LadyMod at scam.com
10-31-2007, 02:39 PM
Bush Health-Bill Veto Leaves Needy Kids Stranded: Gene Sperling (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_sperling&sid=a5rtBKMociyc)
By Gene Sperling
Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- I don't usually think of children's health and John McEnroe rants together. Yet, when I heard that President George W. Bush was threatening to veto a second bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover an additional 4 million children, it was hard not to think of the 1980s tennis player screaming, ``You cannot be serious!''
It was already inexcusable that Bush had chosen to veto the first bill. It had a strong bipartisan majority of 68-31 in the Senate and would have provided health coverage to another 3.8 million children for the modest additional cost of $35 billion over five years. A CBS News Poll found that 81 percent of Americans supported it.
The Bush White House stretched to find a dark lining in this silver cloud. Even though the bill was reaching children from mostly working poor and modest-income families, Bush repeatedly used his bully pulpit to give the false impression that the bill would be directed to childless adults and children from homes making $83,000 a year.
He has made these complaints at least 10 times since the end of September. Never mind that 84 percent of the new children covered were from families with incomes already low enough to be eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid; never mind that top health economists called it especially efficient, that the tiny number of childless adults now covered by the program would become ineligible within two years. And never mind that Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said the ``president has had pretty poor advice on this'' and that Hatch could ``answer every objection that they've made.'' The president still vetoed the bill.
Bill Amendments
While the Bush criticisms were weak, the members of Congress pushing the bill amended it to make crystal clear that only modest-income families would be allowed to apply by capping eligibility at three times the poverty level: about $61,000 a year for a family of four. They also banned the administration from allowing waivers above that amount.
And even though 3.2 million of the 3.8 million children covered under the initial draft law were from families with incomes below the current income limits, the new bill added another 200,000 low-income children to its mix. And to appease those who were so vehemently against adult coverage, the new bill phases out coverage for childless adults in one year, instead of two, as the previous bill had done.
Even Senator Chuck Grassley, the lead Republican on the Finance Committee, issued a release: ``The bill gets rid of the bad policies in the current SCHIP law, which will continue by way of the program extensions that are inevitable without new legislation. This bill offered a responsible way for Congress to do its job of renewing a program that states have made a success for lower-income working families.''
Veto Threats
Amazingly, even with Congress bending over backward to address the spurious complaints of Bush, administration officials rushed out yet another veto threat. Ignoring the support of Republicans such as Hatch and Grassley, the government sought to imply that the Democratic leadership didn't go far enough in the revised bill.
Even Hatch responded to this claim in the Salt Lake Tribune: ``I don't believe the administration has dealt totally fairly on this issue. I just think the House leadership took the position `Hey, we don't want to give them more time to obfuscate the bill.'''
So what is really driving the Bush White House? All you need to know about why the president has twice opposed this bill was laid bare by Health and Human Services Department Secretary Mike Leavitt's new offer to Congress. He stated that the Bush administration might be willing to consider a $20 billion compromise as it was halfway between the government's $5 billion increase and the bill's $35 billion.
No Deficit Increase
It is inexplicable that the administration would make costs the primary issue when you consider the SCHIP expansion -- unlike almost every Bush initiative -- doesn't increase the deficit.
Bush has been willing to sign trillions of dollars of tax cuts in 2001 and 2003; a $720 billion Medicare prescription drug entitlement, and another $1 trillion on the war in Iraq, by increasing the national debt and without a dime of offsets. He has also done nothing to stop the tripling of special-interest projects funded under Republican congressional leadership.
Yet, when a bipartisan bill provides health insurance to 4 million children and is paid for dime-for-dime, this is when the president chooses to say no -- twice.
As this new bill responds to the administration's major complaints and doesn't widen the deficit by a penny, the only plausible explanation is that the Bush White House opposes health-care funding for vulnerable children.
The administration's ``split the babies in half'' offer would mean no health insurance -- meaning less preventative care, fewer check-ups and lesser-quality treatment -- for millions of children who would be covered over the years under the current bill. To borrow from McEnroe, I really wish they weren't serious.
