The Republican President Vetoed Health Care For Poor Children

Published September 29, 2007 in 2008 Election.

There’s not much more you need to add to that. Bush is giving the Democrats a gift by screwing the children, again.

20 Responses to “The Republican President Vetoed Health Care For Poor Children”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 megamoze
Sep 29th, 2007 at 2:48 am

His rationalization was very telling. He said that coverage for children would eventually lead to coverage for everyone. And we can’t have that!
2 Jay Tea
Sep 29th, 2007 at 5:18 am

The best observation I’ve seen so far is that families poor enough for the expanded S-CHIP program are also rich enough to be socked with the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Which is it — are we helping the children of poor people, or subsidizing the wealthy?

J.
3 megamoze
Sep 29th, 2007 at 6:44 am

“Which is it — are we helping the children of poor people, or subsidizing the wealthy?”

I can see where you’re torn, since Republicans typically oppose the former and support the latter.

Luckily, however, your initial assertion is false (shocking, I know). The SCHID expansion would benefit families of four up to $62,000 (3x the poverty level), while the majority of AMT filers make $200K or more, with the bottom 15% making between $75-100K. So the overlap, if there is any at all, would be extremely rare.
4 C.S.Strowbridge
Sep 29th, 2007 at 7:26 am

“Bush is giving the Democrats a gift by screwing the children, again.”

I thought that was Foley.

megamoze said: “His rationalization was very telling. He said that coverage for children would eventually lead to coverage for everyone. And we can’t have that!”

This is the most telling. His political philosophy states that government health care can’t work. However, SCHIP proves it does. But instead of changing his views, he tries to kill the evidence.

This have been typical of this administration from the very beginning.
5 August J. Pollak
Sep 29th, 2007 at 7:49 am

families poor enough for the expanded S-CHIP program are also rich enough to be socked with the Alternative Minimum Tax.

According to the right-wing anti-tax Heritage Foundation, “if Congress were to extend SCHIP to families at 400 percent of the FPL, approximately 70,000 families would receive a subsidy from SCHIP and pay the AMT.”

The bill Congress passed this week had the FPL cap set at 300%, not 400%. Meaning even less than 70,000 families may face this hypothetical scenario, out of the estimated 4 million previously uninsured children the bill will cover in the expansion.

So the “best observation you’ve seen so far” is one in which less than 1% of all families affected by the expansion would have to pay the AMT… if they were at a income level 25% higher than the maximum set in the bill.

Wouldn’t it have been easier to just use one of the “OMG socimalized medicine!” or “But th’ illegul immgrints might get somethin!” boogeymans to oppose this?
6 Jay Tea
Sep 29th, 2007 at 8:35 am

OK, so it’s not 4X the poverty level, it’s only 3X it. Let’s try it again, with a little actual research of my own:

According to the 2006 Census, the median family income in the US was a little under 59K. This program sets the “poor children” as those whose families make MORE than that, by about 3K.

Tell us again how this is all about “poor children.”

J.
7 Jay Tea
Sep 29th, 2007 at 8:47 am

Oh, and thanks, August. That little bait-and-switch did sneak past me. I’m getting a full posting out of it for Wizbang, which ought to go up at 2:00 EST today.

J.
8 Enlightened Liberal
Sep 29th, 2007 at 9:35 am

So I guess J agrees that SCHIP doesn’t affect families that are subject to the AMT. Will be looking forward to seeing that in his post.

All that money for war, none for children’s health care. Shame.
9 Jay Tea
Sep 29th, 2007 at 10:14 am

Oh, it will, EL. It looks like S-CHIP did initially — from what I’ve read, Hillary’s first proposal would have raised the cap to 4X the poverty level, which is around 83K/year — but got scaled back 3x, or only a few grand above median household income.

And thanks for acknowledging that this story — and the bigger, overarching story — is NOT about health care, but health care FINANCING.

Just when did “promote the general welfare” become “provide for the general welfare,” anyway?

J.
10 Enlightened Liberal
Sep 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am

See, the problem with J is the problem with most cons. They say they support children’s health care, but they are unwilling to fund it. Same thing with education. It’s kind of like supporting war but being unwilling to fight in it.
11 C.S.Strowbridge
Sep 29th, 2007 at 10:34 am

“Just when did “promote the general welfare” become “provide for the general welfare,” anyway?”

