Say Yes To SCHIPS
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
Are you nuts?
Honestly, I think he's completely lost control of his senses.
Sure, there have been lots of things W has done that I disagreed with.[[In-content Ad]]But in those cases - like the Iraq war, immigration, No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit and the deficit - there was always either a principled argument or some political expedience involved.
You could say that, well, even though you disagreed, you could see why he was doing it.
But when it comes to SCHIPS, W's threatened veto is just plain lunacy.
SCHIPS is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has become a highly successful means of expanding health coverage to the children of the working poor.
The program was enacted in 1997 as an effort to provide insurance coverage for kids living in families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford private insurance.
Roughly 91 percent of the kids in the program come from families with incomes less than twice the poverty level of $20,650 for a family of four - the income guideline set in the first bill.
The legal mandate for the program expires Sunday.
But it has been so popular among the states, 43 governors urged W and leaders of Congress to get the program reauthorized before its expiration date.
It's popular because, unlike most government programs, it seems to be working. It's helping kids who need health care.
The program cost $40 billion over the past 10 years and financed health insurance for 6.6 million kids.
The money goes straight to the states, which were given freedom to structure their own programs.
The insurance was provided by private companies, and the rates were negotiated by the states.
Earlier this month, Congress, seeing the value of the program, expanded the coverage to include an additional 4 million kids when they crafted the reauthorization bill.
The income guideline was to be raised to $61,800 for a family of four.
It was going to cost an additional $35 billion over the next five years, and it was going to be funded by a 61-cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.
The bill was passed Tuesday in the House. As I'm writing this on Thursday, it hasn't yet passed the Senate, but it will.
And after it passes both Houses, W will veto it.
James Broder of the Washington Post notes:
"If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Literally hundreds of organizations - grassroots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA - have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday."
W will veto because he objects to an expansion of this safety net for children of the working poor.
He uses the slippery slope argument that the legislation is just another step "toward the goal of government-run health care for every American."
He also carps about the cost and the method of financing.
Senators like Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley, never noted for particularly moderate, have urged W otherwise to no avail.
Faithful readers of this column may well be throwing up their arms in despair over my apparent liberal bent on this issue, but please understand, I am still an opponent of big government.
I have long decried the waste, fraud and inefficiency of government programs.
Often in my discussion with liberals, I have said, "You show me the one government program that actually hits its intended target and I'll give you them all."
Well, I believe this one gets about as close as any. And the price is right.
Certainly $40 billion over 10 years and an additional $35 over five years is a lot of money.
But W just sent his defense secretary to Congress asking for another $190 billion for the Iraq war.
That pushes the total cost of the Iraq war - starting March 19, 2003 - to almost $750 billion.
OK, I know that's apples and oranges.
But at the same time, I think W's argument that providing health insurance for the children of the working poor is too costly are pretty lame when you consider he's spent three-quarters of a trillion dollars so far on Iraq with no end in sight.
That's the principle.
Now let's talk about political expediency.
Do you supposed W and all the Republicans who vote with him on this issue are going to be reminded of this at election time?
W has nothing to lose, he's not facing re-election. But plenty of Republicans are. Following W's lead on this one amounts to political suicide.
And finally, what's up with the veto pen all of a sudden? W was the guy who, for six years when Republicans were in control of Congress, never mustered one veto.
All the while, the alleged conservatives were ringing up huge deficits and enacting legislation with massive new federal bureaucracies like No Child Left Behind, the prescription plan and the USA PATRIOT Act.
That's what got the alleged conservatives out of the majority in the first place.
Now that the Demos are in control, a modest proposal aimed at the children of working poor is just too much for W to stomach.
Apparently, W and certain Republicans in Congress don't want to regain the majority.
Latest News
E-Editions
Are you nuts?
Honestly, I think he's completely lost control of his senses.
Sure, there have been lots of things W has done that I disagreed with.[[In-content Ad]]But in those cases - like the Iraq war, immigration, No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit and the deficit - there was always either a principled argument or some political expedience involved.
You could say that, well, even though you disagreed, you could see why he was doing it.
But when it comes to SCHIPS, W's threatened veto is just plain lunacy.
SCHIPS is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has become a highly successful means of expanding health coverage to the children of the working poor.
The program was enacted in 1997 as an effort to provide insurance coverage for kids living in families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford private insurance.
Roughly 91 percent of the kids in the program come from families with incomes less than twice the poverty level of $20,650 for a family of four - the income guideline set in the first bill.
The legal mandate for the program expires Sunday.
But it has been so popular among the states, 43 governors urged W and leaders of Congress to get the program reauthorized before its expiration date.
It's popular because, unlike most government programs, it seems to be working. It's helping kids who need health care.
The program cost $40 billion over the past 10 years and financed health insurance for 6.6 million kids.
The money goes straight to the states, which were given freedom to structure their own programs.
The insurance was provided by private companies, and the rates were negotiated by the states.
Earlier this month, Congress, seeing the value of the program, expanded the coverage to include an additional 4 million kids when they crafted the reauthorization bill.
The income guideline was to be raised to $61,800 for a family of four.
It was going to cost an additional $35 billion over the next five years, and it was going to be funded by a 61-cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.
The bill was passed Tuesday in the House. As I'm writing this on Thursday, it hasn't yet passed the Senate, but it will.
And after it passes both Houses, W will veto it.
James Broder of the Washington Post notes:
"If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Literally hundreds of organizations - grassroots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA - have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday."
W will veto because he objects to an expansion of this safety net for children of the working poor.
He uses the slippery slope argument that the legislation is just another step "toward the goal of government-run health care for every American."
He also carps about the cost and the method of financing.
Senators like Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley, never noted for particularly moderate, have urged W otherwise to no avail.
Faithful readers of this column may well be throwing up their arms in despair over my apparent liberal bent on this issue, but please understand, I am still an opponent of big government.
I have long decried the waste, fraud and inefficiency of government programs.
Often in my discussion with liberals, I have said, "You show me the one government program that actually hits its intended target and I'll give you them all."
Well, I believe this one gets about as close as any. And the price is right.
Certainly $40 billion over 10 years and an additional $35 over five years is a lot of money.
But W just sent his defense secretary to Congress asking for another $190 billion for the Iraq war.
That pushes the total cost of the Iraq war - starting March 19, 2003 - to almost $750 billion.
OK, I know that's apples and oranges.
But at the same time, I think W's argument that providing health insurance for the children of the working poor is too costly are pretty lame when you consider he's spent three-quarters of a trillion dollars so far on Iraq with no end in sight.
That's the principle.
Now let's talk about political expediency.
Do you supposed W and all the Republicans who vote with him on this issue are going to be reminded of this at election time?
W has nothing to lose, he's not facing re-election. But plenty of Republicans are. Following W's lead on this one amounts to political suicide.
And finally, what's up with the veto pen all of a sudden? W was the guy who, for six years when Republicans were in control of Congress, never mustered one veto.
All the while, the alleged conservatives were ringing up huge deficits and enacting legislation with massive new federal bureaucracies like No Child Left Behind, the prescription plan and the USA PATRIOT Act.
That's what got the alleged conservatives out of the majority in the first place.
Now that the Demos are in control, a modest proposal aimed at the children of working poor is just too much for W to stomach.
Apparently, W and certain Republicans in Congress don't want to regain the majority.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092