Thanks For The Headline, Bush
Tweet
It’s one of those that kind of sums up this whole horrible presidency.
Bush: No Deal On Children’s Health Plan.
President Bush yesterday rejected entreaties by his Republican allies that he compromise with Democrats on legislation to renew a popular program that provides health coverage to poor children, saying that expanding the program would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance.
Apparently "compassionate conservatism" doesn’t apply to children, either.
27 Responses to “Thanks For The Headline, Bush”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
saying that expanding the program would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance.
Does it get any clearer than that?
Fucker.
Ah, but as we all know from the teachings of Dugger the Wise, it is severely immoral to make sure children are healthy at the trivial expense of all taxpayers. After all, if only a single one of those taxpayers would personally prefer that all those children suffer and die needlessly, then his wishes should be honored, and his money not used for such a cruel and capricious purpose as having fewer sick children in our nation.
That said, is it possible that Bush is consciously trying to make himself look like as big an asshole as possible for the good of the Party? Whoever wins the R nomination it seems to me the only way they could possibly win in ’08 is by convincingly being the opposite of Bush, a cause which is only helped by him consciously being a bigger and bigger bastard. Cutting healthcare for kids, cutting VA benefits, objecting to minor pay raises for soldiers fighting in Iraq, objecting to ever getting them out of Iraq under any circumstance, killing government funding of stem-cell research, Terri Schiavo… wow but the list does go on though doesn’t it?
Jesus tap dancing Christ! Bush is well… a “unique” person.
Rex,
I kinda agree with you, but I believe he is a narcissist and these asshole moves are just who he is as a person. Secondly, I can’t see where the candidates are SEPARATING from this man. It is probably why None of the above is the leading candidate.
So much for a culture of life.
IMO, the first candidate for president that says the x-billion per week the Iraq war is eating would cover health care for every kid and youth under 18, and we need to choose our priorities will will the White House in ’08.
This love the terra / hate the troops BS the Repugs are holding over Dems’ heads like the sword of Damocles is a total scam.
It’s as bad as the “Howard Deam is too crazy to elect — pick John Kerry” baloney / helpful advice that the Dems stupidly took as if it came down on stone tablets.
It’s as transparently awful as the “advice” the GOP wurlitzer and chorus warned pre-convention Dems about in ’04, that if they criticized the Bush admin, people would think Dems were pessimistic and not down with the wholesome One Ring to Rule Them All and in the Darkness Bind Them vision of democracy that the people really really wanted during “wartime”.
He’s extra-consevative on the compassion these days, unless you’re an insurance corporation or other GOParasite.
I can’t wait to hear Dugger/Frank/Mike/Farris explain why this is a good thing.
2009 cannot get here soon enough.
…would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance.
So. the role of the federal government is to enlarge the expense of private insurance?
It’s called dealmaking. Democrats announce they want to increase the program by $35 billion. Bush threatens veto if the increase is over $5 billion. One month later, both parties emerge from the smoke-filled back rooms to announce a compromise somewhere around a $15-20 billion increase which, oddly enough, is exactly what the CBO perscribes as keeping pace with inflation.
And that concludes today’s lecture on Negotiation 101.
Wasn’t Dugger also the one arguing that we have highest infant mortality in poor Southern communities because the doctors in rural Mississippi try to save marginal babies more than they would in countries with better infant mortality, like South Korea and Denmark? Conservatives put ideology over reality every day of the week. Reason #1 why they can’t be trusted to govern.
It’s called sacrificing children for the RepubliConTarian ideology. Since when did Bush ever give a damn about children, the poor or deficit spending?
It’s called dealmaking.
And he killed it anyway. Way to go.
Was SaveFarris the only one to read the item.
“The president said he objects on philosophical grounds to a bipartisan Senate proposal to boost the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has proposed $5 billion in increased funding and has threatened to veto the Senate compromise and a more costly expansion being contemplated in the House.”
Bush is proposing a spending increase. Did any of you get that? Do you understand the meaning of ‘boost’. What you are trying to say is that you are offended that Bush is merely ‘significantly’ increasing the size of this federal program rather than ‘astronomically’ increasing it. And guess what boobinskeys, the money doesn’t come from Bush or Congress but from American workers.
Was SaveFarris the only one to read the item.
Perhaps so. Apparently you didn’t bother. From the article:
A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the program would require about $14 billion in new money over five years — on top of the current $5 billion in annual funding — merely to keep covering the same number of children, in part because of rising health-care costs.
Yes, it’s a greater number of nominal dollars, but there’s something signifigant to consider when you’re talking about health care costs. It’s called inflation.
If the program needs an additional $14 billion just to keep up with inflation, but Mr. Bush wants to give it $9 billion less than it needs, that’s a cut in the program!
What you are trying to say is that you are offended that Bush is merely ‘significantly’ increasing the size of this federal program rather than ‘astronomically’ increasing it.
No, no, no! He may be increasing the number of dollars for the program, but the number of clients covered will be cut under Mr. Bush’s plan.
Philosophical grounds. The philosophy being private enterprise > actual people.
Quaker, The WH doesn’t agree with CBO. “Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt, accompanying Bush yesterday, said: “We disagree with that number (your $14B).”
And Bush vetoed a $35B increase. Using your own numbers, that would seem to indicate $21B increase in scope.