Here’s a question for you…

Who gives a fuck? The program works. It provides health care for kids and it is less expensive than using private health care insurance.

It saves lives and it saves money. Who could possibly be against that?
12 August J. Pollak
Sep 29th, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Tell us again how this is all about “poor children.”

Because he’s, umm, vetoing the bill that continues the program that provides health coverage to millions of uninsured poor children? Is that a trick question or something?
13 megamoze
Sep 29th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

“OK, so it’s not 4X the poverty level, it’s only 3X it. Let’s try it again”

I love it. Absolutely wrong, but rather than admit it, he simply tries again with a new misleading tactic.

SCHID isn’t about helping just “poor children.” It’s SPECIFICALLY about helping lower and middle class families who make too much money for Medicare but still can’t afford health insurance for their children.

And for the mentally challenged in this thread (yes, I’m looking at you Jay), health insurance costs have gotten so out of control that even median income families, especially those who run businesses or are self-employed are being bankrupted by skyrocketing insurance premiums and health care costs.

Not that you care.
14 megamoze
Sep 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pm

“It saves lives and it saves money. Who could possibly be against that?”

The president. Jay. And the vast majority of “screw everyone but me and my rich white buddies” Republicans. Personally, I wouldn’t quite wear that mantra like the badge of honor that they do, but that’s why I’m not a Republican. I actually care about people who aren’t like me.
15 Jay Tea
Sep 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pm

“It saves lives and it saves money. Who could possibly be against that?”

Well, for starters, me. And others who think that the government has very clearly-defined and limited powers when it comes to people’s private lives. That government should not be in the business of taking on responsibilities that rightfully should be the parents’, except in the most dire of circumstances. That believe that “the government that can give you anything you want can take away everything you have.” That believe that there is pretty much no such thing as a “temporary” or “limited” or “targeted” tax, and have learned that lesson through repeated examples. That believe that the estimated costs of this bill — like any other government estimate — be far, far higher than promised, and the money will come from SOMEWHERE. That look at the S-CHIP bill and note that a good chunk of the funding is to come out of cigarette taxes, while another part of the government is trying to get more and more people to quit smoking.

I got nothing against poor children. I just don’t think that whatever benefits they might gain from this steaming pile of crap will come anywhere near to matching the costs — both financial and otherwise — it will inflict.

J.
16 Shorter JT
Sep 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pm

I don’t want to pay mah tax for poor childrens!!@1!!!one!! More WAR !!!1!23!!1q!1
17 C.S.Strowbridge
Sep 29th, 2007 at 4:36 pm

“Well, for starters, me.”

That’s cause you are a fucking asshole.

“And others who think that the government has very clearly-defined and limited powers when it comes to people’s private lives.”

The safety and welfare of it’s citizens is not something the government should be involved it? Really? Then disband the army. What other purpose could it serve other than to defend the safety and welfare of the government.

“I just don’t think that whatever benefits they might gain from this steaming pile of crap will come anywhere near to matching the costs — both financial and otherwise — it will inflict.”

Except it will save money, so there is no financial cost. As for the other costs, they don’t exist outside the delusional rantings of Ayn Rand type libertarians.
18 Zython
Oct 1st, 2007 at 1:52 am

Here’s something I noticed (kudos to C&L)

Bill Krystol: I’m happy that the President’s willing to do something bad for the kids.
19 megamoze
Oct 2nd, 2007 at 6:47 pm

“Well, for starters, me. And others who think that the government has very clearly-defined and limited powers when it comes to people’s private lives.”

Wow. But wiretapping without a court order or warrant is perfectly okay. Detaining and torturing American citizens without charges is perfectly okay. Forbidding gay people from marrying their partners, and even banning them from having sex in the privacy of their own homes is perfectly okay.

Whatever shred of credibility right-wingers had about “limited powers” of government have been completely obliterated by your drooling sycophancy to the Bush administration.
20 W. Rose
Oct 4th, 2007 at 11:19 pm

“All that money for war, none for children’s health care. Shame.”,Enlightened Liberal said.

It’s all about tax base people. We will need a healthy workforce to pay for this war for two generations. Give or take a generation. By the way, don’t forget the costs for .25 million new Vets. Let’s plan. NOW!