A Flip-Flopper’s Confession
Yes. I’m a flip-flopper. Of the first degree. Item #225 on the very long list of reasons I could never run for public office.
The latest example: The proposed (and languishing, but not yet dead) expansion of the S-CHIP program. First, I was generally in favor of it. Then, I was soundly against it. And then … the factors that prompted me to change my position were challenged by certain astute TMV readers in the back-and-forth comments attached to the October 12 “Center of Attention” feature.
So I decided to stop the lazy approach to forming an opinion on this subject (i.e., reading and borrowing the opinions of others) and do a little original homework of my own. Specifically, I decided to seek the input of Republicans who originally supported the expansion and still do, despite the President’s veto. I wanted these Republicans’ views on the matter because I thought they’d have the biggest stake in defending their position against the White House’s talking points.
It didn’t take long to find Republican Senator Pat Roberts from Kansas. The Senator is no RINO; his heritage and credentials lean solidly right:
… the son of the late Wes Roberts, Chairman of the Republican National Committee under President Dwight Eisenhower … He joined the staff of Kansas’ U.S. Senator Frank Carlson [R] in 1967. In 1969, Roberts became Administrative Assistant to First District U.S. Congressman Keith Sebelius [R]. Roberts was elected to Congress in 1980, succeeding Sebelius upon his retirement. He was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996 following the retirement of Senator Nancy Kassebaum [R] … and won re-election in 2002.
And yet, Sen. Roberts has stood up valiantly against the White House’s spin machine, attempting to set the record straight on the meat vs. mythology of the S-CHIP bill.
Of course, Roberts wasn’t the only source that eventually led me back into the fold as a supporter of the bill: Another was my own Republican Senator, Missouri’s Kit Bond; yet another was this NYT story from last week, published the day before the veto-override attempt in the House. But, as I note at Central Sanity, I think Roberts’ voice deserves special attention, given that he is not only a Republican but a member of the Senate Finance Committee that helped birth the disputed legislation.
What good does all of this do? I don’t know. But I do hope Roberts’ Republican counterparts in the House (13 of them, at least) will take note of the Senator from Kansas’s arguments, and reconsider their own positions when Speaker Pelosi and crew make another run at stiff-arming the President’s obstinance.
16 Responses to “A Flip-Flopper’s Confession”
I don’t know if you were trying to be deceptive, or you simply have been deceived yourself by what the gentleman has to say, but there’s no excuse in either case:
The real fact here is what is wrongly named as myth above. S-CHIP subsidies are being extended to employer-based insurance. Of course people will be encouraged to switch to the subsidized coverage (at public expense) rather than pay the full price!
and
and don’t forget, also,
Anybody foolish enough to believe this government program does not encourage crowd-out and is private, not public, would also probably believe (or say) that nominally private health care providers paid by Medicare and prohibited from duplicating the service outside of Medicare is “private,” too.
The bill was defective and needs to be corrected.
[...] Mine A Flip-Flopper’s Confession » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
Pete,
Bravo for dilligently researching the pros and cons.
Flip-flopping is the most valuable asset of all, when done for reasons of conscience in the face of new knowledge.
Between ages 5 and 105, a good number of flip-flops are in order.
DLS,
I will spend some additional time studying the passages you excerpted. However, a cursory review does not convince me that Sen. Roberts is wrong. To the contrary: There seem to be sufficient caveats and qualifications in the passages you excerpt to support Roberts’ claim.
Again, I will read these excerpts more carefully. In the meantime, I’d appreciate your sourcing of the same. I assume the excerpts are from the bill itself, but a link (to Thomas or whichever database you used) would be appreciated, for verification purposes.
Thanks.
DLS constantly insists on misrepresenting what the subsidy being extended means. If you read the bill you’ll find a section where it says that for those individuals who cannot afford the difference between individual coverage through their employer’s insurance plan and what is charged to cover a family (Often a substantial amount.) SCHIP will help cover the difference. How does this move someone off of private insurance?
And what is so sacred about private insurance companies anyway that if you’re going to have an imperfect program that it is more important that it protect them than sick people?