.
By Gene Sperling
Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- I don't usually think of children's health and John McEnroe rants together. Yet, when I heard that President George W. Bush was threatening to veto a second bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover an additional 4 million children, it was hard not to think of the 1980s tennis player screaming, ``You cannot be serious!''
It was already inexcusable that Bush had chosen to veto the first bill. It had a strong bipartisan majority of 68-31 in the Senate and would have provided health coverage to another 3.8 million children for the modest additional cost of $35 billion over five years. A CBS News Poll found that 81 percent of Americans supported it.
The Bush White House stretched to find a dark lining in this silver cloud. Even though the bill was reaching children from mostly working poor and modest-income families, Bush repeatedly used his bully pulpit to give the false impression that the bill would be directed to childless adults and children from homes making $83,000 a year.
He has made these complaints at least 10 times since the end of September. Never mind that 84 percent of the new children covered were from families with incomes already low enough to be eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid; never mind that top health economists called it especially efficient, that the tiny number of childless adults now covered by the program would become ineligible within two years. And never mind that Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said the ``president has had pretty poor advice on this'' and that Hatch could ``answer every objection that they've made.'' The president still vetoed the bill.
Bill Amendments
While the Bush criticisms were weak, the members of Congress pushing the bill amended it to make crystal clear that only modest-income families would be allowed to apply by capping eligibility at three times the poverty level: about $61,000 a year for a family of four. They also banned the administration from allowing waivers above that amount.
And even though 3.2 million of the 3.8 million children covered under the initial draft law were from families with incomes below the current income limits, the new bill added another 200,000 low-income children to its mix. And to appease those who were so vehemently against adult coverage, the new bill phases out coverage for childless adults in one year, instead of two, as the previous bill had done.
Even Senator Chuck Grassley, the lead Republican on the Finance Committee, issued a release: ``The bill gets rid of the bad policies in the current SCHIP law, which will continue by way of the program extensions that are inevitable without new legislation. This bill offered a responsible way for Congress to do its job of renewing a program that states have made a success for lower-income working families.''
Veto Threats
Amazingly, even with Congress bending over backward to address the spurious complaints of Bush, administration officials rushed out yet another veto threat. Ignoring the support of Republicans such as Hatch and Grassley, the government sought to imply that the Democratic leadership didn't go far enough in the revised bill.
Even Hatch responded to this claim in the Salt Lake Tribune: ``I don't believe the administration has dealt totally fairly on this issue. I just think the House leadership took the position `Hey, we don't want to give them more time to obfuscate the bill.'''
So what is really driving the Bush White House? All you need to know about why the president has twice opposed this bill was laid bare by Health and Human Services Department Secretary Mike Leavitt's new offer to Congress. He stated that the Bush administration might be willing to consider a $20 billion compromise as it was halfway between the government's $5 billion increase and the bill's $35 billion.
No Deficit Increase
It is inexplicable that the administration would make costs the primary issue when you consider the SCHIP expansion -- unlike almost every Bush initiative -- doesn't increase the deficit.
Bush has been willing to sign trillions of dollars of tax cuts in 2001 and 2003; a $720 billion Medicare prescription drug entitlement, and another $1 trillion on the war in Iraq, by increasing the national debt and without a dime of offsets. He has also done nothing to stop the tripling of special-interest projects funded under Republican congressional leadership.
Yet, when a bipartisan bill provides health insurance to 4 million children and is paid for dime-for-dime, this is when the president chooses to say no -- twice.
As this new bill responds to the administration's major complaints and doesn't widen the deficit by a penny, the only plausible explanation is that the Bush White House opposes health-care funding for vulnerable children.
The administration's ``split the babies in half'' offer would mean no health insurance -- meaning less preventative care, fewer check-ups and lesser-quality treatment -- for millions of children who would be covered over the years under the current bill. To borrow from McEnroe, I really wish they weren't serious.
.