  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Bush Goes Down With the SCHIPPosted on Sep 25, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—This week’s showdown over children’s health insurance is the first skirmish in the new battle for universal health coverage. It is also the first confrontation between the president and Congress fought out almost entirely on terms set by the new Democratic majority. On no spending issue do Democrats have broader public support—or more Republican allies—than on expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is why they have chosen this as the issue on which they want to take their first stand. President Bush, in the meantime, has confirmed what was clear when he was governor of Texas but little noted when he first ran for president: When it comes to expanding government-sponsored health insurance for low-income kids, he is a skeptic. Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt coined a new word last week by saying that it’s “the ideologic question that we want to focus on.” He was candidly describing an administration dug into a posture that even conservative Republicans in Congress reject. On its face, Bush’s fight over SCHIP seems oddly chosen. The program provides coverage for children from families too poor to afford private insurance but not eligible for Medicaid. In many ways, it is a Republican creation. It made it through a GOP Congress in 1997 thanks to the work of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who is now furious about Bush’s veto threat. By virtually all measures, the program has achieved exactly what it promised, and at a reasonable cost. But Bush argues that the $35-billion five-year expansion of the program, worked out between the Democrats and such leading Republicans as Hatch and Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, might push too many children into government insurance. Bush wants a $5-billion expansion over five years, which the Congressional Budget Office says would eventually shove more than 1 million children off the program at a moment when the number of kids without health insurance is growing after years of decline. (That decline, by the way, was due in significant part to the success of SCHIP.) The goal of Hatch, Grassley and the Democrats is to expand the program to 10 million children from the roughly 6.6 million covered now. This battle is central to the long-term goal of universal coverage. If a proposal with broad bipartisan support that is friendly to state governments and covers the most beloved group in society—children—can’t avoid being gutted for ideological reasons, what hope is there for a larger health compromise? Bush has been here before. He now says he wants to make sure the program is limited to children from families at 200 percent of the poverty level (roughly $41,300 a year for a family of four). But as governor of Texas, he wouldn’t even go that far, seeking to limit coverage under SCHIP to families at 150 percent of the poverty line. Democrats in the Legislature finally pushed him to 200 percent. Bush was putting up his resistance in 1999, when Texas ranked second to last among states in the uninsured rate for children. Democrats feel confident in picking this fight because any presidential claim that this is a battle about fiscal responsibility (the difference between the president and Congress is roughly $6 billion a year) is belied by the president’s $200-billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan for this year alone. Democrats are arguing that 41 days of Iraq spending would provide health coverage for 10 million children each year—not a comparison the administration relishes. In theory, SCHIP expires at the end of the month. Senate Republican leaders clearly fear that the president’s expected veto would be seen as throwing children off the health insurance rolls. Therefore, they have insisted, in advance of a vote on the bill, that Democrats agree to grant a temporary extension if Congress fails to override Bush. This reduces the Democrats’ leverage, but is also a concession that Republicans know how vulnerable the administration is. There are other pressure points. If Bush won’t do business with the Democrats on a children’s health bill, he could poison efforts to renew his No Child Left Behind education program, which also expires at the end of the month. Bush needs Democratic votes for renewal because of Republican defections. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., one of the leading sponsors of the children’s health bill, could not resist arguing that “it’s a bizarre thing that a president who believes in testing kids for math does not believe in testing kids for measles and mumps.”
Democrats are placing a lot of chips on SCHIP. Only moderate Republicans and compassionate conservatives willing to challenge Bush’s veto can save their party from the president’s anti-SCHIP obsession.
Previous item: With Big Ideas Like These... Next item: Crime, Poverty and Education: It's Not Rocket Science Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
Taiwan Declares Peace on China
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Outraged, September 30, 2007 at 1:29 pm #
Laura Bush oops...Conservative Yankee:
You proved nothing. You just want to be “right”.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, September 28, 2007 at 4:10 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
103101 by Outraged on 9/27 at 6:49 pm
“Suddenly, you’re adding in child tax credits which wasn’t the point.”
The point was you stated a family of four would pay 33% of their income in taxes. I proved that statement false.
As far as your “free money” goes, the black&white;print in the tax manual says your hypothetical family IS entitled to the child tax credit.
BUT you are obviously not interested in dialogue, you are interested in winning.
Sorry to disappoint.
