Bush vetoes expansion of child healthcare

[ScreamingEagle]

Chalk one up for GWB.

The Democrats are in their element (going beserk) on this one -- the poor little children you know...even though the bill would have extended the definition of "poor" children into the middle class families making $83,000 a year.

By LARRY LIPMAN
Cox News Service
Published on: 10/03/07

WASHINGTON — Setting the stage for a showdown with Congress, President Bush on Wednesday vetoed a $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Bush said the veto was necessary because the bill represented a move "to federalize health care."

Democrats in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail immediately vowed they would try to override what they called a "heartless" veto of the popular program.

But the Democratic-led Congress put off an override vote for about two weeks, to give them more time to pressure GOP members seen as politically vulnerable.

The Senate passed the five-year expansion of SCHIP last week on a vote of 67-29 — just above the two-thirds margin needed to override a veto — but the House tally of 265-159 was 25 votes short of that mark.

Besides winning broad bipartisan support in Congress, the bill had been praised by a broad range of interest groups, including some that normally oppose each other such as the health advocacy group Families USA and the insurers' group America's Health Insurance Plans.

The program is likely to continue to operate across the country, at least temporarily, because it is jointly funded by the states.

In his veto message, Bush noted that Congress originally intended SCHIP to help children in low-income families that earned too much to qualify for Medicaid. But the new bill, Bush said, would cover children from some families earning nearly $83,000 a year.

"In addition, under this bill, government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children,"

Bush wrote.

The president also objected to the bill's financing, which would have increased the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

Speaking later in Pennsylvania to the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce, Bush described the confrontation over SCHIP as a "philosophical divide."

"I happen to believe that what you're seeing when you expand eligibility for federal programs is the desire by some in Washington, D.C. to federalize health care," Bush said.

But in a departure from his previous position, Bush indicated a willingness to spend more money on the program.

"If they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children, I'm more than willing to sit down with the leaders and find a way to do so," he said.

Bush had proposed that over the next five years the amount spent on SCHIP be increased by $5 billion, to a total of $30 billion. The bill he vetoed would have increased federal spending to a five-year total of $60 billion, and added 4 million children to the 6.6 million now covered.

Democratic congressional leaders slammed the president's veto.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada called the veto "heartless."

"President Bush is a one-man axis of evil," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., chairman of one of the House subcommittees that helped write the bill. "I am disgusted by his veto of a bipartisan compromise that would have provided care to nearly 4 million uninsured children."

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said Bush "has robbed nearly 4 million uninsured children of the chance for a healthy start in life and the health coverage they need but can't afford."

Even some prominent Republicans joined the chorus. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said supporting the health bill "is the morally right thing to do" and that he hoped Bush's veto could be overridden.

But House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio vowed that Republicans would muster enough votes to sustain the veto and urged Democrats to join them in fashioning a new bill that focused on the needs of low-income children.

And from the Republican campaign trail, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he agreed with the president.

"This legislation — while well-intentioned — took the wrong approach. The Democrat SCHIP expansion bill would take children out of private insurance and put them into government insurance. It was a flawed approach. The right course is to get all children and all citizens insured with private,
market-based health insurance," Romney said.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/10/03/SCHIP04_COX.html

 

[jasendorf]

President Bush to Democrats:

"Hey dummies! Seniors vote... so we gave them billions in Medicare drugs! Kids don't vote... so I vetoed it. Duh. Nyah-nyah!"

 

[ScreamingEagle]

President Bush to Democrats:

"Hey dummies! Seniors vote... so we gave them billions in Medicare drugs! Kids don't vote... so I vetoed it. Duh. Nyah-nyah!"

Democrats to Public:

"Wah, wah! Bush is such a tight-fisted meanie. He hates little kids. He only wants to increase the health program for poor kids by only 5 billion instead of the 30 billion we want so we can also pay for the health care of "poor" little children whose parents "only" make $80k per year."

[aka back-door socialism]

 

[ReillyT]

Democrats to Public:

"Wah, wah! Bush is such a tight-fisted meanie. He hates little kids. He only wants to increase the health program for poor kids by only 5 billion instead of the 30 billion we want so we can also pay for the health care of "poor" little children whose parents "only" make $80k per year."

[aka back-door socialism]

That $80,000 is so misleading as to be meaningless. First, states help determine the threshhold, and $80,000 in NYC is a great deal different than somewhere in Iowa. Second, and more importantly, the threshold depends on how many children the family has. I believe that the higher dollar thresholds apply to families with 3 and 4 kids, which is a great deal different than a 1 child household.

Also, I think the $80,000 figure is actually wrong. It was $70,000+ that was suggested, but that figure was ultimately rejected anyway.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That $80,000 is so misleading as to be meaningless. First, states help determine the threshhold, and $80,000 in NYC is a great deal different than somewhere in Iowa. Second, and more importantly, the threshold depends on how many children the family has. I believe that the higher dollar thresholds apply to families with 3 and 4 kids, which is a great deal different than a 1 child household.

