We're Taking George Bush to Court
On October 2, 2007, President Bush put ideology over the children of this country by vetoing an extension to the children's health care program known as SCHIP. SCHIP funds basic health care for over 6 million of America's children in all 50 states -- mostly children from poor families with little or no access to other health services.
Here's what our President -- tone-deaf on health care, as on so many other issues -- had to say about health care back in July:
"I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."
Unbelievable. What would George W. Bush - son of a President, grandson of a Senator - know about trying to get basic health care through an emergency room?
What would he know about the overtaxed, under-funded hospital that serves low-income neighborhoods in America's cities? Has he ever waited all day to see the traveling doctor who visits a rural community one afternoon a week? Sat in a crowded hospital triage room for four hours? Waited six weeks for an appointment at a public clinic?
Can he even imagine the desperation a parent of a sick child feels when they are turned away from medical services because they can't afford to pay?
Of course not. Instead he suggests we spend another $50 billion on the war in Iraq. How many children could be covered with even a fraction of the money we've spent on this disastrous war?
As a Governor, I'm used to getting things done. Not just talking about solutions, not just railing against injustices, but instead taking action, building consensus, and solving problems. In New Mexico, we're poised to expand the SCHIP-funded New Mexikids program (which brings immunizations, regular checkups, and other health services to 19,000 children) to cover 11,000 more kids.
Now, I'm not going to just sit by and let President Bush endanger that progress and the health of our children. We're going to do something about it.
I'm joining the Governors of states from California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, Arizona, and New Hampshire -- and we're taking President Bush to court.
Basic health services, like immunizations and regular checkups, are one of the most cost-effective ways of giving children a leg up in life. But our short-sighted President would rather turn his back on America's children, and waste more time and treasure on his failed war. We can't stand by and let this continue any longer.
Our nation's children do not deserve to be subject to an ideological inflexibility. We must not let this happen.
Help us take President Bush to court - contact your Governor now and ask them to join the lawsuit, or sign our petition in support: http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/s/schip
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
George W. Bush has singlehandedly increased the national debt by 300 percent.. and for what, to give the rich tax cuts while American children go hungry and without basic health care..
Our soldiers die in far off lands so that corporations can increase profits and all the while, our children go without food or medicine..
We stand at the edge of the abyss and peer over.. do we fall or step back.. i say we will fall.. our politicians are cowards and whores and our voters to lazy or stupid to change direction.
good luck impeaching or suing or getting help from the powers that be.. for me and my own we will stand alone, apart from you who sell us out for a few coins of silver..
.
Does the definition of children include individuals up to the age of 25 like this bill does as well as families making up to 82,000.00 a year like this bill does? Every family that the Democrats have paraded to the newsmedia were eligible for free health under the old SCHIPS plan. Drop the age to 21 and lower the eligibility income and I will support this bill. Who is kidding who, this is another attempt at National Health Care. Does anybody on this blogg realize that in England consumers of National Health Care are pulling there own teeth as well as paying extra to get private Healthcare because the National Healthcare system is in pieces. Is this the kind of system we want because that is what will happen eventually?
pa, the bill's age deadline right now is 19. It does NOT cover families who make $82,000 per year.
Every industrialized country in the world has a national health care system EXCEPT the usa. And Im sure most of them have some problems but at least they HAVE national healthcare.
If youre going to criticize something at least read up on it before you make yourself look like a complete and utter fool!!
First, I wonder if the bill really does only extend to 19 instead of 25, the backers have not said that the age of 25 has been dropped back to 19 which you think they would say if that really happened. Next, as far as I know England's and Canada's National Healthcare System are a disaster. Do we really want to emulate them? Even if there are only a small number of cases which I don't think is the case, there is really nothing you can do about it, if it happens to you. Imagine, being a recipient of an apology from a government agency because we killed your husband due to gross negligence. In a private system you would at least have the choice of sueing the corporation responsible. What can you do to a government agency? I know our system has many problems but I don't believe emulating England or Canada is the answer. There system has terrible problems has well, maybe even worse then ours. Be careful what you wish for because you might get it.
