CE Week #6: “Bush hints at SCHIP compromise”
President says he’s ‘willing to work with’ Congress
|
Judy Pasternak
Los Angeles Times
October 7, 2007
WASHINGTON – President Bush indicated Saturday that he would be willing to accept a larger increase for a children’s health insurance program than the one he has proposed but defended his veto of the expansion of coverage approved by Congress.
Bush’s veto Wednesday set off an ideological battle about who holds responsibility for extending health care benefits to uninsured children: the government or the private sector.
The congressional bill would spend $60 billion over five years to expand health coverage for children of the working poor and middle-class, and it would pay for it with higher tobacco taxes. Bush has offered $30 billion, a 20 percent increase over current levels but not enough to maintain the existing enrollment in what is known as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, budget analysts say.
The program is managed by states within federal guidelines and serves about 6 million children. An estimated 9 million children remain uninsured in the U.S. The number has been rising as employers cut back coverage.
Bush’s veto led one Democratic lawmaker last week to call the president “Ebenezer Scrooge,” while a Republican pollster noted that “it will take some superb communications to persuade voters that the White House really is on the side of children’s health.”
During his weekly radio address Saturday, Bush called for a compromise but offered no specifics.
“If putting poor children first takes a little more than the 20 percent increase I have proposed in my budget for SCHIP, I am willing to work with leaders in Congress to find the additional money,” he said.
Bush earlier hinted he was open to a compromise but still has not made clear what he is willing to accept. He continued to describe the measure that he vetoed as “deeply flawed,” contending that the plan was “an incremental step toward their goal of government-run health care for every American ,” which he believes is “the wrong direction for our country.”
Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat who is the House majority leader, pointed out that most children enrolled in SCHIP receive coverage through private insurers who hold state contracts, even though the government subsidizes the benefits.
“The truth is, America’s largest private insurance lobbying group supports this bill – as do America’s doctors, nurses, children’s advocates and, most importantly 72 percent of Americans,” Hoyer said in the Democrats’ response to Bush’s address.
The current law, which remains in effect while the debate over reauthorizing it continues, covers children in families earning up to $40,000 a year, about twice the federal poverty level. But some states obtained permission to extend eligibility to families with higher incomes, and the bill would authorize states to allow households with an income of about $60,000 a year to enroll their children in SCHIP.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/07/ce-week-6-bush-hints-at-schip-compromise/trackback/
Like I said in an earlier post, I’m split on my decision about what should take place regarding the SCHIP bill. I don’t think that it is right to put a tax on tobacco when it has nothing to do with the upkeep and health of children. On the other hand these children have no way to provide for their own health care. I guess when you look at it, it is an ends justify the means topic. Is it more important that children have health care or that people can use cheaper tobacco products and possibly die of cancer as a result. When put this way the choice is simple. Tax Tobacco. It is interesting to me though how the approval for this bill is so incredibly high. One thing that upsets me about this article though is that a democratic law maker called the president “Ebenezer Scrooge.” This is uncalled for. He is trying to help the children by providing money but decided not to do it the way this lawmaker wanted him to, so he attacks him as a person. It is a childish remark and doesn’t help resolve the problem that we are facing as a country.
At first I kinda agreed with Bush on why he veto it because I didn’t hear the whole story. I jsut hear they wanted way to much money and he though he had a plan to do the same thing with less money so I agreed. But after reading this and I now see that the money comes from an increase in tobacco tax, well I just think that Bush is an idiot. Not do I support the bill because children need more health care. But I think that I would have been geat if the government raised the tax on cigarettes even higher becase then maybe people would stop smoking them. And in the mean time it would be paying for childrens health care. I would have been a win win situation. But Bush said no. I can see how Bush would say that there are flaws in the original plan.But what doesn’t have flaws honestly. I do agree that health care should be privatised or at least have the be and easy option. But like the article said that the biggest private insurance lobbyist supported the bill so that shows that it would have supported private insurance. I am glad, however, that this option would not be able to be accesed to childrend who live in houses with a 60,000 a month income because that is way to high and that would have taken away from the other children who need it more. All in all I think it should have been passed.
Oh now he is deciding that it would be a good idea to pass the bill giving children more health care. But he wont give them the 60million they are asking for he will only give them half which is a step in the right direction. This has upset congress and now they are discussing who gets to decide these benefits really. The power has always gone to the president, but when politicians don’t like a decision they question its power. Bush said that if they need more than 20 percent increase he would increase the budget, but doesn’t think we need one. This is where conservative get the wrong idea. Bush has spent like 10 billion dollars on a war, but cant give 60 million to children who need it. “We’re trying to conserve”. That a load of crap. I think the only reason he overturned his veto is to give his party a better fighting change. If this were his earlier then he wouldn’t have even considered it.
Maybe here in America we expect too much. This bill will help families earning 40,000 dollars or less. This is twice the feral poverty level. We are still trying to get even half this aid to Africa. We might need to offer it to lower income families. And really if you think about where the money is coming from its not a big deal. We don’t like tobacco anyways, its unhealthy so why don’t we charge extra for the health tax.