Bush vetoes expansion of child health insurance

[bascule]

Bush has vetoed a bill that would expand health coverage for mostly lower income children an additional 4 million from the 6.6 million the program presently covers.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health

 

"Poor kids first," Bush said later in explaining his decision, reflecting a concern that some of the bill's benefits would go to families at higher incomes. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system," he added in remarks to an audience in Lancaster, Pa.

 

The bill, which costs approximately $7 billion a year, would be funded by a $0.61 increase in the excise tax on cigarettes.

 

I really don't know what to say. Bush is one of, if not the most fiscally irresponsible presidents in history, and has bolstered defense spending (NOT including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) to levels which exceed the rest of the world combined.

 

Now he's trying to paint himself as somehow being fiscally responsible, and I guess the first victims are America's children. Awesome.

[D H]

That 7 billion represents a 140% increase in the size of the program. Bush agreed he would sign a 20% increase, which is still quite substantial. The program as proposed would make families earning $60,000 fully covered by the program - over half of the population. This is tantamount to nationalized health care. Finally, using a cigarette tax to fund this? Smoking is inversely correlated with income. This would have amounted to funding a program for the not-so-poor with a very regressive tax.

 

A less biased article from the Washington Post (not the Washington Times): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100301528_2.html.

[bascule]

The program as proposed would make families earning $60,000 fully covered by the program - over half of the population. This is tantamount to nationalized health care.

 

Let me source a quote to the contrary from the Washington Post, since you seem to like them:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/17/AR2007091701716.html

 

The emerging compromise would bring total enrollment to 10 million children.

 

This was also mentioned in the original article I linked.

 

How is that tantamount to national healthcare, and how does it cover half the population?

 

Finally, using a cigarette tax to fund this? Smoking is inversely correlated with income. This would have amounted to funding a program for the not-so-poor with a very regressive tax.

 

Considering the tax cuts Bush pushed disproportionately benefit the upper class, do you think this was even a consideration for him (provided you're even correct)

[CDarwin]

It would give benefits to more middle class children (400% of the poverty line) by taxing mostly lower class smokers. It's determinately regressive, and its redundant with what a lot of states do or should be doing anyway. As compelling as the "it's for the children!" argument is, I'm a bit skeptical.

[bascule]

Bush never mentioned the purported regressive nature of the tax (still completely unsubstantiated) in his reasoning for rejecting the bill.

 

How is that any better of an argument than saying Bush rejected the bill to satisfy the tobacco lobby?

[CDarwin]

Bush never mentioned the purported regressive nature of the tax (still completely unsubstantiated) in his reasoning for rejecting the bill.

 

How is that any better of an argument than saying Bush rejected the bill to satisfy the tobacco lobby?

 

It's not terribly, but that's an ad hominem anyway.

[ecoli]

Bush never mentioned the purported regressive nature of the tax (still completely unsubstantiated) in his reasoning for rejecting the bill.

 

Who cares if that wasn't his motivation... it doesn't make it any less valid.

[bascule]

It's not terribly, but that's an ad hominem anyway.

 

How exactly is it an ad hominem?

 

Who cares if that wasn't his motivation... it doesn't make it any less valid.

 

Is it? So far I've seen no substantiation of this claim short of stereotypes.

[pcollins]

Is it? So far I've seen no substantiation of this claim short of stereotypes.

 

Google is your friend.

[bascule]

Google is your friend.

 

Amazing. Thanks.

 

So, to put this in perspective: it's Bush's 4th veto. This includes two stem cell research bills and the Iraq funding bill with a withdrawal timetable...

[D H]

Are any of these surprising? I disagree with the stem cell research vetos, but I am neither surprised nor do I hold him in contempt for these vetos. This bill, a 140% increase, should surprise no one. After all, he did promise to veto it a while ago.

 

He should have wielded the veto pen a lot more, including against Republican spending bills. A financial slap on the cheek might have helped the Republicans out of the morass they find themselves in now.

[Pangloss]

I'm still trying to figure out how not signing a whoppingly massive increase in the budget supports the assessment that Bush "is one of, if not the most fiscally irresponsible presidents in history".

[bascule]

I'm still trying to figure out how not signing a whoppingly massive increase in the budget supports the assessment that Bush "is one of, if not the most fiscally irresponsible presidents in history".

 

After 6 years of his budget increasing at twice the rate of his predecessor... after $2 trillion in tax cuts resulting in the largest budget deficits in history, year after year, with the national debt poised to break $9 trillion dollars, Bush has finally vetoed his first spending bill.

 

Is the latter supposed to make up for the former? This is the first time that Bush has ever expressed concern about a budget item in the form of a veto.

 

Pork is constantly passing through the White House and Bush has never cared. How about $2.4 billion for airplanes the Air Force doesn't even want? (but provide awfully good pork for Texas)

 

My concern isn't so much Bush trying to exercise fiscal responsibility but both his timing (6 years too late) and the subject of the funding bill.

 

Concerns about overspending on healthcare seem somewhat ridiculous when Bush and his fellow Republicans passed one of the largest Medicare expansions in history, authored in such a way as to maximize profit for the pharmeceuticals by preventing Medicare from purchasing drugs directly and thus obtaining bulk discounts in the same way Health Canada does (ever wonder why Canadian drugs are so cheap comparatively?)

 

Why this? Why is this the first spending bill Bush has ever vetoed? (besides the Iraq War spending bill which was clearly not about money but about timetables)

[Pangloss]

Because he hates children. With a passion. I think he eats them for breakfast, or so I've read on some web sites.