Steorn the solution to global Warming can be found at http://www
I wish the state's governors would unite in this effort to expand the CHIP program. There are over 47 million uninsured and more under-insured in this country. Proper basic medical and dental care: nutrition, immunizations, etc. can stave off disease, infection and illness which costs far more to treat, forces parents to lose time off work, and can be contagious to others, or miss instructional time in school.
Cuba, far poorer than the U.S., provides cradle-to-grave healthcare for its citizens. In fact, we're the only industrialized, western and affluent country in the world that does not.
Over half of all bankruptcy filings are caused by huge medical bills, forcing families to liquidate assets, and then work virtually as indentured servants while garnishments of wages and future earnings (up to 25% of disposable, after-tax income) is lost to them.
Of course, those in the administration and legislature do not understand or care about the plight of healthcare costs, as they receive free government
They're reaping grotesque profits off this war which is bankrupting our country ($9-trillion debt--up from $4-trillion when Bush took office), whie claiming they're being fiscally responsible in denying health care to children and under-funding public education.
They're pro-life when it comes to an unborn fetus, and wanted to intervene to save Terri Schiavo, but don't care a whit about those who are alive.
not blind, beautifully said! thank you!
Medicare for all except Giglawyer. He will have to go to the ER if he gets sick.
Yahooooo!!!!
A Nation of LAWS.
Conceived, by the LAW.
Ratified as THE LAW!
Why not,,,,, employ the THE LAW!
WE the People, of the United States of America, in order to defend against named and delineated acts of division, disloyalty, corruption, extortion of public funds and dishonor to the Nation and Constitution and reputation of same, do hereby attest and affirm, that one George W, Bush has willfully committed crimes against humanity, deceived the American people, with malice and forethought and with direct, intractable disregard of the prohibitions and protections of the Constitution, do now proceed in UNITY and with the utmost haste to seek satisfactions under the Laws of our Nation as enumerated in said Constitution and rights of assembly and petitions guaranteed therein, as said abuses of powers are to be found self-evident by action and deed and perceived by the PEOPLE of the WORLD in kind, to be in violation of the principles of the United States of America and derelict of his duties of the in fulfillment of his office as President of the United States of America.
Yahooooooo!!!!!!!
No man is above the LAW!
Yeeeeeeeee
THE PEAOPLE Vs. George W. BUSH!
Free at last,,, free at last,, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY,,, FREE AT LAST!
Yeeeeeeeee
All the best
Knute (Neo-LIB)
"I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."
Wow, this is "Let them eat cake" of our times...
I guess the dipstick in chief has no idea how cost-INEFFICIENT that is.
Maybe we should bring back the Guillotine.
Many taxpayers are forced to bankroll an unjustfied war we have'nt supported and don't approve of..By supporting childrens healthcare I feel at least some of my taxes are going to a cause I feel is necessary and useful for a brighter future for our country.I'
Taking Bush to court would be a waste of time and money. Congress is the body that has to stop him if he is to be stopped. Bush is right you can go to an emergency room they can not turn you down legally. Right.? In some cases the e.r. can turn you away and if they do not you had better have insurance or you will be turned over to a collection agency or a lawyer. This action by the Hospital totally ruins your credit. Bankruptcy? forget it medical bills are forever. Remember the bankrupycy reform act. YEAH. When The Government says REFORM you can bet on two things. The rich will get more breaks and the poor will get screwed.
One of the hospitals in my hometown gives away 8 figures a year in unrembursed care. Most of it through the ER. (I'm in upstate NY) Sure they go to court to get some back which is why the fiugre is only 8 digits. But a lot just gets written off as not worth the expense of going to court or collections because the person hasn't got enough to make it worth the costs. Who pays off the 10+ million? Everybody else.
It's too bad Richardson is putting politics before facts. He is usually better than that...
Here are some facts
*Under the bill passed by congress and vetoed by the President, it would have increased the family income levels from $40K to $84K related to eligibility.
* 24 year olds would have been considered kids in certain instances.
* 1.5 million children currently covered by private plans under their parents employers coverage could have dropped out and moved to the free government run program.
* Their was no monitoring program in place to insure the kids got into the program. Currently, over 600,000 kids eligible for this program do not participate because their parents do not file the proper paperwork or contact the proper state angency. In effect, they continue to go to emergency rooms and get care that is 10 times the cost of a doctors visit.