Also, I think the $80,000 figure is actually wrong. It was $70,000+ that was suggested, but that figure was ultimately rejected anyway.

Why would employers continue to provide health care to workers who can get it from the state because their family "only" makes three times the poverty level?

 

[ReillyT]

Why would employers continue to provide health care to workers who can get it from the state because their family "only" makes three times the poverty level?

Well, if they knew that there employees were going to accept government health care instead of employer-sponsored health care, then it wouldn't matter if they offered it or not. A better question is how many people would take the government subsidized health care that are now utilizing employer-subsidized health care. Here are some excerpts from different sources on that particular question.

Claim: The bill is aimed at "taking children who are currently insured by private insurance and moving them to government insurance." -- Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt

This "crowd-out" risk is real and inevitable in a public insurance program. The CBO estimates that of 5.8 million children who gain public coverage, 2 million -- 35 percent -- would otherwise have had private insurance. The effect is higher, 50 percent, for the 1.2 million newly eligible enrollees. The question is whether, given the growing ranks of uninsured children -- almost 1 million in the past two years -- this unavoidable result is worth the increase in coverage. We believe it is.

Editorial of WP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001208.html

Still, one might think that a crowd-out rate of one-third is too much. However, Bush apparently is not of that opinion with respect to his own proposal, which is tax-incentive based.

Bush is correct that some "crowd-out" of private insurance would occur as parents seek more comprehensive or affordable coverage: the CBO calculates that in addition to the nearly 4 million uninsured kids the final bill would cover, it would also cause another 2 million children with access to private coverage to switch to public plans. That means about one-third of the bill's spending would benefit kids who have, or could obtain, private insurance.

That sounds inefficient, but every effort to expand access inevitably diverts some benefits to people with insurance. Bush, for instance, is touting tax incentives as the best way to increase coverage. But the independent Lewin Group has calculated that Bush's proposal would provide 80% of its benefits to people who already are insured -- and half to families earning $75,000 or more.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brownstein26sep26,0,3879518.column?coll=la-opinion-columnists

Anyway, if this issue must be debated, let this help frame the debate. If crowd-out is inevitable, then what will we accept in order to insure several million children?

 

[Shogun]

why wouldnt capitolists who, otherwise, look to reduce expendatures for businesses be upset about a program that takes providing health care for employees out of their realm of cost?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

A bill that says a family is eligible for three times the poverty level means that a family of four, with two children, earning $61,332 would be eligible for CHIP.

This means that lots of middle class kids could be put on welfare [aka socialized medicine].

Health care welfare help should be appropriately doled out to the states according to what a family actually needs in that particular state...$61k in most states is middle class income, in places like NYC maybe that's considered poverty level, I don't know.

And by the way, who is making a regular $30-60k per year without getting any health benefits from their job? Maybe they need to move or change jobs.

 

[ReillyT]

A bill that says a family is eligible for three times the poverty level means that a family of four, with two children, earning $61,332 would be eligible for CHIP.

This means that lots of middle class kids could be put on welfare [aka socialized medicine].

Health care welfare help should be appropriately doled out to the states according to what a family actually needs in that particular state...$61k in most states is middle class income, in places like NYC maybe that's considered poverty level, I don't know.

And by the way, who is making a regular $30-60k per year without getting any health benefits from their job? Maybe they need to move or change jobs.

I don't know if the legislation is tailored to different regions. It is a federal-state partnership, so perhaps it is. I just don't know.

SCHIPs isn't socialized medicine. It is a health care insurance scheme. The doctor and hospital you would go to would still be private.

Fewer and fewer employers are providing good (or any) medical insurance benefits. It is a huge expense, and if employees could readily switch jobs to obtain better benefits, I am sure that they would.

 

[jillian]

I don't know if the legislation is tailored to different regions. It is a federal-state partnership, so perhaps it is. I just don't know.

SCHIPs isn't socialized medicine. It is a health care insurance scheme. The doctor and hospital you would go to would still be private.

Fewer and fewer employers are providing good (or any) medical insurance benefits. It is a huge expense, and if employees could readily switch jobs to obtain better benefits, I am sure that they would.

The way the law existed was that the states administered the federal funds in the way they determined appropriate.

I figure we should be able to get the same coverage as congress voted for themselves. I wonder why SE isn't whining about THEM being on welfare.

 

[midcan5]

President Bush to Democrats: "Hey dummies! Seniors vote... so we gave them billions in Medicare drugs! Kids don't vote... so I vetoed it. Duh. Nyah-nyah!"

How true. Seniors get care regardless of income but children NO! And Shogun's point is applicable too. Business constantly complains, and either denies or raises employee costs.

 

[Shogun]

if employers can remove health care from their realm of cost who cares if it comes from the government? I dont care that its the government that pays for firefighters and cops either.

I wonder if the capitolists could step away from giving cuba the evil eye and consider the trickle down (HA!) reprocussions that they might find tasty rather than stubbornly refuse to budge on this issue.