Report thisBy Outraged, September 27, 2007 at 6:49 pm #
RE: #102932 by Conservative Yankee on 9/27
Conservative Yankee,
We could go on all day about hypothetical families. However, I am not wrong about the EITC which was the original issue. Suddenly, you’re adding in child tax credits which wasn’t the point. Which if I remember correctly, is an option only if you can deduct child care. Kind of a misnomer.
Either way, my point was that just because you qualify for a “benefit” or “credit” doesn’t mean you walk away with all this FREE money. It just doesn’t work that way. It’s a sham used quite often by these programs. In reality what the recipients actually receive in minimal. This is why I say, I like to see the fine print, FIRST.
Report thisBy David277, September 27, 2007 at 7:29 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
So what??? As long as he controls the military he controls the country. When will people wake up??? Bush thinks he is nudging history by setting fire to the Middle East. This man could not care less what happens to anyone in the present. He cares what people will think about him in 200 years!!!! So all the current suffering of millions is a small price to pay, for him, for a better world 200 years from now!!!! The man is clearly insane and, by Democratic party standards, should be revered and his every wish granted. Damn Democratic cowards. Impeach the cheerleader, save the world.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, September 27, 2007 at 4:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
You are incorrect. BUT my figures were also wrong. The line 36 exclusion is for income eligibility only. the limit for a joint return filing is 110,000 when filing jointly. (see page 42 question one) After completing the worksheet on page 43, it turns out that the “child tax credit (recorded on line 53 of the 1040) is equal to the tax owed, not excessive of it. Your hypothetical family pays no income tax at the federal level, and (in my State) no State tax.
I apologize for my error, it has been many many years since I took the child credit.
Report thisBy Outraged, September 26, 2007 at 9:35 pm #
RE: Conservative Yankee
Sorry, I forgot to add this to the other post.
“Taxable income” is not the same as the income amount used for EITC purposes, which is “adjusted income” wouldn’t it be more FAIR if it WAS.
The income amount used for EITC purposes is every single dollar that could possibly slip through your fingers this year with deductions for things that at your income you could never afford to have.
Report thisBy Outraged, September 26, 2007 at 9:12 pm #
RE: #102734 by Conservative Yankee on 9/26
“Actually your hypothetical 40k family with four personal deductions (assuming no mortgage payment, or private health care deductions gets taxed on the basis of a $16,500 income”
Conservative Yankee
EITC is calculated BEFORE calculating the deductions for personal exemptions. On the 1040A form (2006) the adjusted gross income is Line 22, which is the income used for EITC purposes. The income deduction for personal exemptions is taken AFTER that. So assuming no other adjustments, like person health plans and the like. The income used would be the $38,000 I had originally stated and now that I’ve actually checked, they would get a whopping $5.00. Makes you want to cry.
Report thisBy Kanawah, September 26, 2007 at 9:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The proposed program is a step in the right direction. I agree with several cementers, that single payer insurance for EVERYONE is the best answer. The present system is, as a former Marine friend would put it, is a total ‘CLUSTER F%$#’
Bushies planned veto is about o par for the neoCONs.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, September 26, 2007 at 9:18 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
#102702 by Outraged on 9/26 at 7:14 am
“The 18% tax rate you state doesn’t take into account state or local taxes which vary widely. Wyoming having no state income tax whereas other states may be the highest in the union. Remember, tax freedom day is May 15, the day most people actually get to start keeping what they earn.”
“As for the EITC, this credit is available to those with a family of four at an income of up to roughly $38,000. Sounds great, right? Not really, what is the actually monetary value of the credit at that income level, five bucks? Probably something like that. Since this too is distributed incrementally. It usually isn’t worth the paperwork or the headache, ibprofen costs less.”
Actually your hypothetical 40k family with four personal deductions (assuming no mortgage payment, or private health care deductions gets taxed on the basis of a $16,500 income having 23,500 in Federal deductions (assuming filing jointly and no child care expenses, privately held health insurance, or deductible business expenses.)
At these figures the family pays (using 2006 rates 1,724 in Federal tax, 725 in State tax (assuming a Maine income) BUT they get back $4,174 in EITC for the two children so their real income turns out to be $41,725 AFTER taxes.
I am not arguing that these folks are rich, But they are doing OK. I also admit one uninsured accident could wipe them out, and garnish their wages for years to come.
