I tend to stay away from national politics on this blog. There are many, many places across the net to read about those issues. But yesterday’s veto by George Bush requires comment. This letter to the editor that appears in today’s Virginian-Pilot sums up my feelings:
The thing that separates human beings from all other animals that grace this planet is our innate desire to care for the less fortunate members, our elderly, our young and our disabled. On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), an important piece of legislation intended to extend and expand health care insurance for the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, particularly those from underprivileged families.When we get past the rhetoric and hyperbole, this program provides a protective umbrella, using existing health insurance systems and making them affordable and available to more than 8 million children. Many of their families would otherwise be unable to afford such insurance.
SCHIP is an example of the humanity of our culture. We must all hope that members of Congress look into their hearts, assess their priorities, and recognize that protecting our children is also a matter of national security.
Donald W. Lewis, M.D.
Norfolk
I hope Congresswoman Thelma Drake saw this letter. And I hope she takes it to heart as the effort to override the veto continues. I hope she finds a way to support this legislation.
This isn’t about party – it’s about doing what’s right to help those among us who need it.
And as I was typing this, I got an email from the League of Women Voters, which appears below the fold.
Despite overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, President Bush decided to leave America’s children behind by vetoing the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program. It is now up to Congress to provide health care coverage to millions of low-income children. Contact your Representatives and Senators NOW to encourage them to override the Presidential veto.
Take action today to help insure America’s children!
The President proposed only a $5 billion increase in the program – an effective cut in the number of children covered due to inflation and other economic changes. Congress had originally proposed a $50 billion increase but did their part to compromise and passed only a $35 billion increase.
For over a decade SCHIP has made great strides in covering children. The program covers children from low-income families who do not qualify for Medicaid. As a direct result of this program the percentage of low-income children in the United States without health coverage has fallen by one-third in the past decade even as employer-based coverage has decreased.
Send a message to your Representatives and Senators to encourage them to OVERRIDE THE VETO.
1. Contact your Senators and Representatives now, by phone or by email, and urge them to vote to override the Presidential veto.
2. Send this alert to other concerned citizens – your grassroots network, your friends and coworkers. Encourage them to contact their Senators and Representatives today!
BACKGROUND
Learn more about what the League has done to support the reauthorization of the SCHIP.
Technorati Tags: Thelma Drake, SCHIP
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I, for one, am very glad that President Bush vetoed this bill. This would be the first step towards socialized healthcare that would ultimately hinder our healthcare system. When you consider that families making up to $83,000 (around 85-90% of this country) will be eligible, it is clear that this is not an attempt to help the poor, but rather to dictate how the children in this country receive health care. When this would be applauded as a success (well before any real measurement could be determined), a broader healthcare proposal would arise, and anyone standing up against that would then be called callous and uncaring for those in poverty (likely again 85-90% of the country) for standing against it. If SCHIP is really something that people want, first scale it back greatly (let’s say, back to the true level of poverty) and see how people react to that.
The SCHIP program as originally constructed was a well meaning and perhaps useful program. The Democrats have taken this program and expanded to levels that it was not meant to be expanded to. Bravo to President Bush for his veto of this bill. I do not believe that people earning $60K to $80K should have their healthcare paid for by society. All our lives are filled with choices. Some choices are tougher than others.
Both comments are entirely full of talking points that are roundly disproven by actually reading the details of the bill, instead of reading the typical Republican lies about it. You’re both completely wrong, and the sad thing is you probably even know it.
oh, and the letter in the post has no talking points in it whatsoever…
Let us first start with the fact that Pres. Bush did sign the funding extension at FY2007 levels, so no-one’s insurance has been cancelled as a result of this disagreement.
The vetoed legislation is here.
Pres. Bush has expressed his willingness to sign an SCHIP re-authorization bill. Just not this one.
The big question is, if this is such a good idea, why do the states need SCHIP. They have the authority to JUST DO IT, as Massachusetts has done, and cut out the middleman.
Jeez, a 20% increase in SCHIP funding isn’t enough?
Apparently, the link did not work properly. I’ll just type it out:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.976:
The federal expenditures for SCHIP have gone from $2,627.2 million in 2001 to $6,334.6 million in 2007 — an average of 15.8% per year. http://ccf.georgetown.edu/schipdocs/expend.pdf
The vetoed bill would increase that to $9,125 million in 2008 going to $13,750 million in 2011. (It falls off the table to $3,500 million in 2012, but we all know they won’t allow that to happen.)
That is an immediate increase of 44%, and annual increases of 14.6% per year until 2011.
In any event, why don’t the states just do it themselves, and leave out the ridiculous Washington bureaucracy?
