As expected, President Bush vetoed the children's health insurance bill today. Also as expected, this has brought an onslaught of attacks from the left, coupled with blatant lies to back them up. Senator Harry Reid, who is quickly moving my top ten list of useless politicians, called it a "heartless veto."
"By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America," said Reid.
Before pulling out your box of tissues and weeping for the "millions of low income kids" this "heartless veto" has denied insurance, I think it is important to look into what Democrats, and the media, are not telling you about this bill.
For starters it is important to note that President Bush did not veto the SCHIP program, what he vetoed was the enormous expansion of it. President Bush had asked for a small expansion of this program from Congress, requesting an additional $5 billion over the next five years. The House's first draft of this bill authorized an additional $50 billion and covered "children" as old as 25 from families which made as much as $82,000 per year. Those numbers have since been toned down; however the final bill which was presented to President Bush requested an increase of $35 billion and would cover "children" as old as 21.
While looking at those figures also realize that, as the Wall Street Journal reported recently, this bill has what is known as a "funding cliff." The "yearly SCHIP layout increases to $13.9 billion in 2011, then abruptly cuts spending by 65% below current funding levels. This helps ‘score’ the bill as costing only $35 billion over the five-year budget window, but it also means that come 2012 Congress will either have to pass new spending or kick kids off the rolls." Meaning this five-year expansion is only funded for four years under the current legislation!
With regards to the "funding" of this expansion, it is comical how the Democrats wish to do so. Funding is expected to come from a 61 cent increase in tax on cigarettes, with Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), echoing the reason many other Dems have stated: "The tobacco tax is a great way to pay for it, because if you tax people who are smoking and they smoke less, then we have less health problems." Yes Mr. Pallone, that is true, if you increase taxes on cigarettes less people will smoke, but then who will be paying the tax? “In just five years, Congress will need over 9 million new smokers,” estimated The Heritage Foundation’s Michelle Bucci and William Beach.
President Bush has stated he is worried the expansion of the SCHIP program to children who come from families with higher income levels would inevitably lead to some children who are already covered by private insurance to be moved into the taxpayer-funded program. He is also worried that the Democrats' expansion of this bill is simply a small step towards a national health care system. I agree with him on both counts.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jason
The $80,00 claim is false and you know it. it has been discussed numerous times and Republican keep mentioning it.
FACT: New York state request to raise the threshold for those eligible up to 4 times the poverty level, $80,000, WAS REJECTED.
Republican keep claiming it as the standard when it was ONLY New York, and IT WAS REJECTED.
Liars...wanna try again
2 - King
One of the White House’s favorite talking points is that the SCHIP expansion is so overly generous, it will cover children in households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year. That’s false.
The bill maintains current law. It limits the program to children from families with incomes up to twice the federal poverty level " now $20,650 for a family of four, for a program limit of $41,300 " or to 50 percentage points above a state’s Medicaid eligibility threshold, which varies state to state.
States that want to increase eligibility beyond those limits would require approval from Bush’s Health and Human Services Department, just as they must win waivers now. The HHS recently denied a request by New York to increase its income threshold to four times the poverty level " the $82,600 figure that Republican opponents of the bill are using.
Under current law, nineteen states have won waivers from these income limits. The biggest was granted to New Jersey, which upped its income limit to 350 percent of the federal poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four in 2007. The expanded SCHIP program retains the waiver option under federal discretion; it doesn’t change it.
3 - Franco
#1 -- Jason
"The $80,00 claim is false and you know it. it has been discussed numerous times and Republican keep mentioning it."
Yes your are correct but only within the contexts for the singual point you are on purpose making.
Two important fact that you side step are......
1. The fact the New York even tried to do it shows how this system will be abused.
2. As King pointed out in post #2 in contrast to New York being rejected. "under current law, nineteen states have won waivers from these income limits. The biggest was granted to New Jersey, which upped its income limit to 350 percent of the federal poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four in 2007"
The fact the you have to attack this Ney York dollar amount yourself shows in and of itself that you see the same problems as the Republicans. What your point?
4 - Franco
Excellent Article.
Thank you for taking the time to research and point out what some unethical members Congress are really doing (that they don't want us to know) with the authority that we the people have entrusted them to do.
5 - RJ
GREAT article.
This is a perfect example of why bloggers are so important and vital to political discourse. The MSM would have never pointed out any of these facts, but would instead be content to allow Democrats to demagogue on this issue endlessly. You know, "Republicans hate poor children" and the like.
Good job, CS!
6 - RJ
"The bill maintains current law. It limits the program to children from families with incomes up to twice the federal poverty level"
Nope. Not 200% the poverty-level, 300%. Re-read the bill.
Also, 18, 19, 20, and 21-year olds are not "children" ...
7 - bliffle
Nevertheless, it IS a heartless veto.
8 - Jerry
Heartless to illegal's and Demo politicians
9 - handyguy
"I think it is important to look into what Democrats, and the media are not telling you about this bill."