DSL wrote, as though this is somehow scandalous:
If the people in question are of modest income and coping with potentially (or actually) punishing medical expenses, so what?
The whole idea of S-CHIP is to be of help to children with medical problems and their families. It’s not about business. It’s not about profit. It’s about public service.
Hey, police and fire protection aren’t about private enterprise and profitmaking, although they help create an environment in which both stand a better chance of surviving and thriving. They’re also about public service.
This probably sounds like heresy in this period of corporate welfare queens growing fat on the public dime and administration-sponsored waste, fraud and abuse as standard operating procedure, but providing public services can be and often is a good use of taxpayers’ money.
If the program would under this new funding limit income to 200% of poverty ($42,000) then why have the Dems been pushing the idea that the limit be raised? What part of this would remove adults from coverage? If all these things are true, then why would you need more money? With States covering less people (4 states cover more adults than kids) there would be much more money for the kids already so where would the 35 billion go?
Bones_708,
As I understand it, the $35 billion (over five years, or $7 billion a year) would essentially fund the unfunded part of the program, i.e., even the existing mandate is not matched by existing funds. Yes, the expansion would also allow the states to cover more children than they do now. I don’t think anyone’s claiming they would cover fewer kids.
[...] The linked post was prompted by a story in today’s WaPo and certain comments on my TMV post yesterday re: the S-CHIP [...]
Pete since before this point they have had money for everyone they could get to sign up, there are 14? states that allow people to make over 42,000, and of course states that allow adults , some of which have no children, to enroll if the new proposal fixed all of that like that statement said then that would free up quite a bit of money. With that money and the 5 billion more Bush proposed it doesn’t seem like there would be a big problem covering kids. And of course the PR about needing to raise the income limit had nothing to do with this bill right?
I will spend some additional time studying the passages you excerpted.
Here’s a link to the entire bill (HR 976).
Note that this is somewhat but far from fully moot; a revised bill expected also to be vetoed by Bush continues to raise the income limit from 200 to 300 per cent of the poverty level, retains the tobacco tax, apparently, and may well have some of the other defects in the bill that already was vetoed (see link above).
* * *
[*sigh*]
I’m quoting from the bill itself. Why don’t you make your latest false accusation against the authors of the bill?
As I have said, they will switch from their current (fully, truly) private insurance to the publicly subsidized insurance. Can’t you read? Or do you enjoy making false statements, changing the subject, etc., as much as you do given you do so, so often?
Bones_708 and DLS,
You both raise very valid points and questions. Back to the investigation, I suppose.
I just wish there was a single, truly non-partisan group that could objectively evaluate legislative language and candidly, without bias, spell out the pro’s and con’s for all of us to see.
But then, that’s what lawyers and courts are for, I suppose … aaaaargh!
Perhaps the CBO fits the bill. Its latest analysis in this WaPo article.
HR 3963 is not yet available on Govtrack (from where I have reviwed HR 976), but here is the bill (passed the House; expected to pass the Senate) on THOMAS. (HR 3963) Here is HR 976 on THOMAS if you want to see it there rather than on Govtrack.
Bush has all but advertised in neon that he’ll go up from $5 billion to $20 billion, but the Democrats aren’t willing to really negotiate at all. Crowd-out, which is deliberately sought here (III A) is addressed by — studying the issue. The tobacco tax remains; new aid to pregnant women remains, etc. This bill also deserves to be and should be vetoed. Next time the Dems should actually choose to compromise.
(or non-ideological)
In lieu of that we need to look at the text ourselves and decide if features in the legislation is good or bad.
Agree, but that’s easier said (written) than done, DLS. I’ve been reading legislation for the better part of my adult life and I’m still often confused by the various sections and caveats and inter-related qualifiers in a complex bill, especially one like this one.
That plus very few of us — even freelance, part-time political writers — don’t have the time to invest in this type of detailed reading, not on every single issue, not even on every issue about which we have strong feelings. Yes, we can still investigate sources and opinions, which is what I’ve tried to do, but between time pressures and non-legal backgrounds, actual bill reading is an uphill battle. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but I also have to believe there’s a need for an intermediary.