First A 12-Year-Old And His Family Were Attacked For Opposing Bush’s Kids’ Health Insurance Veto

Posted by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief in Health, Politics.
Oct 16th, 2007 | 56 responses

And now the Democrats have highlighted a 2-old and her family — so they are under the same kind of attack.

21st Century Politics 101: If they oppose you on an issue, they must be discredited and taken out… Debate on the issue? Issue shmissue…

56 Responses to “First A 12-Year-Old And His Family Were Attacked For Opposing Bush’s Kids’ Health Insurance Veto”

1. C Stanley says:

   October 17, 2007 at 9:52 pm

   OK, I just realized I erred in my calculations- because although it works out as a 20% increase in the first year if you average the total proposed increase, each year would then have to build on that new baseline.

   So, Jim- you are probably more correct than I am on the amount of increase (but it’s late so I’ll have to think it over again in the morning). In that case, I’d agree that a 4% annual increase is not enough. Still, those opposing Bush should not characterize his proposal as a cut, just an increase that isn’t enough to keep pace with the rising costs.
2. Jim Satterfield says:

   October 18, 2007 at 6:08 am

   An increase that does not allow for inflation will in fact cut the number of children covered. So it is a cut, just not one in absolute dollars.
3. C Stanley says:

   October 18, 2007 at 6:45 am

   It’s still misleading to state it that way, Jim. Look at Kim’s comments- she wasn’t even aware that Bush was proposing a 20% increase in absolute dollars. It’s understandable how people could miss that if they aren’t listening to Bush’s addresses where he states this, because the way it’s being reported is as a cut.
4. C Stanley says:

   October 18, 2007 at 6:56 am

   Oh, and I’m glad I didn’t completely concede your point about the 4% per year anyway. The reason I thought that seemed wrong to begin with is that I knew that you can’t find the annual rate of increase by taking the mean of the 5 year rate- it doesn’t work that way.

   I can’t remember the formula that would get to that number (and don’t have a calculator anyway, and I know it involves an nth root function). But in doing some trial and error, I found that the annual rate of a 5 billion/5 year increase is definitely above 4%. It seems to be somewhere between 6 and 7 %, which is close to the numbers I’ve seen for annual inflation rate of healthcare costs (I’m guessing that’s how they arrived at the proposal).

   So no, even in real terms his proposal is not a cut.
5. Jim Satterfield says:

   October 18, 2007 at 8:09 pm

   From the CBO study of the Bush administration’s 2008 budget proposal:

   A total of 7.4 million people were enrolled in SCHIP at
   some point during 2006. Under the baseline funding
   level of $5 billion per year, CBO estimates that the program’s enrollment would remain at 7.4 million in 2007 and then decline to 5.6 million by 2012. CBO estimates that, under the President’s proposal, enrollment would reach 8.3 million people in 2007 and then fall to 6.7 million by 2012.

   Yes, it’s a cut tempered by a temporary increase in the number of people covered. But the long run would still see a reduction from current coverage.
6. C Stanley says:

   October 19, 2007 at 6:54 am

   Jim,
   I’d have to see more of the context of that. There are some shifts being made of some kids who are currently covered under SCHIP being transferred to Medicare (I think in both the Senate plan and the president’s proposal), so just comparing 7.4 kids now to 6.7 later doesn’t necessarily mean that more kids will be left without coverage.

   There’re also some childless adults presently covered by some states that got waivers to do that, and the president’s plan includes phasing them out of the program since the priority will be on covering poor children.