The issue here isn’t simply funding, folks; it’s the millions of children who aren’t covered by medicare but whose parents can’t afford private insurance and don’t receive health benefits through their employer (the number of employers who do so is actually decreasing nationwide). Comments like “Jeez, a 20% increase in SCHIP funding isn’t enough?” are therefore not helpful. Not to the political discussion, not to the budget, and not least of all to the children and their parents who fall into this coverage gap.
Children are far more likely to become sick than non-senior adults. Their auto-immune systems aren’t fully developed yet so they’re more likely to contract both mundane illnesses like the flu and acute or obscure illnesses like meningitis. They’re more likely to have injuries because they’re more active and play sports to a higher degree than their sedentary elders (Brian Kirwin, I’m looking at you). And they suffer from the same chronic illnesses we all do. Some of them will get cancer. Some of them will have diabetes.
And I think it’s kind of disgusting that the issue for some of you all the issue is an obscure and impersonal Goldwater-esque “screw the pinko socialists” discussion, and not the fact that children who have diabetes die without insulin.
The Berlin Wall came down, folks. The Soviet Union dissolved, the Warsaw Pact fell apart, the Cubans are just about done floating over on their makeshift rafts and the Chinese have a more-productive economy than we do. At what point are you going to stop fighting the ghosts of socialism and start worrying about things that affect Americans today?
Fantastic post, anonymous.
We still have not gotten past the question of why the states do not simply implement it themselves, as has Massachusetts under Mitt Romney, rather than going through the wasteful federal bureaucracy?
Second, one of the main points of contention is that some states are using SCHIP funding to insure adults without first taking adequate measures to ensure that children are insured.
(FYI, the Soviet Union was communist, not socialist. China’s GDP for 2007 is about $2.7 trillion, and ours is $13.7 trillion — never mind GDP per capita. The Chinese economy is expanding rapidly because of capitalist reforms, not because of socialism.)
We’ve discussed GDP before, Mouse. I dispute the notion that GDP is an adequate measure of productivity when it’s primarily fueled by both government and consumer debt owned in large part by T-note buyers. Like China, which is a world leader on exports and one of the fastest growing economies in the world. It’s also fair to point out, I think, that you’re only agreeing with my point by noting capitalist reforms in China. Socialism with a capital S is over and done with. It’s a red herring constantly thrown out by yesteryear’s conservatives and jingoistic neocons who only wish they could stand up on the floor of the Senate with a sheef of scribbled pages and announce “I have here in my hand…a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.” It’s the status quo politics of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, and while it may have had its time and place during the Red Scare, the rest of us over here in the 21st century have problems to deal with *now*.
Having said that, your primary question was valid: why haven’t the states done anything about it? I don’t know the answer to that question (but if I had to venture it, please see the above paragraph about the status quo politics of the 50s, 60s and 70s used to validate a do-nothing, no-solutions approach to government). But the fact remains that they haven’t addressed this problem, and so the question becomes: why aren’t we seeing any leadership on this issue from our Republican president and our member of the House of Representatives? I don’t actually know the answer to that question, either, but if I had to guess please see the above paragraph about the status quo politics of the 1950s, 60s and 70s and add another paragraph about “states rights” and the status quo politics of the 1850s, 60s and 70s to validate a do-nothing, no-solutions approach to Federalism.
Meanwhile, there are still millions of sick kids who don’t have the insurance to go see a doctor in the United State of America. Do we really not have a problem with that, conceptually and morally?
“Socialism with a capital S is over and done with.”
I wish that were true. However, socialism has moved into western Europe, to the detriment of their economies, and is a basic principle of the Democratic Party.
“But the fact remains that they haven’t addressed this problem….”
First, we must define the problem. What is the problem (beside the fact that our “poor” live better than the average European)?
“…and so the question becomes: why aren’t we seeing any leadership on this issue from our Republican president and our member of the House of Representatives?”
We are. That’s why Bush vetoed the original bill — because he believes that states need to make the effort to insure children before using the SCHIP funding to pay for adults’ insurance.
“Meanwhile, there are still millions of sick kids who don’t have the insurance to go see a doctor in the United State of America. Do we really not have a problem with that, conceptually and morally?”
Which is exactly Bush’s point. He wants the bill to ensure that the money goes to children before the states use it to insure adults. Remember, he signed the extension to cover children through these negotiations.
Yeah. I think you pretty much exemplified precisely what I was talking about. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil (except “Socialism,” which is obviously far more dangerous and kills many more Americans each year than cancer or diabetes). Thanks for your help.
You’re welcome. Socialism is indeed responsible for many problems around the world, which is why I oppose it here. Our founding fathers had the sense to craft a federal government with specific, enumerated powers.