 

But seriously, I think it's a reasonable question. I also think his answer is reasonable. To wrongs don't make a right, Bascule. He can be a flagrant spending abuser AND think that this is a bad piece of legislation. I may not agree, but I don't think that position is irresponsible.

[ParanoiA]

Now he's trying to paint himself as somehow being fiscally responsible, and I guess the first victims are America's children. Awesome.

 

Oh yes. The precious children. No one can say no to anything to do with children. Why don't republicans use this for the Iraq war? Just somehow make it about "the children" and everyone would be on board and NO ONE could dissent.

 

They're not victims of GWB. They're victims of poor parents. How is it the fault of anyone in government that these kids don't have health insurance? Why aren't you complaining about their parents? Don't they have a duty to do without TV, cable, cell phones, DVD players, and all the other crap that america's impoverished typically own so they can afford insurance?

 

Oh of course not. It's George's fault. He won't bail them out, so apparently that makes it his fault, since they're "victims" and all.

 

You know, I wonder how long it's going to take before every bill is spun to benefit "the children".

[john5746]

I agree with your comment, but the Republicans already use someone for the Iraq war.

 

The Republicans use the military the same way. Don't complain or you are putting the soldiers at increased risk. Let the soldiers finish their mission with honor. You would think the war is FOR the soldiers.

[ParanoiA]

I agree with your comment, but the Republicans already use someone for the Iraq war.

 

The Republicans use the military the same way. Don't complain or you are putting the soldiers at increased risk. Let the soldiers finish their mission with honor. You would think the war is FOR the soldiers.

 

Excellent point. I have wondered just how demo's are supposed to fight back against the war without being accused of non-patriotism or not supporting the troops. Although, using "the children" would have taken all the steam out of opposing it at all.

[Pangloss]

The proposed legislation, by the way, would have expanded the program to cover all children within a target family income THREE TIMES THE POVERTY LEVEL. The poverty level, as you all will recall from previous discussions here, is a level that includes two cars, a house, a job, a TV and DVD player, and a home computer (but for some reason they can't afford a couple hundred a month for healthcare). This bill would have covered children in families making THREE TIMES that amount.

 

Next up: A bill that covers the mothers of children who are covered by this legislation. Because, you know, we can't have these children becoming homeless just because their moms can't get healthcare! And then of course the dads would be next. And what about those people not blessed with children of their own? Gotta save them too right?

 

Yeah. Fiscal responsibility. Sure.

 

Incidentally, polls showed something like 72% approval for this law, which is the why it was so popular on the Hill. But I really couldn't help but wonder about those poll questions. WHATEVER the wording, is there any doubt that the question was interpretted as, "Do you support children having access to doctors and hospitals, or do you believe they should be beaten down and spat upon like human garbage"?

[ParanoiA]

I wonder if a case could be made that parents who buy cars, TV's, DVD players, game systems, cell phones and etc but don't have health insurance for their kids, are guilty of neglect. If health insurance is so cruel to do without, then why aren't we jailing these parents or taking their kids away? After all, the kids are victims right?

[Pangloss]

We'll give them a chance to go on Dr. Phil first, and/or apologize to Oprah.

[bascule]

How is it the fault of anyone in government that these kids don't have health insurance?

 

In more civilized countries, healthcare is considered a right, not a privilege.

 

On an unrelated note, how do you feel about the $459 billion Congress just approved for the DoD, which doesn't include the $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

$650 billion for war vs $12 billion for children's healthcare... guess the latter is too much though.

 

The poverty level, as you all will recall from previous discussions here, is a level that includes two cars, a house, a job, a TV and DVD player, and a home computer

 

I'm afraid I wasn't privy to those conversations. Can you source that for me?

[CDarwin]

How exactly is it an ad hominem?

 

An attack on the person and not on the issue. That's an ad hominem. Exactly what ecoli said:

Who cares if that wasn't his motivation... it doesn't make it any less valid.

[ParanoiA]

In more civilized countries, healthcare is considered a right, not a privilege.

 

What countries are those? That are more civilized that is? How are they about the gun laws you cherish so much? Are you following their more civilized example on that one too?

 

On an unrelated note' date=' how do you feel about the $459 billion Congress just approved for the DoD, which doesn't include the $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

$650 billion for war vs $12 billion for children's healthcare... guess the latter is too much though.[/quote']

 

I feel terrific about it because the military is the government's responsibility. Health care is the individual's responsibility.

[bascule]

What countries are those?

 

Just to name a few: France, Denmark, Finland, Austria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, who top the world in healthcare satisfaction.

 

I feel terrific about it because the military is the government's responsibility. Health care is the individual's responsibility.

 

Now that's not very libertarian of you. Why not defend ourselves with privately funded militias?

[Pangloss]

I'm afraid I wasn't privy to those conversations. Can you source that for me?

 

Sure, the data comes from the US Census Bureau. The analysis comes annually from Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation (the author of America's Failed $5.4 Trillion War on Poverty) (We've spent a lot more than that now, btw -- that book's over a dozen years old!). He certainly has a point of view on the subject, but his data is all verifiable and sourced.

 

The updated version was just posted a couple of weeks ago, which I guess is why it was on my mind.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm

 

Forty-three percent of all poor households actu*ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

 

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

 

Only 6 percent of poor households are over*crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

 

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

 

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

 

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

 

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

 

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

 

And yet you want to give people who earn three times as much as these people $12 billion of my money.