Senate Passes SCHIP Again, Bush to Screw Over Sick Kids...Again
Posted by Joe Sudbay at 7:04 AM on November 2, 2007.
Joe Sudbay: Hey, they're just sick kids. What's the big deal? His kids have health care.
This post, written by Joe Sudbay, originally appeared on AMERICABlog
They must be all excited at the Bush White House tonight. Bush gets to pull out his veto pen again. And, one more time, he gets to screw sick kids. The Senate passed the children's health insurance bill tonight:
The Senate passed a new bill Thursday expanding a popular children's health insurance program, despite the lingering threat of a veto from President Bush.
The bill -- which boosts the number of low-income children covered by the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- was recently passed by the House, but without the veto-proof margin it received in the Senate.
Bush vetoed the first SCHIP bill and is expected to veto this one.
"There's a bill moving through Congress that's disguised as a bill to help children, but I think it's really a trick on the American people," the president said Wednesday.
Oh, that Bush. He's such a joker. You know he's giddy about vetoing SCHIP again. Hey, they're just sick kids. What's the big deal? His kids have health care. Why is Bush supposed to worry about other people's children?
Via Alternet
theteach
9 comments:
Would you expect any less from the souless moron? Have a good weekend Teach, and Cheers!!
Thanks matt-man you have a good weekend too! Come back on Monday to see what's doing on Manic Monday here.
Not again! Can't the Dems just say over and over again - "The Republicans hate children" - until they shame them or beat them? I'm so tired of American politics!
Don't blame you Chris, So am I!! :(
Any of you guys actually read the SCHIP bill that Congress is trying to pass?
You do realize that Bush wanted to pass a $5 billion increase in SCHIP right? Congress added 30 billion and wanted to cover people up to 4x the poverty rate (they have reduced that to 3x or $60k or so now).
When someone offers to raise something and you want to raise it more and you can't; it's real hard to say that it is a cut in a program no?
What you think making $60,000 a year is a LOT of money? What if you have 3 and 4 kids...believe me that's not much money.
Bush has got the Dems negotiating and compromising the meat out of the bill...Damn Bush and Damn the Dems!
I think that people making $60k a year can afford insurance.
I think the people making $20k a year should be the ones that are focused on and I also think that 25 year olds shouldn't be covered (as some would be on the Dems plan)
If they really wanted to cover the poor kids, they would have simply went with the $5billion upgrade Bush offered.
Apparently 5 billion isn't enough to cover poor kids...and why shouldn't 25 year olds get insurance...they don't get sick, they don't break a bone?
I have read about the "Layman's Terms" versions and concepts for SCHIP, and here is my take on the whole thing:
On the surface, I like it. It needs to be done, and I am surprised that it has not been done already. There, 'nuff said.
However, there are SOME parts of SCHIP that I do not really agree with. For example, the aspect about income is one of them.
Right now, I do not have children...but if I did, my company would cover my dependants. Not all companies do this. Obviously they need to be covered...most likely moreso than adults (kids are more likely to do crazy things like eat a bumblebee or lick an electrical outlet or something silly). I get this as well.
I make almost $50,000 a year on top of my company provided healthcare...I am considered Middle Class and above the Poverty Line...however, I also live near Washington DC where the cost of living is crazy-insane. If I had kids, I would be hurting to get buy more than I am now. If the total income of a household of 2 adults and a child totaled $60,000 and the employers did not cover insurance they NEED SCHIP period. End of story. You cannot live in my area on 60K a year with kids and also have to pay insurance.
If each adult made 40-60K (for a total of 80-120K), I think they would be fine in Washington DC. But that is both parents working or one parent having a very well-paying job.
Keep in mind that these are numbers for Washington DC. Households bringing in 60K a year with one kid can't survive without assistance. They just can't. Now, if we move the area to someplace like Cincinnati, Dayton, somewhere in the midwest, Kansas or other places where th cost of living is not as high... I could say 60 grand will get you by.
The point that I am trying to make right now is that a combined income of 60K is just NOT enough for some areas as an income cap when the government stops giving assistance, while in other areas it is sufficent. It all depends on where you are at and what the cost of living in that area is.
Shifting gears a moment now, I do NOT think that 25 year-olds should be covered under this. The offical age of adulthood in the United States is 18. That means that ALL government beneifts for dependants and such should cease and decist immediatly. A child who is 25 years old is NOT a child any longer...even if they are living in their parent's basement. Yes, they can get sick and get hurt, however, they ARE also adults. They SHOULD be responsible enough by now (especially after 7 years of being an "adult") that they can take care of themselves.
I mean, after 7 years, a kid should have completed 4 years of college and is starting a career or job or something where if their employeer does not provide insurance, they can afford their own. My point is that a 25 year-old does NOT need government coverage under SCHIP. They are perfectly capeable of taking care of themselves.
I am willing to make exceptions in this however! I mean, some children have problems (retardation, paralysis, etc.) where they cannot become functioning members of society and are, effectivly kept at home perminantly as, depsite their age, they are still dependants and children. Folks like this should still be covered, and it is easy enough to verify the situation of the matter.
The end result, in my opinon, is that while I DO dislike Bush and his policies, I do not fault him for questioning what is entailed in this bill. I do not fault him for saying "Hey now...this may be more than what msot folks need" (Only because most of our population is NOT situated in high cost of living areas) and making adjustments accordingly. I do NOT blame him for throwing down a veto on the bill because it can cover a perfeclty healthy, normal 25 year old.
I do not have a problem with adjusting how much money is set aside for all of this and divvying it up based on cost of living in an area and number of children. I mean, a family making 60K in Iowa with 2 kids may not need help (I do not know what the cost of living is) while a family in LA with 4 kids making a total of 80K may not be able to get by...again due to cost of living.
These are all factors that need to be looked into:
- Do we assign a flat total annual income limit that applies to everyone? Or do we go with a limit based on cost of living where that vamily is?
- Is the number of children a factor? Do we cover a family that has 1 kid equally as a single parent with 3 kids? Or do we look at these family factors?
- How do we keep people from abusing the system and/or lying?
- What do we do about those folks that are just on the border but are clearly not making it?
If these isses are not addressed in the Bill itself and/or not addressed well enough (too open-ended and/or too restrictive) then the bill DOES need to be vetoed and reworked and negotiated with.
There is also an issue with "porkbarreling"/Earmarks on this bill too. The Dems are asking for an extra $30 billion...but how much of that is for SCHIP and how much is it for pork-barrel projects that are tacked on (a common practice from my understanding). I mean, if I see soemone asking me for $30 billion to help sick kids, I want to make sure those kids get that $30 billion. If I get the idea that the bill is asking for $30 billion, but $10 billion is in earmarked projects that have little or nothing to do with helping sick kids, then the bill is getting vetoed unto the earmark comes off.
These are all factors that I do not think that either of you are considering. Of course, I also don't think the media and those that are giving 'We The People' the full skinny on this either.
I think that before we judge Bush too harshly and Congress/SCHIP too lightly we need to know exactly what SCHIP entails - not the basics! All of it. We also need to find some sort of reasoning why Bush would veto it. I mean, like I said, if I saw a bill asking for that much money to help sick kids and a third of it was actually going to pork-barrel projects and earmarks, I would veto the bill too until that extra crap came off.
Alright...that is enough ranting crap from AF40K. I hope that actually made some level of sense to those bothering to read my nonsense...
Depending on the responses t this will determine if I think I need to clarify anything when I can think in a straight line and walk coherently again.
Post a Comment