Bush vows to veto kids’ health insurance bill
President, Democrats clash over proposed legislation for poor children.

Updated: 1:16 p.m. ET Sept 22, 2007
WASHINGTON - President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program.

"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."

In the Democrat's response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell turned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't sign the bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by the end of the month.

At issue is the Children's Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires Sept. 30.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress' majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support as well.

‘The health of our children is far too important’
But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.

"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage — not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said.

The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

Many governors want the flexibility to expand eligibility for the program. So the proposal would overturn recent guidelines from the administration making it difficult for states to steer CHIP funds to families with incomes exceeding 250 percent of the official poverty level.

Rendell said thousands of children will lose health care coverage if Bush doesn't sign the bill.

"The administration has tried to turn this into a partisan issue and has threatened to veto. The health of our children is far too important for partisan politics as usual," he said. "If the administration is serious about solving our health care crisis, it should be expanding, not cutting back, this program which has made private health insurance affordable for millions of children."

What about what he said about that the new thing the Democrats are proposing? which is to raise the income qualification to 80 sumthin thous. dollar a year for the income cut off -to qualify for the children's government health insurance program? If you make 80 some thous. dollars a year, why can't you pay the insurance premium for your child's coverage? I can't have my child go uncovered, this is all I have to say about it with the amount of knowledge I have thus far. And I certainly can't afford a private plan for him. I just got his medical card renewed? Is he gonna lose it now?

Well it does scream federalized health care!! 80,000 a year and you can't afford health insurance? I don't think so...not to mention people who earn THAT kind of money usually are offered very good health insurance through their jobs,.... and including these people in federally funded programs is irresponsible...and don't worry about your child losing their coverage if they really qualify for it because that is not going to happen.

80 thousand sumthing? Well that's an exact number! Where did that number come from? It didn't come from this article! I dare you to provide to quote that number from the democrat proposal than from what President says that democrats are proposing to do!

That price 35 billion is very high. It is $8,750 per child. Wow.
That is a lot to pay. If they go through the normal uninsured emergency care they will probably only cost a quarter of that.

Throwing around billions here and there starts to add up after a while. It might be somewhere between 175 and 300 dollars for every working person in the country.

Besides that, if you keep hitting the cigarette tax eventually people will quit or smuggle. Its a no-win situation.

If I were a smoker I would think it was unfair. Its like kicking them when they are down.

I've been searching for that elusive 80 thousand sumthing cut off point but no luck yet but...

More NEWS on this topic


The US House of Representatives voted 225 to 204 yesterday to expand the government sponsored child health insurance scheme SCHIP and increase its budget by nearly 50 billion dollars over five years, despite a threat by President Bush that he would veto the legislation because it would move America toward nationalized healthcare.

The move, which was mostly a Democrat-Republican split in the voting, renews and expands the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. The scheme grants federal money to help states cover the health insurance costs of families who are just above the earning limit for the state sponsored Medicaid but don't earn enough to pay for private insurance. It is estimated this will continue coverage for 6 million children and extend it to another 5 million or so ininsured children.

The bill also includes an increase of 19.3 billion dollars spending on Medicare payments to doctors, more support for mental health and other benefits under the state sponsored Medicare insurance scheme for people aged 65 and over.

The increased funding would be paid for by a considerable increase in tobacco taxes (raising tax on cigarettes by 45 cents per pack for example) and cutting back Medicare payments to private insurers.

President Bush said is against the bill because it expands the government's control of healthcare and is financed by a large tax increase. He favours a system of tax breaks that encourage uninsured people to take out private insurance.

The President is proposing a scheme that extends the current SCHIP spend from 25 to 30 million dollars over five years. According to congressional budget analysts that proposal would be 14 billion dollars short of what is needed to maintain the current coverage over that period of time.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told Reuters news agency:

"Contrary to the claims of the president and other opponents of this bill, it does not constitute a 'government takeover of health care'."

"In fact, three-fourths of the children in the SCHIP program receive care today through private insurance plans that contract with the states," added Hoyer.

Republican Representative Jim McCrery of Louisiana agreed with the President that the Democrat led bill was "a massive expansion of government-controlled health care". He said it was a ploy to "lure" middle class families out of private health insurance.

