SCHIP Costs Too Much!?!?!?!?!
President George W. Bush today vetoed legislation that would have expanded a children's health insurance program, telling lawmakers they should send him a version that will cost less and focus on low-income families.
OK -- let me get this straight. SCHIP costs too much. Let's mull that over. SCHIP costs too much.
Where the hell was this man for the last 6 years!?!?!?!?!
Let's go to the CBO to see what ol' Bush has been up to.
According to the historical budget data, total federal outlays have increased from 18.5% of GDP in 2001 to 20.3% in 2006. That's some fiscal prudence.
Discretionary spending increased from $649.3 billion in 2001 to $1.016 trillion in 2006. That's a 56.47% increase.
And who can forget my personal favorite "shut the supply-siders up" chart -- the hopefully now famous "total federal debt outstanding chart
But -- SCHIPs costs too much.
Maybe we should have included an arms appropriation in the bill. Then Bush would have given it a blank check.
Loading comments…
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
Bush costs America too much!!!!!!
Why does W think SCHIP costs too much?
Because it isn't advancing his agenda: war, money to his contributors, and eternal hate.
Like a drug addict, anything spent on non-drug items is money wasted!
The Veto on SCHIP was more an act of principle on the President's part than anything else. I think Bush and his faction of Americans will recoil against anything that smacks of New Deal like policies. Anything that seems to give something for nothing from their perspective.
The problem for the position of the President's faction is that they only represent a small fraction of the American people ... and not those who are hurting.
A wise friend once told me that leaders of a nation are fairly free to do whatever they like as long as the people's stomachs are full ... but when the people's hunger starts to rise, watch out.
I think American's are starting to get hungry. I think many are saying "If FreeMarket Globalism isn't working for me and my family ... TRASH IT."
The aspirations of the President's American faction are too myopic and selfish to be of benefit to the vast majority of the American people who simply want to live in a society that allows them to provide for the health and welfare of their families, and feel like their children have an opportunity for a better future. The President's faction of Americans don't feel that basic American desire is a luxury they can afford ...
... So SCHIP, for the small amount it costs, is vetoed because of the great threat it represents to what the President's Faction is trying to create out of America.
I really think it is time for a New Deal.
Bush proves himself to be anything but "Christian" more and more each day.
Denying health care to children while requesting 30 times as much money to continue a war that no one supports.
I don't use the term "evil" lightly, but it certainly defines the man whom we now have in the White House.
Idiot Democrats. If they were serious about healthcare they would have written a Bill that would garner universal support; a Bill that the President and Republican members of Congress would support and fund; a Bill that would incorporate Private Enterprise and the fundamentals of sound Conservative Economic Policies; a Bill that would have entrusted the future of our children into the hands of an entity with a proven track record. They would have authorized a no bid contract for Halliburton to provide the services! Idiot Democrats.
The veto was bad idea-but it was crappy of Dems NOT to include how they'd pay for it (cig taxes)as oppsed to those taxes by upper earning 10% of those who got Bush cuts. From cig taxes-why are the poor always the ones taxed and upper 10% get breaks-that's BS.
Plus why are those contributing to child sicknesses not being taxed-like fast food or companies using transfatty a. or corn syrup additives?
What the hell sense does it make to use cig taxes as the source of funding for a major expenditure such as this? What happens if the cig taxes go down due to less people smoking? I guess we will just raise the taxes some more to compensate. Oh wait...that will make MORE people stop smoking. Kind of like raising the price of cigarettes in the 90's ALREADY made the number of smokers go down. Idiot plan.
Logic dictates that if smoking goes down, overall health costs will also go down.
What he really means is costs his donors from the Insurance industry too much off their bottom line. A token effort to look like he cares but not enough to really hurt the bottom line of his masters.
SCHIP DOES work and the states will almost always do a better job at allocating funds for healthcare, even when the feds withhold funds. I do think it unfair to target and penalize smokers with the tax..how about the fast food, smog factories, auto and pharmaceutical industries or those corporate (almost) tax-free profiteering industries and companies? Those taxes alone would pay for this program! If you think you are NOT paying for the uninsured, think again..every time they seek primary care in an ER or worse yet, DON'T seek care until their illness has a much higher cost prognosis, both physically and mentally ..that cost is passed on to you, either in local/state tax revenues, increased federal taxes for Medicaid, higher costs at hospitals or in higher rates for insurance, which some joyfully have and others are unable to afford.
But, come-on..$20 billion/five years for healthcare~vs~$40billion/year for Iraqi war? This should be a no-brainer. Talk about the voodoo economics. Catsup, anyone?..in a cardboard condo in that lovely alley? Suffer a devastating illness and that's your prognosis!
BTW, I don't hear people bitching about 2 retirees who make $50K/year and qualify for both SS benefits and Medicare..payments may be offset with replacemnt % rates, to provide for those who paid in less, but still..do THEY really need it? (more than that family earning $50K needs it for healthcare?) And, what happened to "we the people" or is that just lip service? If "we the people" are expected to do our part in all other ways, what about those "we the people" that need help from other "we the people" who can help? Isn't that part of the responsibility in the "we the people" deal?
~WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more PERFECT UNION, establish JUSTICE, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.~
"$20 billion/five years for healthcare~vs~$40billion/year for Iraqi war? This should be a no-brainer"
Speaking of no-brainer, you fuzzy headed Liberals are short on math skills. The Iraq War costs $140 billion a year. What, did you leave out Halliburton's profits? Damn Liberals.
