Bush Vows to Veto Children's Insurance Bill
Program drawn into health care debate
WASHINGTON -For years, it has been one of the few issues that liberals and conservatives in Congress could agree on: continuing and expanding a state-federal partnership to provide health insurance for children, mainly those of the working poor.
So when senators of both parties reached a compromise this summer and then beat back efforts by House Democrats to triple the program's budget, the measure's many GOP backers thought they had a political victory that President Bush could embrace.
Instead, the issue has become an ideological flash point, and Bush is threatening a veto. In the process, he could create new intraparty turmoil for fellow Republicans who have looked to passage of a bill to brighten an otherwise grim political outlook.
The question will come to the floor of Congress this week, days before the current program is set to expire Sept. 30. At that point, 6 million children, including more than 100,000 in Maryland, could lose coverage.
One snag is cost. Even the final compromise, while far less open-handed than the House wanted, calls for more money. And the White House is trying to draw a tighter line on domestic spending.
The bigger stumbling block has turned out to be ideological. After 10 years of sailing along as a feel-good idea that just about everyone supported, the State Children's Health Insurance Program has suddenly been drawn into the contentious debate about health care in general.
Bush has attacked the compromise bill because it would expand coverage to some middle-class families instead of retaining the plan's original focus on those with low incomes. The bill could lay the groundwork for government-run national health care, he has said.
In effect, the White House says, Democrats see the bill as a way to begin doing for children what Medicare does for the elderly: make medical care a national entitlement.
Democrats and Republicans supporting the expansion answer that their concern is with economic reality. With the cost of family coverage averaging about $12,000 a year, even some parents with middle-class incomes can't afford it if their employers don't help shoulder the cost. And when uninsured children get seriously sick, supporters say, the burden falls on society as a whole.
The program began as an attempt to salvage something positive from the rancorous collapse of the 1990s national health-care reform debate. States got generous federal matching funds and flexibility to design their own coverage.
At first, the program was aimed at uninsured children whose parents earned too much to qualify for coverage under Medicaid but too little to afford private coverage. The goal was to reach families earning up to twice the federal poverty level, now about $41,000 for a family of four. The vast majority covered by the program are still in that category.
But as health-care costs soared, states began to grapple with knowing that many families - especially in urban areas where the cost of living was higher than average - had trouble paying for private health insurance even though they earned more than twice the poverty level.
Fourteen states - including Maryland, where a family of four with an income of up to $61,950 is eligible - have higher eligibility cutoffs. The pending bill would allow states to go to three times the poverty level.
Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, a conservative Republican who was one of the creators of the program, says that is well short of providing what the White House says it fears: government-financed health care for the middle class.
He joined forces with such liberal Democratic senators as Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia to push the compromise.
"The administration [is] making it clear they do not want it to be morphed into one-size-fits-all government health care, but to be honest with you, this bill doesn't do that," Hatch said. "I believe the president has had bad advice on this, but I understand the president's desire to keep spending under control."
Funding for the program has run about $5 billion a year. Bush wants to increase it by an average of $1 billion a year during the next five years. Independent analysts say that's not enough to sustain the current caseload.
Congress wants to add $35 billion over five years by raising tobacco taxes. That would sustain the current caseload and also cover 3 million to 4 million more children. About 9 million children are uninsured nationwide.
Bush wants to set a limit, discouraging states from covering uninsured children in families with incomes above $50,000. The administration recently denied a request by New York to extend help to families earning as much as $80,000.
Congress would face an uphill struggle to overturn a presidential veto, Hatch said, and would probably pass a temporary extension of the current program.
© 2007 The Baltimore Sun
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
18 Comments so far
Show AllI do not happen to believe that Bush is being inconsistent here. Bush is against abortion, holding the so-called "pro-life" position, because more babies equals more cannon fodder and more desperate workers willing to accept less pay. And he is against providing health care for those children because, for one thing, they are easily replaceable (in his mind), and two, if the public accepts that the children's health care must be paid for, then that leads to the conclusion that all the children have significant value. But that may lead to resistance to using them for cannon fodder or paying them minimal wages when they get older.
Also, it has become clear that when the health of children is assured that the birth rate drops as parents do not feel the need to add children to make sure at least one will survive, and Bush wants the birth rate to increase to give him his cannon fodder and desperate labor.
This is coming from a president who was elected since he was is pro-life!
Talk about talking out of both sides of one's mouth!
When the depression hits, the insurance companies are going to be bankrupt. We are going to have a depression within the next few months. There won't be any health care, except for those who are good friends of, or related to doctors.
Yeah! It should be a gas tax! Drivers should pay. With as much as we Americans drive, we could afford it on a quarter of a cent tax increase. You would never know....how much they already steal.
Good, I hope he does veto it. It's not fair to make the smokers pay, Congress.
W and his momma want to "save" that money to spend it on a "nobler cause," that pretty white dress, high heels, and wig for the "Terminator" to make sure W and the "Terminator" can have a fake gay marriage in the White House to fool gays enough to split their votes and with Diebold on the job stealing like crazy preserve W's "legacy" by keeping the presidency for the neo cons.
W, the son of Satan is just showing his true colors-- "surpirse."
Stealing from children to make more war. What do you expect?
This man is an ex-convict.
You don't wake up one day and suddenly, poof, you're not an ex-con.
He was arrested and booked and convicted in Maine in 1972 for FELONY drunk driving. I have seen the documents on bushthedrunk.com. Of course that website mysteriously disappeared a few years ago along with similar arrest records in Texas.
This guy is a piece of trash. We have never know such evil in the white house.
At the very least he is an incompetent custodian of public safety and must be impeached.
worry about domestic spending. how about we fire the damn private greed mongers he hired to keep his little war going and use that money for our kids. we don't need to impeach this fool. we need to impale him
"No Rich Kid Left Behind"
...And Jesus said 'Let the Children Come!'
"President Bush criticized Congress for dragging its feet on spending bills in a speech Monday before business leaders at the White House." - - - Is Toxic George itching to veto more compassionate spending?
Can you see where they have airbrushed the horns growing out of his forhead ?
It will take money away from our war in Iraq and we can't let that happen, right?
"Funny how they can always find the money for another war, but to keep the children healthy, oh why bother?"
This a Class War and has been going on for Centuries. From the aristocracy in England and Europe to the present. Its the old "pull up the ladder Jack I'm on board", while the uber rich bask in their new found War booty, the bourgeois and particularly the proletariat are slowly robbed through deliberate under funding in health services [including insurance safety net for the most defenseless in society;CHILDREN],under funding in education, income bracket creep, rising inflation and falling property values...Notice how Bu$hes tax break was really about lining the pockets of highest income earners. This is a disguised Class War and not very well disguised at that..
The children of privilege never need health care supplments. Thus, they have no connection to those who do.
What would you expect from people who have been murdering children as sport for far too long.
Right on, ezeflyer.
The more people are covered by government programs, the fewer the number of people who have to pay the outrageous premiums to the greedy insurance companies.
Between them, the oil companies, and big pharma, we'll soon find out what serfdom feels like.
Don't they realize that when we have no money left, then we won't be able to buy their goods?
Funny how they can always find the money for another war, but to keep the children healthy, oh why bother?
If this Administration and Congress work for Insurance companies and other corporations, why don't We the People incorporate and hire an administration that works for us? That's much easier than depending on sold out politicians to do the work for us isn't it?