Not that it matters, but Bush has been a big spender and
I think Farris is right. A deal will be reached between the Pres and Congress and it probably will be near $14B. Congress is threatening $50B.
I think Bush is right here. I’m glad to see him do something conservative.
And Bush vetoed a $35B increase. Using your own numbers, that would seem to indicate $21B increase in scope.
Do you ever cease dodging the question? I conveniently posted your remark I was addressing. You wrote:
Bush is proposing a spending increase. Did any of you get that? Do you understand the meaning of ‘boost’.
Yes, the proposal Mr. Bush opposes is an increase in the program. But you weren’t talking about that–you were talking about the $5 bil Mr. Bush supports.
The CBO says that will not sustain the program at current levels. Mr. Leavitt says he disagrees with the CBO’s figure, but the report doesn’t say if he offers a different figure. (It’s entirely possible–given the track record of Bush appointees for gross bamboozlement–that he believes the figure should be higher.)
The funding Mr. Bush proposes will not sustain the program. Therefore, it is a cut in the program.
To accept your argument, one has to say the CBO is right and the Admin is wrong. And I know how you feel: “given the track record of Bush appointees for gross bamboozlement.”
But let me admit I don’t know either way. I do not reflexively distrust either. And is uspect,a gain, htis is all about negotiating positions – sme with teh Dem $50B threat.
And lets not forget this item is all about: ‘Apparently “compassionate conservatism” doesn’t apply to children, either.’
Gee, that bad Bush. he hates children.
I’m glad to see him do something conservative.
Posted by: Dugger |
ROFLMAO.
mambochicken,
I’ll gladly accept your challenge.
SCHIP is a federal government program that funds state health insurance programs for the children of lower middle class families whose income disqualifies them from Medicaid, but who otherwise cannot get health coverage, either privately or through their employer.
Since the inception of the program in 1997, many states have changed the benefit qualification guidelines that were outlined in the original bill. Most states now provide SCHIP-funded health care for families whose income falls between the Medicaid threshold and two times the Federal poverty level.
Congressional Democrats want to write new SCHIP guidelines that wrap up the most generous of the varying state requirements into one policy, and they want to expand the upper eligibility
cap to four times the Federal poverty level.
Forget about all the dollar figures — they are just educated guesses at best. Instead, look at the new eligibility level, which at 4X the Federal poverty level approaches $80k per year. Or to look at it another way, under the Democrat proposal 75% of all households would now qualify either for Medicaid or SCHIP health coverage for their children.
Think about that for a minute.
What we are talking about is a health coverage change whose scope approaches Medicare Part D. And the Democrats want to rush this through the system without full public debate? No way. A change this big needs to be debated to the extent that Social Security reform and Medicare Part D was debated.
Also, if this is an attempt to redefine “in need of government assistance” to include 75% of households, then we may be looking at the beginnings of an incremental plan to create a massive welfare state similar to Austria and France. Congressional Democrats owe us an extensive explanation and debate of this bill.
Until Congress does that, Bush is fully justified in vetoing it.
To accept your argument, one has to say the CBO is right and the Admin is wrong.
Not quite. One has to say the CBO gave an estimate and the White House didn’t.
To accept your argument (that the benevolent, but conservative, Mr. Bush is “boosting” the program), one must assume 1) the CBO is wrong, 2) maintaining the program in its current state can be accomplished at some figure less than an additional $5 billion over the next five years.
Unfortuneately, Mr. Leavitt gave us 1), but not 2). Until the White House coughs up what they think it will cost, the CBO number is all we have to work with.
As far as administration cost estimates go, I direct your attention to the Medicare drug plan.
All this argument over numbers would be great if it dealt with the ‘why’ of Bush’s opposition to the increase and the plan.
Simply put: Bush opposes any increase because he opposes anything that moves health care dollars away from the big insurance companies.
Furthermore, you states’ righters, Bush wants to limit the states abilities to determine who should and should not be eligible for this program. Nice.
Face it, the only thing Bush wants to talk about are his useless tax-break and savings account plans.
Quaker, I accept that the initial Admin proposal, though providing more money, does not maintain the current program at the same levels – per CBO figures. Do you accept that the current Congressional prgram is about $14B above maintaining the current program – per CBO?
And congratulations, midder, you can evidently still read minds. “Bush opposes any increase because he opposes anything that moves health care dollars away from the big insurance companies.”
I accept that the initial Admin proposal, though providing more money, does not maintain the current program at the same levels – per CBO figures.
So your earlier argument: Bush is proposing a spending increase. Did any of you get that? Do you understand the meaning of ‘boost’. What you are trying to say is that you are offended that Bush is merely ‘significantly’ increasing the size of this federal program rather than ‘astronomically’ increasing it. – is inoperative?
Do you accept that the current Congressional prgram is about $14B above maintaining the current program – per CBO?
Of course. The objective of the Dem program is to increase the number of children eligible. I don’t think anyone is trying to pretend otherwise.
is inoperative?
I think so – certainly per CBO.
No Dugger, I don’t read minds. I read coverage of Bush’s speeches where he pretty much says things like that. You should try it.
Direct quote from Mr. Bush:
“My concern is that when you expand eligibility . . . you’re really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government.”
Midder is “reading minds” when he takes Mr. Bush at his word.
However, Dugger is NOT “reading minds” when he tells us Mr. Bush is just “negotiating.”
Every day is a winding road.