Please anyone name one program that the government has ever run that was better than that found in the private sector.
I'll name several: Every other industrialized democracy that provides healthcare to every one of its citizens for less than we do.
Also: your statement about potential dropouts from private insurance is nothing but a big what-if.
I worked for awhile for an insurance company that administered the Texas SCHIP program. You couldn't just drop your private insurance for the SCHIP. Why? Because you would have to leave your kids unisnured for 90 days. Most of the callers I spoke to weren't willing to take that chance.
I believe the new guidelines made that 6 months.
And the British use pliars on their teeth.
There were many programs that worked fine until the Publicans started to privatize everything. And/or rob them, like social security.
Medicare still works, for now, but I'll just bet the Pubs have got something in mind to screw that up, too.
Sort of a strawman argumment though, not what the article is about. You bring up the Pub talking points well, how's the pay?
Social Security is failing and will fail, because the premise upon which it is built is entirely flawed. And no, Medicare/Medicaid does not run better or more efficiently than private insurance. These are not Republican talking points. They are facts.
The better question for Gov. Blowhard Richardson to answer is the basis for his lawsuit. A state cannot sue the federal government to pass a law. A state can sue for a violation of a law. But my guess is that this "lawsuit" is going to be a big nothing.
Our government is not a giant teat for us to suckle on. Giving power to the government only weakens the governed, and turning our health care over to the government is a GIANT mistake.
The new bill would have risen the minimum income level from $40,000 to about $60,000. That's the income level that each state must accept, but they can choose to accept a higher level up to $84,000 (which they may also do under the current program that was passed in 1997). Each state sets its own criteria for the circumstances under which the higher income level is accepted. Thus far, I believe New York is the only state that uses the highest income level. Basically what the new legislation would have mandated is the expansion of the program from the $40K minimum to the $60K minimum--and that's before taxes. It's a very complex program and to say that the expanded version will cover families with incomes up to $84,000 is a gross oversimplification.
"24 year olds would have been considered kids in certain instances.
Perhaps, If they are in college or something like that?
Or perhaps if they are disabled or mentally challenged?
Try Medicare, for one. When I had Blue Cross/Blue Shield, New York Life and Great West, I had to call them every time I had a claim for, at minimum, the 1st six months of coverage. The problem was that I exceeded the annual deductible with the 1st visit each year. They weren't planning on that, since I was in my 20s and 30s. I got sick and tired of insisting those companies pay their contacted amounts within 3 months. Ultimately they did, but their dragging out the inevitable didn't make my life any easier. I had enough on my plate dealing with cancer.
Health Care for Profit only works for rich people. Expand Medicare/Medicaid, let every citizen be declared a federal employee for the purpose of having the same medical plan as Federal employees, and let everyone choose between all these plans and their employers insurance plan.
The potential for lawsuit by the states against the Federal government is more of a political ploy than a realistic endeavor. However, Governor Richardson's courage in speaking out in such a way is great. What this does is keep the SCHIP issue right in the voting public's eye. Those members of congress foolish enough not to vote to overturn bush's veto will find themselves fighting for their political lives.
Go Governor Richardson!
How is it courageous to speak out in defense of uninsured children? No, the real courage would be for Richardson to stand up and say "this program is worth it. Now, what other programs are we going to cut (social security? farm subsidies? defense spending?) to pay for it."
That's leadership. We only have so much damned money to spend. We can't afford this program. We can't even afford the programs we already have. Something's gotta give somewhere.
Iraq!
We could stop cutting taxes on the top 1% of earners. The money used to be there, until the current repubs cut taxes for billionaires. Then they turn around and complain there's no money? Who's fault is that?
Unless you smoke you will sacrifice nothing for S-chip.
I will only support this bill when it is paid for by all Americans.
If a non-smoker supports this bill it is a slimy and underhanded act.
Get your Reps to make ALL Americans pay for this program.
I won't buy a pack of Camel smokes daily to pay for it, will you?
I don't have a cell phone...ho
If smokers didn't have more health problems that raised insurance rates for everyone- you might have a point
Non-smokers also have problems not related to tobacco. Should only smokers pay for their health?
