Congress Set for Veto Fight on Child Health Care

Source: nytimes



September 25, 2007
Congress Set for Veto Fight on Child Health Care
By ROBERT PEAR and CARL HULSE



......Supporters of the legislation, which has broad bipartisan support, mobilized lobbyists — 400 from the American Cancer Society alone — and began advertising to win the votes needed to override a veto threatened by Mr. Bush. The president says the measure, which would renew and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, costs too much and would be “an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American.”

..........

Federal health officials urged states to draft contingency plans in case tens of thousands of children lose coverage because of the impasse when the program expires Sept. 30. As one option, the officials said that states might consider shifting some children onto Medicaid.

Mr. Bush dispatched Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, to “work with states on ways to mitigate the damage that would result if Congress allows this program to lapse.”

Administration officials said they were concerned that the White House was being hurt by televised news reports that portrayed the fight as a struggle between Mr. Bush and poor children, rather than as a philosophical debate over the role of government in health care.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/washington/25health.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1190718626-edaAkw1AlnRdUYVM0GXl+Q&pagewanted=print

it comes to kids health?

....Administration officials said they were concerned that the White House was being hurt by televised news reports that portrayed the fight as a struggle between Mr. Bush and poor children, rather than as a philosophical debate over the role of government in health care.

When that was cut from the legislation. Most states limit income to 200% of federal poverty level: $38,700/yr for a family of four.

thanks to * running the dollar into the ground. if you make 80k, that's getting by if you have 2 kids - especially with everything going through the roof as far as prices go!

Everybody needs to have universal healthcare, with no means testing. Covering all children in families with incomes up to $80K is a good step in that direction.

and it was pointed out that 80,000 in new york city is not the same as 80 thousand in kansas. we raised three kids on less that 40,000 here in northern illinois...

the party of family values better get on board otherwise they`ll be gone next november.

If you cant get by on that
somethings wrong.

It depends on where you are at. $80k in Kansas is real good money.

Believe me, I could live pretty well on 80 grand even in Manhattan.

You could live in Manhattan on $80K if you were single.

But then this legislation would have nothing to do with you.

Now what.
If you and your kids cant make it on 80 grand
maybe its time to re-evaluate you spending habits.

Also, I have two kids of my own and we do just fine on half that money.

Funny how people make claims like that.

I suppose if we were talking about Alaska, you'd claim you lived there as well.


At $80K, you're spending more than 40% of your income on housing costs in Manhattan. No one is doing "just fine" under those circumstances.

I was born in The Bronx and lived in Kings county until I was thirty years old.
But then again, I'm just bullshitting to make you look bad.

I am not alone, I have kids of my own.
I dont need a fancy car or a big house or a Florida vacation etc.
These things are not neccesary and cost alot of money.
All I really care about is my kids being happy and healthy.
These things dont have to cost alot of money.

What is your rent/utilities in Manhattan?

What's your food bill?

What's your car payment/insurance/parking?

What's your clothing bill?

And, of course, what's your insurance premium per month and what does it cover (and how much are the co-pays and deductibles)?

I don't live in Manhattan, I live in Vermont.
I dont make 80grand a year, living here allows me to support my fam
on less than half of that. much less.
My point was (and if you looked at my original post) that 80k is alot of money.
I could live in Manhattan (where I grew up) on that kinda money and if you cant
perhaps its time to re-evaluate your lifestyle.

On edit: I didnt read your entire post so lets go over it point by point.
1...I own my home and the mortgage payment is 850 a month
2...My food bill? I belong to a co-op. I work there about two hours a week and receive a twenty five percent discount on my purchases. I also belong to a farm collective and my kids and I work there in summer (planting seeds, weeding etc.) It costs 125 bucks to join and each week I take home way more food than we can eat. The neighbors love it.
3... My kids take the bus to school. I use my bike to get to work and around town etc. My car mostly sits n the driveway and has been there so long the tires are flat and weeds are growing up around it.
I own my home so I dont pay for parking and I have a good driving record and a used car so my insurance is about 650 bucks a year.
4...Clothing bill??? um...I'm not really up on all the latest fashion,so clothing bill?? anyhow I shop mostly at second hand and consignment shops. How about a brand spanking new pair of levi's for four bucks? its a deal. My kids arent running around with hundred dollar sports jersey's and $80 sneakers. They're just kids, who do they have to impress?
5... and finally.... I pay about 40 bucks per pay period for myself and the deductible is pretty high but the company I work for has a program where they will loan you the cash so you can spread it out over time. I havent had to use it but I'm glad its there. As for my kids, this is Vermont, kids dont need no stinking badges er I mean insurance. Its provided by the state. I bring them for regular check ups at the doctor of my choice and pay ten bucks per kid per visit. I'm not sure what happens if something really bad happens (suppose I should find out - thanks for reminding me). Of course this is all done on a sliding scale so the more you make the more you pay (imagine that. frickin commies) and I make way less than 80k so my cost is very low. Go ahead and ask me why you should pay so my kids can have insurance.

The one thing that kills me about living here is the taxes. holy crap are they high.
I guess that the price you pay for decent schools, low crime and cheap yet high quality medical care.

to purchase insurance on one's own if it's not provided by one's employer.

Net per month would be about $4500.

Rent will EASILY take about $2500-3000.

Add in car payment, gas, insurance, maintenance, parking, food, clothing, personal care (shampoo, haircuts, etc.), phone and you tell me how someone is going to afford health care coverage for a family of four if they have to buy a policy on their own. Not provided by their employer (as you have).



