posted on August 2, 2007 12:19:16 AM new
...bushit and the Republicans HATE THEM !!!!!
Dems Add 6M Kids to Insurance Program
Updated 11:51 PM ET August 1, 2007
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats pushed through legislation Wednesday to add 6 million lower-income children to a popular health insurance program while making deep cuts in federal payments to Medicare HMOs, defying a veto threat from President Bush.
On a 225-204, mostly party-line vote, the House passed the legislation, which would add $50 billion to the decade-old State Children's Health Insurance Program and roll back years of Republican-driven changes to Medicare.
The bill would slash federal payments to private insurance companies that cover elderly and disabled patients under Medicare and shift money to doctors and benefits for lower-income beneficiaries. The rest of the children's health increase would come from hefty increases in taxes on tobacco products.
The legislation sparked a bitterly partisan health care battle on the eve of Congress' monthlong summer recess, complete with parliamentary fireworks by angry Republicans. The back-and-forth engulfed a broadly supported program to insure working poor kids in a larger argument over whether the government or the private sector should provide health insurance to the nation's most vulnerable populations.
In the Senate, a more limited, $35 billion expansion of the children's health care program without broader Medicare changes appeared headed for a bipartisan endorsement by the end of the week, despite another threatened veto. Bush has proposed spending half as much on the program _ scheduled to expire Sept. 30 _ over the next five years.
In a veto threat of the House bill issued Wednesday, the administration said the legislation "clearly favors government-run health care over private health insurance," and spends far too much.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has made children's issues a signature focus of her tenure, said the measure would "meet our moral obligation to our children."
The decade-old SCHIP program is designed to subsidize the cost of insurance for children whose families earn too much to participate in Medicaid, but not enough to afford private health insurance. Through federal waivers, however, the program has expanded in many states to include middle-income children and adults, prompting Republicans to argue that it has morphed into a backdoor way to extend government-provided health care to an ever-increasing population of Americans.
"This is not just about helping low-income children. This bill today seems to be spending government funds to lure middle class, upper middle class, even wealthy, perhaps, families, to opt out of private health coverage and go to government health coverage," said Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Democrats, betting that opposing the measure _ which would insure a total of 11 million under SCHIP _ would be a political loser for Republicans, painted the GOP opposition as mean-spirited and stingy.
"The bottom line is, where were you when this government, as big as it is, wanted to protect (11 million) kids in health insurance?," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the Ways and Means chairman. "Come November (2008), people will be asking questions: ... Did you let this program expire? And were you there when the children called on you?"
Beyond health care for children, though, the measure reflected dueling Democratic and Republican health care priorities, especially on how to cover the nation's elderly, a potent voting bloc. Democrats have long worked to bolster government-provided coverage for seniors under Medicare, while Republicans have favored giving private companies incentives to insure them.
To help pay for the SCHIP increase, Democrats dipped into federal payments to Medicare HMOs, which they argue drive up premiums for the elderly in traditional Medicare by inflating the cost of care. Officials estimate the government pays an average of 12 percent more to these private plans than it does for traditional coverage.
Republicans said Democrats would live to regret the Medicare cut, which GOP strategists say will prompt angry seniors to exact a steep political price on the majority party.
"Don't use children as your shield," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. "This is the single largest cut to Medicare in the program's history."
Just five Republicans crossed party lines to support the measure, while 10 Democrats _ including conservatives whose districts have high concentrations of seniors participating in Medicare HMOs _ broke with their leaders to oppose it.
As the acrimonious debate unfolded in the House, the more modest Senate expansion of the program survived challenges from the right and left. Republican efforts to scale back the plan and a Democratic bid to increase it both failed.
The Senate rejected 61-35, a $35 billion alternative offered by GOP leaders that would have limited eligibility for the program to those it was originally designed to cover _ people at 200 percent of poverty, or $41,300 for a family of four.
Also rejected were GOP attempts to freeze SCHIP at its current $25 billion level and to cut federal payments for middle-income children and childless adults and limit future coverage for those populations.
Senators also turned back, 60-36, an attempt by Democratic Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to increase SCHIP to the House's $75 billion level. Kerry had proposed paying for the boost by rolling back Bush's tax cuts for people making $1 million a year.
Many Republicans have lined up with Democrats in defiance of Bush to back the more limited SCHIP expansion in the Senate, but it's unclear whether enough will break with their president to hand the majority a veto-proof margin.
Since the program's inception, the Democratic and Republican administrations, including Bush's, have issued waivers to states that allowed them to extend coverage to children with higher incomes and to adults. Nineteen states have done so, allowing families earning as much as $82,600 to be covered.
The bipartisan bill would gradually move adults who don't have children out of SCHIP, giving states the option of covering them through Medicaid. The government also would lower payments for parents' coverage and be barred from issuing new waivers allowing states to cover parents. But states would still have the option of providing coverage to pregnant women through SCHIP.
It would be financed through a 61-cent-a-pack tax increase on cigarettes. The House-passed bill includes a 45-cent increase.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on August 2, 2007 11:53:08 AM new
CBS Hails 'Landmark' and 'Historic' Federal
Control of Health
Wednesday's CBS Evening News trumpeted two liberal efforts to expand government power, leading by heralding "landmark legislation" to have the FDA regulate cigarettes followed by a story slanted in favor of, as reporter Thalia Assuras described it, an "historic expansion of health care coverage for children" of the "working poor." Assuras, however, ignored such inconvenient facts as how a family of four with an income as high as $82,600 could get on the taxpayers' dole. Katie Couric had teased her top story: "Tonight, landmark legislation that supporters say could save millions of lives. Congress takes a step toward regulating everything about cigarettes for the first time ever."