The main reason I, like Dr. Black, oppose this bill is that it is one more regressive tax. Republicans and the DLC wing of the Democratic Party believe regressive taxes are the only type allowed. Heaven forbid those that most benefit from our way of life should help shoulder the burden!
Once upon a long ago and nearly forgotten time, you could depend on the Democrats to champion the redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots. Under the DLC, the Democrats have joined the Republicans who define redistribution of wealth as the flow of wealth from the have-nots to the haves.
You are the one lacking a point. Some beginning smokers ARE children. The whole business of funding this care through cigarette taxes is cynical to say the least. Cigarette taxes ought to be paying for lung cancer treatment and smoking cessation.
By the way, smoking is addictive. Might want to remember that so the health problems "that raised the insurance rates" is a little more complicated that you allow.
It's a bad bill. Why don't kids deserve a real solution?? One that doesn't rely on promoting someone else's health problem in the making.
I agree that taking this issue to court would be a long and cumbersome process, and it would be better to urge the Democrat members of Congress to stand up and begin to show some consternation and outrage.
A lawsuit in your state filed to show that a child for whom a man was paying child support did not exist took at least five years, and you knew the details of the suit full well. Do you expect that a drawn-out lawsuit, say five years or so, would really do any good?
You should consider running for Senator, or strongly urging Congress to really take this President to task.
"it would be better to urge the Democrat members of Congress to stand up and begin to show some consternation and outrage"
Please. Been there, done that. Why don't they try doing something substantive, for a change.
It is not "Democrat" members, it is Democratic members. With your disrespect for the Democratic party, I suggest you move over to Faux News, Ann Colter, and /or michelle Malkin's blog. You have a home there.
Pure and simple this was bad legislation to begin with and Pres Bush asked those bastions on bipartisanship, Pelosi and the dems in the house to rework so this did not become a stepping stone to socilist medicine. Instead under this bill families making in excess of $75,000.00 would not have to pony up for health care. But then again if yu want to wait months for an MRI or pull your own teeth lts get the socialism train in motion
If socialism is good for the conglomerates industrialists when they need to be bailed out by the US Government, why is it wrong for children's health care.
Yea, they are about to bail out the rich bankers, but not the poor people taken advantage of by them. Just like Neal Bush's Silverdo Savings and Loan. I think we are still paying for that corporate rip-off.
Dearest rwe,
Your beloved pres bush and all the republica senators and member of the house ALL receive FREE GOVENRMENT HEALTH CARE - FOR LIFE.
What do they know about struggling families trying to get their kids to the doctor?
HMOs will not provide dental insurance (other than with annual premiums equal to the level of care provided). HMOs sometimes make their insured members wait months for an MRI. But HMOs must make a profit. They make more profit by providing less care. Americans spend more per capita on health care than any other nation, yet Americans are not the healthiest people in the world. The healthies live in countries that provide health care to all citizens.
What's your point?
Apparently you prefer to reserve the socialist medicine for the pols?
I've seen this "families making $75,000" talking point flung around so much I am convinced it is a phony.
Well, considering the cost for a basic Health Insurance plan for a family of 4 is now $11,000 a year, we need this. This is for people with no pre-existing conditions. People may be unable to get any insurance company to take their policy because of health problems.
Isn't this what Health Insurance is supposed to do?
Take the risk of sick people and spread it out over a wide pool of healthy people? It doesnt work this way at all, as long as private insurers get to cull out the sick from any given population and refuse to cover them.