Oh, I would NOT pay to provide your kids with insurance. I don't smoke. :)

What do you mean about "I wouldnt pay for your kids insurance, I dont smoke"
Is that how they pay for that where you live? Or is it that your trying to insult me?
theres so much hate flying around here I cant tell sometimes.
please explain.

Phew, I thought maybe you were just being a jerk. not so batman!

I think that is the top income category for Illinois Kid Care program. But it isn't free, there is a 40 dollar a month charge at this point and then additional charges per child as well as co-pays. I had a basic (private) policy for our son that was around $30.00 a month before the Kid Care program started so I know this isn't that unreasonable, although Kid Care covered a lot more. I doubt if most people are going to fall in the 80 thousand dollar range that sign up for Kid Care and even if they did, they are paying into the program so it is money coming in, just like private insurance. I can't understand how Bush can say it is too expensive to insure a child for health insurance when we are spending a billion dollars a week in Iraq. It is all a matter of priorities and our countries children are not a priority for Bush. I can't wait to see him out of office. He is such a heartless bastard!

and is because of the high cost of living. It also says that 91% of the currently enrolled children are below the 200% of poverty line.

http://www.allkids.com/about.html

All kids can qualify for the Illinois Kid Care program no matter how much their parents income. You just pay larger deductables and larger cost sharing but it is still very reasonable, starting at $40.00 a month. Also, if your child is of American Indian decent, you don't pay anything.

one.

Note this line from *Co: "the damage that would result if Congress allows this program to lapse."

As if a presidential veto would have nothing to do with it. :grr:

Edit for typo.

It's a good thing some of the Presidential candidates won't take their money. That would be wrong.



Oh, wait...

Is that an intentional sign of disrespect?

'President?' 'Mister?' or Just Plain 'Bush?'

The other longtime issue for some listeners, like fingernails on a blackboard, is how NPR refers to President Bush.

Many ask why NPR refers to the president of the United States as "Mr. Bush" on second reference, instead of "President Bush" in all cases? Some listeners, like Tom King, insist this sounds insufficiently respectful.

Frequently on NPR news shows, reports dealing with the U.S. president refer to him as "President Bush" once, but then all additional references are to "Mr. Bush". This seems unique to the president, as other people with titles are always addressed as Sen. Smith or Dr. Jones, etc. Is there a reason why President Bush does not get the same consideration?

Using the Honorific

The title, such as "President," "Mr." or "Ms.", in front of a name is called an honorific. NPR uses the honorific "President" on first reference and then "Mr." for all subsequent mentions. This has been NPR's style going back at least to the Ford administration. Most other broadcasters have the same policy. It also makes for better writing to vary the honorific.

Newspapers seem to have a different standard. For some reason, the president is usually referred to as "President Bush" or "the president," on first reference. But the honorific is rarely used on second reference. And in newspaper headlines particularly, the solitary "Bush" is often seen.

The president is the only person who -- by decree and tradition at NPR -- gets the honorific. All others who are mentioned in news reports are usually referred to by their title or occupation on first reference ("Jane Doe is a reporter for The New York Times..."). After that, it's surnames only.

Out of Politeness

One exception can be heard in interviews. Out of politeness, the program host often mentions both first and last names. For example, NPR's Robert Siegel did so in a recent interview ("Welcome to the program, Paul Pillar"), and later employed the honorific ("Mr. Pillar, thank you very much for talking with us").

One further exception is NPR's Scott Simon who, in his own courtly way, invokes the honorific for everyone he speaks to or reports on.

http://joebarton.house.gov/news.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=421
Barton Seeks to Keep Children’s Health Insurance Program Up and Running



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON- U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, introduced legislation yesterday evening to ensure that the children covered by the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) continue to receive the care they need after the program’s set expiration date of September 30.

“SCHIP is the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was established 10 years ago to provide health coverage for low-income and near-low-income children here in the United States,” Barton said during a press conference unveiling his bill. “It was intended, and in most states is, a program to help children whose families are between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level, but do not have health insurance where the parents work, or provide health coverage for those children.”

While the House and the Senate have both passed legislation to reauthorize SCHIP, these bills are deeply flawed. Under the House-passed legislation, families making over $200,000 per year could become eligible for this program, which was designed to serve low-income families. The House bill would also make it easier for illegal immigrants to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded benefits. Barton voted against this legislation, which the president has indicated he would veto.

Barton’s bill, which was introduced with 112 co-sponsors, would extend SCHIP in its current form past the September 30 deadline, giving members of the House and Senate time to craft legislation that is worthy of becoming law. Without this extension, at least 13 states will be left without any federal funding for their SCHIP programs in less than two weeks.

“My bill takes the existing program, extends it for 18 months, and covers children between 100 and 200 percent of poverty,” Barton explained. “No state will lose coverage; no child will lose coverage who currently has coverage.”

“The children of America deserve to be healthy and have health care regardless of their income.”

It appears his figures are totally inflated and wrong.

The government decides who can practice medicine.
The government decides what drugs your doctor can prescribe.
The government decides what treatments your doctor can administer.

or any other consumer safety group to monitor drug safety? Are we supposed to leave it up to the drug companies themselves, or even worse, home brew drugs?


edited to tone down my, well, tone.

"The government decides what drugs your doctor can prescribe."

If that is not your meaning, please feel free to expand your comments.

Doctor's are not allowed to prescribe certain drugs. For instance, marijuana for a cancer patient. The reason? Because the government wont allow them to.

Welcome to DU though.

I don't see how Bush can honestly expect to "scare" people with the notion that the government will run our health care.

"Administration officials said they were concerned that the White House was being hurt by televised news reports that portrayed the fight as a struggle between Mr. Bush and poor children"