Custom Search

Monday, November 05, 2007

Democrats Deliberately Torpedoed SCHIP Bill

I see a NYT article listing the missteps on both sides of the aisle on SCHIP but one specific paragraph stands out.

Staff members who shaped the White House strategy include Allan B. Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council; Keith B. Hennessey, a former policy director for Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi; and Julie L. Goon, a special assistant to the president.

In an interview, Mr. Hubbard said his work on the bill had been extremely frustrating.

“I was told last January or February by Democrats that their game plan was to send the president a bill that was too big to swallow, and it would be a beautiful political issue for them,” Mr. Hubbard said.

We have pointed this out before here at Wake up America. To the Democrats SCHIP isn't about the children, it is about using the children to gain political points.

What NYT completely misses is that the bill was written badly and instead of fixing the problems with the original bill that allowed almost half the recipients in some states to be adults and higher income families, the Democrats expanded on it.

They did this knowing the president would veto it, he told them multiple times, then when he did veto it, instead of addressing these very real issues, the Democrats trotted out a 12 year old human shield to hide behind and screamed as loudly as they could, its for the kids.

Then make it for the kids and quit hiding, quit playing political games and get those children covered.

They passed this bill again in the Senate and the House and once again it will be vetoed and the House does not have the votes to override this veto either.

Here are the facts of the SCHIP bill and why it will be vetoed and at that link is also the numbers for your to call to tell your representative to once again sustain the veto.

Further problems are listed over at Heading Right:

The S-CHIP proposal had serious flaws, and neither version of the bill addressed them. It added middle-class children to a program designed to subsidize health insurance for the poor, and it used cigarette taxes — a very regressive tax — to fund the difference. In order for the numbers to work out, the plan presumed a growth of cigarette smokers of around 22 million to fund the program for all ten years, despite a decline in smoking over the last few years, pushed by government anti-smoking campaigns. It was a fiscally irresponsible plan, and the White House had a more modest approach that would have expanded coverage to more poor children through tax incentives that Congress completely ignored.

SCHIP is a necessary program for those children that are not qualified for medicaid because their families earn too much but not enough to afford private healthcare.

Those are the intended recipients and those are what this bill should focus on.

Not adults, not higher income families that can afford private healthcare and the wording in the bill needs to fix the problem of grandfathering in certain state laws which allows families to bypass the eligibility set in the SCHIP bill to allow those with the means to afford their own healthcare to instead enroll into SCHIP.

There are many problems with the way this latest SCHIP bill is written but all we have to look at is the previous problems found with the older bill, that are not addressed in the new bill.

SCHIP- State Children's Health Insurance Program.

In 2006, 118,501 children and 101,919 adults in Michigan received health care from the S-CHIP program. Incredibly, this means that 46 percent of Michigan’s funding allotment intended to give poor children health insurance actually went to cover adults. (Source-Tim Walberg-congressman from Michigan’s Seventh District.)

That is one example of the previous problems... lets look at the problems with this newer version and please keep in mind what SCHIP stands for when looking at the following figures:

FACT SIX: (Pointed out by Heading Right)

However, the Republicans haven’t given up. The GOP contingent on the House Energy And Commerce Committee have published some interesting data about the “children” — they’re awfully mature in many cases. Several states will spend more than 44% of their S-CHIP grants on adults in 2008, and that excludes pregnant women. In Michigan, that total goes to 71%. In most cases, the money gets spent on the parents more than the kids

Here are those states:

Illinois: 52.6% (51.2% parents)
Michigan: 71.6% (all childless adults)
Minnesota: 77.8% (all parents)
New Jersey: 54.6% (all parents)
New Mexico: 79% (26.7% parents, 52.3% childless adults)
Rhode Island: 52.4% (all parents)
Wisconsin: 43.9% (all parents)

44% will be spent on adults in 2008 and that doesn't not include pregnant women.

SCHIP- State Children's Health Insurance Program.

What part of SCHIP is so hard to understand?

Go take a look at a few more facts and then start dialing that phone because the President will be vetoing it again and it is time that everyone starts negotiating to do what is best for the children and not sending the President a "bill that was too big to swallow" so that they have a "beautiful political issue".

The children deserve better than that.

Our wounded veterans deserve better than this also... take a look at the description in roll call vote in the Senate.

What do our wounded servicemembers have to do with SCHIP? Our politicians are holding the wounded veterans hostage to the faulty SCHIP Bill.

Measure number: Number:H.R. 3963 (Support for Injured Servicemembers Act )

Measure title: A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

Are you beginning to see how our politicians are playing politics with our low income children and our wounded veterans instead of getting them both the funds they need?

They are doing this so when the President vetoes the bill, they can "use it" politically to cry out, the President vetoed the veterans funds.


They actually think we, the people, are stupid enough that we will not see through their little game.

The have underestimated us, once again.