Families of FOUR or MORE would be eligible for SCHIP up to 3.5 times the poverty line (which makes sense, since you would need to feed all four children), and only insome states. The actual amount varies from state to state. And please remember this is for a family of FOUR or MORE children, if you only have one or two children, the amount is much lower:
State Income Ceiling
% of Federal Poverty Level In dollars: Family of 4, 2007
1 New Jersey 350% $72,275
2 Hawaii* 300% $71,250
3 Connecticut 300% $61,950
4 D.C. 300% $61,950
5 Maryland 300% $61,950
6 Massachusetts 300% $61,950
7 Missouri 300% $61,950
8 New Hampshire 300% $61,950
9 Vermont 300% $61,950
10 Pennsylvania 300% $61,950
11 Minnesota 275% $56,788
12 California 250% $51,625
13 New York 250% $51,625
14 Rhode Island 250% $51,625
15 Tennessee 250% $51,625
16 Washington 250% $51,625
17 Georgia 235% $48,528
18 New Mexico 235% $48,528
19 West Virginia 220% $45,430
20 Alaska* 175% $45,185
21 Alabama 200% $41,300
22 Arizona 200% $41,300
23 Arkansas 200% $41,300
24 Colorado 200% $41,300
25 Delaware 200% $41,300
26 Florida 200% $41,300
27 Illinois 200% $41,300
28 Indiana 200% $41,300
29 Iowa 200% $41,300
30 Kansas 200% $41,300
31 Kentucky 200% $41,300
32 Louisiana 200% $41,300
33 Maine 200% $41,300
34 Michigan 200% $41,300
35 Mississippi 200% $41,300
36 Nevada 200% $41,300
37 North Carolina 200% $41,300
38 Ohio 200% $41,300
39 South Dakota 200% $41,300
40 Texas 200% $41,300
41 Utah 200% $41,300
42 Virginia 200% $41,300
43 Wyoming 200% $41,300
44 Idaho 185% $38,203
45 Nebraska 185% $38,203
46 Oklahoma 185% $38,203
47 Oregon 185% $38,203
48 Wisconsin 185% $38,203
49 Montana 150% $30,975
50 South Carolina 150% $30,975
51 North Dakota 140% $28,910
rwe, you're full of it as usual. I make 78k a year as a single person. Luckily I'm insured through my employer, but if I weren't and had kids with any kind of major health issues I'd be out on the street. I also know that my HMO will look for any opportunity to deny me coverage. You conservatives are always looking for ways to justify your own selfishness. and President Bush, who's never worked for anything in his worthless life, is first in line. May you never get seriuosly ill.
Actually, Eoin, I hope he does. I also hope his insurance company drops him for making too many claims. Then, maybe, his I got mine tough shit for you attitude might change!!
AMEN Brother.
Who pays for your prostate treatments? Medications? Most likely Medicare. Medicare is THE most cost effective health insurance in the nation.
mmmm... some of that evil SOCIALIZED stuff.
Well, American business is arguing they cannot be competitive on the global market because of the health care crisis. This is an unfortunate fact you overlook in your stale old talking points.
Health Insurance and medical care, the whole system, has serious flaws. But the right will parrot the tired old term of socialism to shut down discussion of really needed reform. We must find innovative solutions to these problems, uniquely American ones. Passing SCHIP is a start.
Mr. Bogle, the president of Vanguard, says this system of health insurance must change. Watch his interview on Bill Moyers, when he says Insurance companies make more money that the technology sector. Why is that? They produce nothing.
Not having some sort of government backed health inurance is hurting American business globally and is hurting the creation of new jobs. It would be good for trade and good for the American economy.
oldprostrate and rwe. Care to share what kind of medical insurance you have? Are you on or looking forward to Medicare?
I have BCBS. They raised my rates by more than 100% the past 5 years and cut benefits. Health Insurance companies seem to be the only entity immune to regular contract law. They can change your contract at any time, for no reason at all.
Bush has Government health insurance, for life, and he isnt complaining.
In my view, the correct venue for this situation is the Congress.
If the states do not believe that Bush's veto was correct, then they should override that veto.
If the states believe that their representatives in the House and in the Senate are not acting according to the wishes of their state, then they should recall those representatives back to the state-house for a very sound drubbing.
While I share Gov. Richardson's passion for this issue, Congress IS the correct place to deal with it. Problem is: every representative voting against it has some BOGUS excuse or another. In North Carolina, we have Democrat (!) Bob Etheridge who raises tobacco saying that smokers should not have to bear the brunt of paying for the expansion. But think about it: smokers come disproportionately from the families of the very people most likely to benefit from the program.
Oy!
Trust me. Those fools in Congress who do not vote to overturn shrub's veto will find themselves looking for work in January 2008.
I will work for it and pray for it!
Loading comments…
Posted October 16, 2007 | 12:35 PM (EST)