Every story I've read about the Schip bill, including in such 'liberal' publications as the NY Times, has contained all the 'secrets' you 'reveal' in this superfluous article [minus the gratuitous political bashing you employ, of course]...RJ's ridiculous comment is just dead wrong.
The program will be expanded. Bush's veto was signed in a very abashed, non-public way, with appropriate overtures to Congress for a compromise.
And as noted before, the current bill is already a compromise, and according to one of its sponsors, that notorious lefty Charles Grassley, Republican of Illinois, the 300%-of-poverty-level figure would require Federal approval, state by state. The only state to ask so far, New York, was turned down.
It's a distortion and an untruth to say that this bill would raise all 50 states immediately to the $83,000 level. Stop spreading lies.
10 - Charles Signorile
To both Jason and Handyguy, Please re-read the article, I did not say that the bill President Bush vetoed would raise the income limit to $83,000. What I wrote was:
"The House's first draft of this bill authorized an additional $50 billion and covered "children" as old as 25 from families which made as much as $82,000 per year. Those numbers have since been toned down, however the final bill which was presented to President Bush requested an increase of $35 billion and would cover "children" as old as 21."
Notice I mentioned it was the initial House bill that would have allowed that, and I said "as much as $82,000", i did not say in all cases.
And Handy Guy, I do not recall ever seeing the fact that this bill does not mandate States to confirm citizenship status prior to granting benefits in any major newspaper.
11 - Devin
This bill is just the transfer of money from one poor person to another. Poor people are more likely to be smokers so they will be shouldering the burden of paying for other people's healthcare. This will still be the case in the future even if the tax gets more people to stop smoking. Sometimes, poorer smokers may even end up paying the healthcare bills of the middle class. Hey, there has got to be a better way of getting smokers to quit. Who is going to fund it in the future when the amount of smokers reduces? Why doesn't congress make cigarettes illegal if they want to reduce the amount of smokers? Its because congress won't have a revenue source. Smokers are unpopular, so taxing the hell out of them seems to appeal to the electorate. Congress has a habit of raising taxes on the poor. Why don't they raise taxes on people making over $200,000 to fund this bill? Why don't they raise taxes on flat screen televisions or million dollar mansions? It's because the poor don't vote. If you raise taxes on the middle class or the rich, then the politicians won't get elected again in the future. Its expensive to run for office. Who do you think pays for politicians to run? The wealthy of course. The whole system is stacked against the poor. This is basically a redistribution of wealth from one poor person to another. The government deems who is the more deserving poor and discriminates against another poor person that it deems undeserving. The rich meanwhile get to keep all of their money.
12 - Charles Signorile
Wow Devin I have not yet heard that argument before. I do recall reading that the poor are more likely to smoke so they will be the ones paying the increased cigarette tax, but I find it odd that it became part of your criticism of the cigarette tax hike. The cigarette tax hike would not be a "tax on the poor" as you put it. Cigarettes, much like the flat screen TV's you mentioned are a luxury item, meaning they are unnecessary. I myself am a smoker, and sometimes find myself 1 or 2 days before pay day have to choose if I should buy lunch or a pack of cigarettes (cigarettes win more often than I like).
The better argument against using the cigarette tax as a source of funding is what you started out as saying. Once the tax on cigarettes goes up there will immediately be less smokers, probably 10 to 15%. Over time more smokers will quit as the cost becomes prohibitive. At that point the revenue will dwindle and Congress will be forced to find new sources of funds. (most likely an increased income tax).
13 - Devin
Charles Signorile
Sure cigarettes are a luxury item, but people get addicted to them. Poor people may be just too poor to get any treatment for their addiction. Some poor will continue to spend money on cigarettes no matter how high the tax goes. Why not tax a luxury item that the rich disporportionately buy?
14 - Devin
And are middle class taxpayers going to favor an income tax increase to pay for schip for the poor?
15 - handyguy
We are in deficit spending every month because of Iraq, which costs more in a quarter than this bill will cost in five years. The Iraq war is the equivalent of pouring cash down a rathole. The money spent on Schip, even the contentious parts, will be used for a good purpose.
If the loudmouths who use this bill to rant about the iniquities of Democrats [and the 'liberal' MSM, ha] would instead concentrate on what's good about Schip and what would make it better, they might actually accomplish something.
Yes, it's reasonable to ask why the program should cover adults, and whether the highest income brackets being discussed are too high for some or most states. But it's not reasonable to pretend that's all there is to Schip or the expansion of it.
Ease up on the ideological rhetoric, and talk about sensible solutions.
16 - Charles Signorile
For starters, what would make it better is a mandate that States confirmed citizenship status of all applicants prior to acceptance into the program.
President Bush has stated he is willing to compromise somewhat on the money aspect of this bill, however Harry Reid says he refuses to compromise. Bush has asked Congress to increase spending by $5 billion, Congress is asking for $35 billion, their surely has to be a happy medium.
17 - Devin
"We are in deficit spending every month because of Iraq, which costs more in a quarter than this bill will cost in five years. The Iraq war is the equivalent of pouring cash down a rathole. The money spent on Schip, even the contentious parts, will be used for a good purpose."