Report thisBy Outraged, September 26, 2007 at 7:14 am #
RE: #102672 by Conservative Yankee on 9/26
“I actually favor universal single-payer health insurance for all Americans. Unfortunately while I would agree with you that it would be nice to insure all children, this action would take the pressure off finding a solution for EVERYONE.”
-----
I agree. In fact this plan, SCHIP calls itself medicare however in most states HMO’s will be used to administer it. They’ll then turn around and say “See how expensive it was to insure just the children, we could never do that for EVERYONE”. Again we’ll be going ‘round and round.
The 18% tax rate you state doesn’t take into account state or local taxes which vary widely. Wyoming having no state income tax whereas other states may be the highest in the union. Remember, tax freedom day is May 15, the day most people actually get to start keeping what they earn.
As for the EITC, this credit is available to those with a family of four at an income of up to roughly $38,000. Sounds great, right? Not really, what is the actually monetary value of the credit at that income level, five bucks? Probably something like that. Since this too is distributed incrementally. It usually isn’t worth the paperwork or the headache, ibprofen costs less.
So to hear that all these programs are “available” or that you are “eligible” doesn’t mean much. This holds true for every single “social” benefit out there. They normally do help those TOTALLY without but they do little if any thing at all for those who are struggling.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, September 26, 2007 at 3:35 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“A family of four making approx $40,000 a year translates to two $10.00 an hour workers full time. That’s roughly $800 a week between the two of them. Deduct 33% for taxes, and that’s a weekly total of $536.00. So the monthly AVAILABLE income for this family of four would be roughly $2100.00. Easily this could be eaten up in housing, food, clothing, electric, gas, water, phone, vehicles, and the fuel for them.”
While I suggest a 33% tax bill for a family of four making 40K a year using 2 wage earners, and assumedly you are speaking of two dependent children My math tells me that this family would pay 18% in taxes. When factoring in EITC it will be less. Additionally, where this family to expend money on medical care bringing their after tax and medical below 30k they are eligible for (in my State) Heating assistance, food stamps, and Dirigo Choice free medical care for all unemployed adults, and all children.
I actually favor universal single-payer health insurance for all Americans. Unfortunately while I would agree with you that it would be nice to insure all children, this action would take the pressure off finding a solution for EVERYONE.
Programs for “the poor” (however you define this status) are notoriously short-lived. One of the reasons Social Security and Medicare have lasted as long as they have is because EVERYONE (regardless of income) benefits.
When watching Chris Reeves family go from rich to middle class (even though they had “health insurance")should make anyone who “owns” anything terrified. The government has removed the medical restriction, and if you own medical bills in excess of $25k, the owners of your debt can attach your house, sell your “luxuries” (like that second car) and put your adjustable rate mortgage at a point where no one who could afford it would want it.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opposed to the insurance for children plan… I just want it for all, and if we lose the children and the old folks, to competing plans, the rest of us will wait till the 9trillion dollar debt is paid before we get ours.....and I won’t live that long.
Report thisBy Outraged, September 25, 2007 at 11:58 pm #
RE: #102510 by Conservative Yankee on 9/25
“The SCHIP proposal goes well beyond the care of poor children. The proposal needs some minor tinkering with income levels before being deserving of support.”
-----
Conservative Yankee:
All this program does is make it available to children who live at or below the 200% poverty line. It isn’t necessarily FREE for families with incomes above the poverty line. More likely the plan will offer those with incomes of 125% to 200% above the poverty line an option they can’t afford. They like to set these plans up in this way because the states are then given the money in the form of “block grants”. If the funds in the block grants are not “used” the state, county or city can allocate these funds for “other purposes”. (Like a city golf course for those who don’t need it) Which would be fine if the “unused” funds were actually NOT NEEDED.
However, after that pig Tommy Thompson ran HHS the premium requirements for families were set so out of reach that only the most destitute (those who get it free) normally receive benefits. Those that qualify for the coverage above destitution are required to pay premiums. These premiums for the most part are too high priced to afford at the wages of the would be participants. These premiums rise incrementally as a participant’s income rises. States normally endorse these plans NOT out of the goodness of their hearts (course they’ll tout that they do come election time) but because the “extra cash” for special interests groups makes them look good.