Next, Couric introduced a look at "getting medical coverage for the millions of American children who don't have it." Assuras touted how a proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) "boosts funding by $50 billion over five years, almost doubling the number of uninsured kids covered from the current six million children to about 11 million." Sinking to the all too common media technique of exploiting a victim to push a liberal policy, Assuras cited "children like seven-year-old Pilar Edwards whose ear ache was so severe her mother brought her to this mobile medical clinic where she could get help even though Pilar is uninsured." Assuras did pass along how critics contend "the legislation is a slippery slope toward a universal health care plan," but against two negative soundbites, viewers heard from four advocates as Assuras concluded with a Senator's charge that "it would be a travesty if the President vetoed this legislation," followed by these final words from Assuras: "With kids caught in the middle." More like taxpayers.
[This item was posted Wednesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
The Heritage Foundation on Wednesday released a critique of the bill, "The House SCHIP Bill: Cutting Medicare, Undercutting Private Coverage, and Expanding Dependency." An excerpt from the August 1 report by Cheryl Smith and Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.:
The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (H.R. 3162), greatly expands dependency of millions of Americans on government health care, undermines private health plans, reduces choice for Medicare beneficiaries, and saddles taxpayers with a permanent new entitlement....
Crowds Out Private Health Coverage. The House bill undermines private insurance. Rather than designing subsidies in an innovative way to encourage private health insurance among families, the bill's sponsors displace it. Recent studies indicate that people with private insurance will likely drop eligible dependents in favor of welfare-style health coverage "a phenomenon economists refer to as "crowd out." According to CBO estimates, the House bill would move nearly 1.9 million people off private insurance and onto taxpayer-supported health care.
The legislation embodies a bias against private health coverage and in favor of government coverage. For example, in addition to regular SCHIP payments, the bill would offer "bonus payments" to states for SCHIP and Medicaid enrollment over specified "baseline" levels. As enrollment above designated levels increases, the bonuses get exponentially larger....
Expands Government Health Coverage to Middle-Income Adults and Fosters Greater Dependency on Government. The authors of the House bill repudiate the original intent of the program: SCHIP is no longer limited to low-income persons or to children. House sponsors achieve this expansion by simply redefining both "low-income" and "children." Under the bill, eligibility for government coverage would be extended to families with incomes up to 400 percent above the federal poverty level (FPL)"$82,600 for a family of four,"hardly considered low-income by any reasonable standard. The House policy is transparently absurd: 89 percent of all children between 300 percent and 400 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance; 77 percent of all children between 200 percent and 300 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance; and 50 percent of all children between 100 percent and 200 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance....
Increases Government Spending. The CBO estimates that the House bill, if enacted, would effect a major change in direct government spending of more than $58 billion over 10 years....
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on August 2, 2007 12:32:18 PM new
mingo LIES again by making such a trolling statement as:
"bushit and the Republicans HATE THEM" !!!!!
Shows she knows NOTHING. The republicans see this GROWTH of a gov. program MEANT to be for POOR CHILDREN [SCHIPS]....is being expanded by the liberals. More towards their national health care goals. tsk tsk tsk
How many here REALLY believe children who live in families where the income is $82,000 should be considered POOR?
How many here believe those adults on medicare should be included in a gov. program for CHILDREN?
LOL Gawd....are they dense or what?
How can one NOT laugh at such nonsense. Their socialist agenda has no limits. They continue working to change America and make citizens MORE dependent upon BIG BROTHER.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 2, 2007 01:06:33 PM new
No, linduh, it's not a lie , it is my opinion.
THIS is a LIE :
Linda_K
posted on July 21, 2007 04:58:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's another great example of why I gave up responding to her. """
posted on August 2, 2007 01:28:28 PM new
This is the reason that the measure(s) will be vetoed, if passed by both houses:
The reasons given for the veto threat include:
billions in Medicare cuts,
tax increases on low-income Americans,
expansion of federal spending and subsidies to "children" up to 25 years old,
provisions to aid illegal immigrants,
a lack of anti-fraud provisions,
a shift from private to government-subsidized health care and limits on care for unborn children.
"The legislation is structured in a way that clearly favors government-run health care over private health insurance. The result of this approach would be a dramatic encroachment of government-run health care resulting in lower quality and fewer choices, which the American people have repeatedly rejected," the White House said in an official statement of administration policy.
"It transforms the program into an effectively unlimited entitlement program that reaches far beyond the targeted population of poor children, and applies growth rates that are both far in excess of health care inflation and the aggressive expansion of programs by states.
At a time when the Medicare program has an unfunded 75-year obligation of $34 trillion, Social Security has an unfunded 75-year obligation of $7 trillion, and the Medicaid program is consuming an ever-increasing share of Federal resources, it is unwise to expand the government’s unfunded obligations," the statement reads.
=====================
In addition it's been reported that the house and the senate proposals will cost taxpayers an additional $60 Billion and $75 B according to which house wins out on what.
I'm very thankful the President has veto power and can and WILL stop this HUGE increase in socialism from being expanded even more.
====================
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 2, 2007 01:36 PM ]
posted on August 3, 2007 11:33:09 AM new
Yep....another speech that makes all the sense in the world.....NO unlimited income levels would be required for states to set to insure their children.
Medicare benefits would suffer a MASSIVE cut....so children from wealthy families could have free health care.
Are YOU a Bunghole?