In the meantime the Senate has also been working on a similar bill that would expand SCHIP by 35 billion dollars, with no changes to Medicare, but the tax on tobacco would be higher (61 cents more than the current 39 cents per pack of cigarettes, and even higher increases for cigars). Bush has threatened to veto this bill as well. The two bills will have to be made into one before being sent to the President.

Aren't you glad common sense prevailed? Even with a democrat majority in congress they couldn't pass this dog.

Philly I like to see your math just to be sure it's not "fuzzy math" your using.

Fitness I guess you glossed over this part because it don't support your argument

"But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not."

Philly I think your using Fuzzy math to come up with $8,750. Your forgetting that $35 billion is for 5 years of coverage. Divide $8,750 by 5 is $1,750. $1,750 a year for a poor child who would otherwise be naked in healthcare insurance coverage. Come on Philly have a heart!!!

Garden it's Bush that's saying it's costly and that it will make people switch to this program from private insurance. And with how we got to the Iraq war, the mess over the US District attorneys, the hoodwinking of the elections of 2000, you just can't trust George Bush Jr.

It would cost me about $3180 a year to cover me and my four kids. That's 636 / person, but the goverment can do it for 3x that...oh wait, that's just ONE kid.

So to cover my kids with my current plan, it's $2544 / year and the Democrat plan could do it for $7000. I'll leave it to you to figure out why I don't want this plan.

Spider! You have private insurance? Or does your employer cover some of your cost for health insurance? In any case most companies are cutting out health care plans in order to retain more profits.

You may have to pay more for your insurance if your employer changes the plan coverage in the near future.

Another thing Spider we don't know what level of coverage you plan covers and what the Democrat plan covers. It could be that with their plan better coverages with little to no out of pocket cost for the poor parents of the child. Your plan may have a high co-pay for medication, or other deductibles that if something were to happen you may ask for government assistance to cover the high costs.

Your quote had the numbers 35 billion by 40 million kids is 8750 each. Seems kind of high to me. I have a heart and I care about kids, I just don't thing the government is going to be very efficient in managing the program. What I actually think will happen if the program is enacted is that the government will set standards for letting children into the program that are somehow higher than expected, so a LOT less children will get in the program. Then there will be barriers for treatment much like you would find in an HMO. Finally the bureaucracy will grow so that the cost of administering the plan will increase every year. What you will most likely see as an end result is that the program costs several times the estimated budget, and the number of children will be a fraction of the original estimate, and finally people will make careers in working in management of the program, who would do society a whole lot more good working in private enterprise somewhere, and we wouldn't be paying for their pensions in 20 years.

Philly are you as smart as that idiot Bush!

Now I have to teach you math!

35 billion over 5 years is 7 billion a year

35/5 = 7

Now the Democrat plans adds 4 million to the program.

7 billion / 4 million = $1750

I have no idea where you get 40 million kids.

I saw the your misleading figure of $8750 per child of actually

for coverage for 5 years.

Now compare to the $200 billion Bush is asking for the war for a year and to the $35 billion over 5 YEARS, $35 billion is chump change!

I see debate with you is like debate with a child who's has some concept of math but like Bush is a C student.

Fitness, I think the topic of your post was Bush hates poor kids yet he proposes a continuation of the existing program while more debate takes place but you ignore that fact completely. When I point that out to you, you do a 90 degree to the left and go off on the war.

Garden I was simply stating that Bush has the wrong priorities. Critics have and will continue to point out that Bush will appear to care for the war rather than the welfare and health of the people of country he suppose to represent. Rather he is look out for corporations to control healthcare. You saw how the he overlook the financial market in the Sub-prime loans mess. He just sat back hoping that the market would correct itself. If he continues to think that the market will in the balance out, wherther its the stock market or the healthcare market, then for certain it will crash spiraling down.

I point out to the crash of 1929 that cause the Great Depression. You may not remember it but your father did. It could a 25% unemployment rate to change how Washington regulated the business sector and now the is time to change the healthcare industry.

so based on that Bush hates poor kids, sorry I can't seem to follow your logic, if there is any to be followed.

Forge Bush just doesn't care.