A family of four making approx $40,000 a year translates to two $10.00 an hour workers full time. That’s roughly $800 a week between the two of them. Deduct 33% for taxes, and that’s a weekly total of $536.00. So the monthly AVAILABLE income for this family of four would be roughly $2100.00. Easily this could be eaten up in housing, food, clothing, electric, gas, water, phone, vehicles, and the fuel for them. This doesn’t give them any EXTRA money for “amenities” like health coverage. Remember, this income has to cover expenses for four people. Even when you hear that they give “allowances/deductions” for the cost of utilities and the like, take it with a grain of salt. One of their favorite dirty tricks is to say we give “ALLOWANCES”, and take utility bills into “consideration”. The translation is: say, a utility bill for this family is $175.00 mo. on a budgeted plan with the utility co., these programs like to transfer that to a $40.00 “allowance”.
I personally won’t believe there is any “extra” benefit to SCHIPS until I’ve read the fine print. This is the reason why so many cities are deteriorating in one area and the burbs are flourishing. Much of the money meant to help the poor is being funneled to the middle class, but don’t forget they still get to blame those poor people for not “utilizing” ALL THOSE GOVERNMENT FUNDS.
Report thisBy thomas billis, September 25, 2007 at 7:26 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
People wake up it is the cigarette tax the Congress wants to use to pay for it.I am sure the Cigarette lobby has the Pres ear.It has nothing to do with the merits of the program as shown by the wide spectrum of political support.It is Bush kow towing to the cigarette lobby.I will make a wager that if the Democrats were willing to pass the bill and just make whatever it costs become part of the federal debt Bush would not only sign it he would claim he came up with idea.
Report thisBy DennisD, September 25, 2007 at 5:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Democrats feel confident in picking this fight”
EJ, who’s kidding who. The Democrats will roll over just as they have for everything else. It’s become a conditioned reflex for them. Pavlov’s dogs, all.
Report thisBy Brooklynbrenda, September 25, 2007 at 4:13 pm #
I Live in small town upstate NY...Our local hospital used to get Hill-Burton but whatever program ran it was ended at least 3 or more years ago…
How do I know you might wonder? We have been paying off a 10 thousand dollar (yes $10,000) bill for a nail in my husbands foot.
Report thisBy purplewolf, September 25, 2007 at 3:57 pm #
Cyrena are you serious, and I am sure you are correct, that those idiots in office were actually discussig hip-hop lyrics.WHO PUT THE COKE IN THE KOOL-AID.
I GOT A SONG FOR THEM FROM THE GROUP-SNAP-BESIDES THEIR FAMOUS “I GOT THE POWER IN ME” THE ONE I AND MANY OF MY FRIENDS WANT TO DO JUST LIKE THE SONG,"WHOOP UPSIDE THE HEAD,WHOOP UPSIDE THE HEAD” SOMETHING HAS TO KNOCK SOME SENSE INTO THESE MORONS IN CONGRESS.AND I HAVE THE BALL BAT TO DO IT WITH.
Report thisBy cyrena, September 25, 2007 at 12:59 pm #
#102588 by mary
• I say let him VETO the bill and let the existing bill expire. It’s time for Americans to feel the pain this admin is capable of. What do you think will happen to all those soldiers returning home with serious injuries. There won’t be healthcare for them either. I just heard Wolf Blitzer pummel Nancy Palozi with Rep talking points. This is how these thugs get away with all their crap......
Mary, I’m inclined to agree with you, (about letting him VETO the bill, and even allowing the existing one to expire). EXCEPT, we already KNOW what the pain these Thugs are capable of!! And, the ones that don’t know, don’t care. People dying in the streets? They don’t care. Kids dying in the streets? Same thing. They have proven over and over again, that they do not care. So, while I would have said something like that 6 years ago, or maybe even 4 years ago, (let him veto it) we now know what would happen. More kids dying in the streets.
And, we’ve been killing, maiming, and otherwise disabling our troops for over 5 years now, and there’s not been any medical care for them on their return. (Walter Reed’s are duplicated all over the country) NO HELP for them, if they return in anything other than a box. (even then, we have to go pick them up at the air freight terminal building, just ask Cindy Sheehan…that’s how her son Casey came home).
As for Nancy Pelosi being pummeled with Republican talking points…well, I think that’s her fault for being a republican in democratic clothing. (no matter how well tailored it might be). Nancy has already sold her soul, (and the rest of us down the river) long ago.