Why does the left always use this as an argument. Yes the war is a collosal waste of money. Yes it would be better to spend it on children's healthcare. However it doesn't logically follow that because we waste money on Iraq we should support a flawed bill. Bush isn't vetoing this bill because he is against giving health insurance to poor children.
18 - Dave Nalle
Nevertheless, it IS a heartless veto.
It's not heartless, Bliffle, it's just part of the way the system works. And it's nice to see Bush using his veto so that the system DOES work. Now the bill goes back to Congress, they make some necessary cuts and when it goes back to Bush - probably still with more of an increase than he wanted, but less than there is now, he signs it. The kids who really need it still get care under the program and the taxpayer pays a little bit less.
And BTW, Devin is dead right that raising the cigarette tax is mainly a tax on the poor. Although they aren't the only smokers they do smoke more than those in higher income brackets.
Dave
19 - Clavos
"Why doesn't congress make cigarettes illegal if they want to reduce the amount of smokers?"
Because, Devin, making them illegal will not reduce the number of smokers any more than than the laws that make marijuana, cocaine, and heroin illegal reduce the numbers of drug addicts.
"Sure cigarettes are a luxury item, but people get addicted to them. Poor people may be just too poor to get any treatment for their addiction."
People can quit smoking without getting "treatment." I did, 22 years ago, after smoking for 26 years.
But, in any case there are hundreds of FREE "quit smoking" programs and "kits" offered all over the country.
Google it.
20 - Cindy D
We are in deficit spending every month because of Iraq, which costs more in a quarter than this bill will cost in five years. The Iraq war is the equivalent of pouring cash down a rathole. The money spent on Schip, even the contentious parts, will be used for a good purpose.
Period.
Bush should be in prison.
21 - Devin
"Because, Devin, making them illegal will not reduce the number of smokers any more than than the laws that make marijuana, cocaine, and heroin illegal reduce the numbers of drug addicts."
That's true, but the government is still making a profit from peoples addictions. To me that seems wrong. Sometimes addictition can be difficult to overcome.
"People can quit smoking without getting "treatment." I did, 22 years ago, after smoking for 26 years."
Well thats good that you did that. Smoking is very unhealthy and our nation would improve as a whole if everyone quit. However a lot of people do not have the will power to do it. I mean smoking is so bad for a person's health, that you would think that everyone would have quit by now. Unfortunately in the real world, people don't always act in the way society wants them to.
22 - Clavos
"I mean smoking is so bad for a person's health, that you would think that everyone would have quit by now. Unfortunately in the real world, people don't always act in the way society wants them to."
That's true, but by complaining about the government's taxing of cigarettes, you're saying that they should have the right to make themselves very sick. And since you correctly point out that many of them are poor people who cannot afford those taxes, they likely will not be able to afford their health care when they succeed in making themselves sick, so society (I.e., the government) will have to take care of them.
That is not fair to the nonsmoking taxpayers, is it?
23 - Doug Hunter
"That is not fair to the nonsmoking taxpayers, is it?"
Life's not fair. Arguments along those lines are the downfall of freedom. Since the government has taken responsibility for healthcare and the environment, everything you do to yourself and every interaction you have with the physical world is now subject to government regulation.
Today it's cigarettes and transfats, tomorrow it's meat, sugar, and going out in the sun. What's next? Will it end up like the matrix with us all encapsulated in pods 'for our own good'. Not slaves to machines of our creation but enslaved by our own fears.
Freedom to do only the 'right' things isn't really freedom at all.
24 - Clavos
Doug, I think we actually agree.
I'm saying that the government shouldn't be concerned about people too stupid (or pigheaded or weak willed) to safeguard their own health to the point of forcing the rest of us to pay for those people's healthcare.
I was responding to Devin who opined that levying a heavy tax on cigarettes was unfair to poor people, who are the majority of the people who continue to smoke.
Devin's argument (as is so often the case these days) was that the tax burden should be imposed on the wealthier people, who are better able to afford it.
25 - Baritone
The five billion that Bush requested would not be adequate to cover those now included in the program. The intent of raising the income limits to - as I heard it - three times the poverty limit or around $60000. was to include more middle income families who don't qualify for other government programs, but who also cannot afford or, for whatever reasons, cannot obtain private health insurance.
I do agree that funding the program via an additional cigarette tax is a poor choice. Why not spread it out a bit more? As suggested above include some other luxury or discretionary items -
say booze, sweets, including candies, ice cream, other snack foods and the like. Perhaps cigarettes as well. Smokers are very put upon these days. I don't smoke but know a number of people who do, and most of them are not, in fact, poor. As an aside I truly think that if some of these folks stopped smoking cold turkey, murder rates would soar. A lot of people would kill for a cigarette. (I'm only partly joking.)
Of course, I do see the expansion of SCHIP as a step toward national health care. Unlike most of you above, I see that as a good thing. I doubt that many who oppose national health care are without private coverage or perhaps have enough resources to purchase their own hospital wing. Those of us without access to health insurance - some forty million of us - see it all in a far different light.
Baritone