Let’s do away with capitalism.
Do politicians not take advantage of theri power for theri own benefit? Let’s do away with governemtn.
Instead of innuendo and ominous warnings, reasonable people will look for control and oversight.
=============
In re: ‘contempt for federalism”
Again, a sweeping statement wihout substance.
Between contempt and idolatry, reasonably people will seek ways to accomodate both federalism and federal government.
For many, federalism has become the pagan god that will provide answers to all problems in all circumstances. It makes as much sense to rely on a simplistic interpretation of what federalism means in real life as it does to wear a gaalic wreath to ward off the devil.
Simplistic answers to complex problems satisfy only the likes of cult members.
The rest of us have to sort out substantive problems in realistic terms.
I owe you no quantification — it’s your own job to do your own homework. But if you’re curious, here are some proportions for doctors as patients. They can get care easily, and many don’t:
The study results showed that 39 percent of internists reported having no primary-care physician; surgeons followed close behind at 34 percent. Pediatricians (78 percent) and psychiatrists (79 percent) were the most likely to have a primary-care physician.
In many instances, such situations arise due to lifestyle and working conditions, which likely may affect laypeople as well (unable to take time off for doctor visits, for example). Here:
And of course, improvement in preventive care and personal habits (to reduce employer health costs) is the basis for the wellness programs we encounter at work. If there were no need for improvement, these programs would not exist.
The problem is substantial enough that incentive programs have been tried (and we’re likely to see more in the future). Financial incentive programs have been tried for doctors as well as for patients, because
Incentives to providers and consumers
The enthusiasm for consumer incentives may be driven by some of the same concerns. Pressures to improve preventive performance may motivate some health care organizations to induce their enrollees to become more active in their own care and health promotion activities. In some cases, it may be possible to simultaneously incent both consumers and providers towards synergistic ends. Consumers seem to be more susceptible to incentives, even modest ones. At least some patients may appreciate the attention that incentive programs represent. However, there is always a temptation to pick the low hanging fruit. The recalcitrant consumers may not be as easily swayed by incentives. The energy required to reach and persuade non-adherent patients may still be high.
* * *
Again, a sweeping statement wihout substance.
In your case, yes (you commonly do that when you disagree with something, along with “simply moving on”); anybody alive and awake will be aware that it’s commonplace for people to look first or even only to Washington rather than properly to state and local governments when they desire governmental action of various kinds, and they scoff or make ridiculous statements (“pagan god”) when referring to legitimate criticism directed at those who look to Washington.
Here’s a jump start. Go here. You’re welcome.
(Other readers will find the material of interest.)
DLS-
I’ve done my own research. Thanks, anyway.
The thing about research is that you have to b able to understand what you’re reading and to interpret it correctly. And you can’t interpret it properly by doing selective reading. By concentrating on only selected aspects, you are missing the big picture.
The forest and the trees, you know.
All your arguments (and research results) miss two important points:
1. The alternative of no such bill is far worse
2. One has to calculate implications for the fuutre.
No investment in the future=deterioration in the future.
There are good reasons why our country is in such poor health (we’re #37 or 38 on the WHO list) and the primary reason is that we’ve waited too long already to tackle ou rhealth problems while bickering and some insisting on the perfect solution before a finger is lifted to do anything at all.
The life expectancy for our children is estimatied to be shorter than the current generation.
We can either preach about federalism, personal responsiblity, and all the rest of the formulaic mantras that get you you zilch, or we can start doing something about it to ensure that we will have a healthy next generation to take over.
Let me just remind you, that every adult and child without adequate health insurance or health care us costing YOU now, and the cost is high. Every adult not working because of poor health is hurting our economy (and therefore, YOU)
I’d like to save some of my money by applying it to a very sound investment: the future of this country via a healthy citinzenry. I’d like my children and grandchildren to liive at least as long as I.
SCHIP is only a small piece of what is needed.
It’s only a start. It’s also possible it will eventually become obsolete when we finally (if ever) get our health care house in order. To balk at taiking even a small first step is short-sighted to the point of being dangerous to everyone’s health and future, IMO.
[...] Democrats are about 20 votes short of a veto-proof majority to override President Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan, which means that at least 10 Republicans — [...]