Meantime, why wasn’t she on the Hill with the rest of Congress today, discussing the most important issue to the people of the US. – THE LYRICS TO HIP-HOP MUSIC. Yep, that’s what’s on the agenda for today.
Purplewolf,
EXCELLENT commentary!! How about we just save one week of war profits, and use that to provide health care, for he entire country. Then we can take 2 weeks of war profits, (which come from the taxpayers) and use that to educate the entire country for K-12, and a whole month of saving our money, (that would otherwise be spent killing and destroying) and we’d be able to give everybody else at least a 4 year university education on top of that!
Gee, imagine the possibilities. We’d have people trained to actually provide all of the services that we need!!! Imagine that!!!
Report thisBy mary, September 25, 2007 at 12:33 pm #
Just when you think this guy can’t do any more damage, he comes up with another lie that will rally the Rep Party and the American People will pay the price. I say let him VETO the bill and let the existing bill expire. It’s time for Americans to feel the pain this admin is capable of. What do you think will happen to all those soldiers returning home with serious injuries. There won’t be healthcare for them either. I just heard Wolf Blitzer pummel Nancy Palozi with Rep talking points. This is how these thugs get away with all their crap......
Report thisBy JEP, September 25, 2007 at 10:48 am #
Anyone else appalled at the way Bush openly and proudly trumpets his logic that this SCHIP program keeps people from buying health insurance from one or another of his bubbas in the insurance and HMO industry?
It is so far beyond critical mass, Bush doesn’t care if his “compassionate conservative” Big Lie #174 remains in the wounded psyches of his own Republican lemmings.
Protecting the economic rights of billionaires over the very well being of the most innocent and needful members of our society has become the hallmark of this neocon era in American politics.
Report thisBy hark, September 25, 2007 at 10:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m betting on the Democrats caving in, as they always do, and Bush winning yet another political victory, at the expense of our nation’s children. Disgusting.
Report thisBy purplewolf, September 25, 2007 at 8:25 am #
Thirty five billion dollars over a 5 year period is 7 billion dollars a year for this coverage.We are spending 4 billion dollars a week on Iraq. This would take away less than 2 weeks worth of $$ from Iraq and it would actually be 12.25 days away from his war money and not the 41 days as stated in this article,must be a typo(14-41).Anyone who places more importance on destroying the health of others, as Bush more than has proven in the past,all his war victims are well aware of, would be mean spirited enough to deny health care to the poor.All the while claiming to fight for that right for people in other conutries at our expense. What a hypocrite.
Congress needs to do the same back to his 200 billion dollar demand for more destruction $$-deny it.
Report thisBy Jim Goodson, September 25, 2007 at 6:55 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Mr. President, We need more healthy children to send off to war, so your grand children will not be required.
Report thisBy JEP, September 25, 2007 at 6:11 am #
What part of “compassionate conservative” does this fall under?
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, September 25, 2007 at 4:33 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
This is sure a red flag issue, and anytime someone says “children need” it gets all the warm human juices flowing.
Although I am a conservative on fiscal spending, I would conceed that children should have health care, and that if their families are unable to afford it, the US community should subsidize this project. Forget the “humanity” it is cheaper to pay for children’s regular check-ups, vaccinations, and minor illness, than it is to wait and pick-up astronomical bills later… cause what is left out of this argument (on both sides) is really sick children are cared for in Hill-Burton hospitals when hospital care is incicated, as in serious illness.
BUT
The SCHIP proposal goes well beyond the care of poor children. The proposal needs some minor tinkering with income levels before being deserving of support.
Report thisBy KISS, September 25, 2007 at 4:33 am #
Not to worry Bush’s veto will stand up to the pressure because there are too many Bush dogs to help him. The dimmos are so fragmented and the repugs will look good to their constituents come election time.
Report thisAll those tough dimmo’s that were elected on promises of going after Bush are long gone...hiding and obeying the Texas Turd.
And all of pol’s doing the bidding of their corporate bosses...of the corporation,by the corporation and for the corporation.
Life is good in the Fascist Republic of Amerika.
By waxman, September 25, 2007 at 4:17 am #
HEALTHCARE FOR CHILDREN IS VERY IMPORTANT..IT MAY KEEP THEM FROM BECOMING ALCHOLICS LIKE PRESIDENT BUSH...THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU VETO THE BILL…
Report this