"bitching about 2 retirees who make $50K/year and qualify for both SS benefits and Medicare..payments" "do THEY really need it? (more than that family earning $50K needs it for healthcare?)"
Ha! Once again your Liberal "knowledge" of Government shows through. Social Security and Medicare are both running a SURPLUS. The healthcare you propose would come from the Federal Budget, you know the one that our President fixed by rebating its SURPLUSS to his rich friends. You just wait Fuzzy, when our President gets finished with Social Security it'll have a deficit too and then where will your Socialized Medicare be! Ha!
Jeez, talk about angst, olephart! Take a deep breathe, in and out..relax, willya?
Oh, my, mea culpa! A typo, $40 billion instead of $140 billion..What? You know the numbers and you can't figure THAT out? My knowledge about Halliburton is probably as acute as yours, which is WHY I make the comparison to the Iraqi war. Why do you assume I am a "damn liberal", because I feel the cost of healthcare should be more important than the costs for the Iraqi war.
As far as SS/Medicare running a surplus. Yes, I realize that and I also realize that healthcare funding would come from a federal program. I was making an esoteric point about the $50K/year qualification for the benefit of a previous commenter, who voiced an opinion that the amount was too high. It may be apples/oranges technically, as to which budget it comes from, but the point being..if retirees qualify for their benefits at that income rate, (regardless of the program/source) why not parents with children? You get that, don't you..as a means test? Hope THAT is not too esoteric for you to understand.
And, just for the record, this shouldn't be a liberal/conservative issue. Children are neither. I gather from your comments that you must be a retired libertarian, olephart? Or, just a confused conservative? (voted for Reagan and lost your way?) Or, just angry in general? Such condescension, namecalling and just plain old devisive mentality is ineffective. It's clear you read into things what you want to see and argue not to persuade, but for your own amusement.
Again, Jeez!
Actually no. At least, not originally. "We the people" were supposed to be responsible for ourselves, not everyone else in the world. The original American's were very independent and completely mistrustful of any kind of big government or big government programs. It was only after the New Deal that some people got the idea that "we the people" were responsible for net collective welfare of the entire population.
One day's costs for the Iraq War would provide medical care for over 400,000 children...the $$$ are there...the will to spend where actually needed is not.
Why is there any discussion on this?
Where can we possibly find a whole $5 billion a year for children to get healthcare?
Let's try, OK?
(I'm really pissed)
While Chimpy and his Congress wanted to slam the brakes on Social Security, they were looting our annual SS tax proceeds. They used them for Inter-Agency "loans". That's where the Executive Branch raids our SS system and spends the money. NO PAYBACK SCHEDULE. Last year $185 Billion. In 2001, our gov't owed the System $1 trillion. Bushie has run it over $2 trillion.
We want $5 billion a year NOW, as a show of good faith.
Bremer misplaced $8 billion in freshly printed money in Iraq. He forgot to get one receipt.
Cough it up Bremmer.
Since the beginning of the "war" the GAO has found 4 times the $5 billion in bad billings and work either not attempted or never completed. And that is just from standard sampling of audits, it is not even close to the whole picture.
Time to start putting people in jail.
(cont)
(cont)
Since this is the economics area, I will pay it due respect with the numbers game that is going on between those forks in Washington and our States' budgets.
The same week we gave the rich a great tax break, we cut $50 billion a year from federal Medicare payments to states, food stamp programs, and funding for child protection programs.
This goes along with the S_Chip program.
THESE ARE ALL PROGRAMS FUNDED BY BOTH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND STATE GOVERNMENTS. GEORGIE DIDN"T STOP THE PROGRAMS, HE JUST DOUBLE-CROSSED US OUT OF THEM PAYING THEIR SHARE OF THE ORIGINAL DEAL.
I live in Pennsylvania. We pay about the 10th highest amount in federal taxes. Not counting the S-CHIP program, we have been cut $50 million/year by the Feds for the next 10 years.
THAT"S $500 MILLION DOLLARS MORE THAT IS GOING TO WASHINGTON AND NOT COMING BACK INTO OUR STATE'S ECONOMY.
And you wonder why your state government can't afford to fix a pothole? Try not to wonder why all of your state and local taxes are going to be heading up. Bush and his Congress have made federal cuts to just about every federal/state shared... roads, public transit, infrastructure, health, and general maintenance program.
This is SO Bush.
For him the great thing is he doesn't have to see any of it, as usual.
While a kid goes hungry or a retired person drops dead because he was denied care... they don't do it Washington....
they do it in the state.
And George can stay in GeorgeLand where everything is going swimmingly well, and there is plenty of good eatin' and good doctors.
$5 billion dollars.... out of a $3 trillion budget and another $1/2 trillion in debt.
This icehole had better stay hidden away. If any man in Washington had any bells, they would be at the WhiteHouse helping this petulent little punk find his wallet.
Bush has already spent half a trillion dollars (probably more) on a war to make us LESS SAFE, far less safe. His little hobby war did nothing but provide a training ground for al Qaeda and make a mess of Iraq, creating plenty of new enemies among the religious fanatics in the Islamic world.
Whether you agree with his political reasons for invading Iraq or not (to get Saddam for Daddy and to secure oil for Halliburton and the like) -- from a purely financial perspective, this was not a war we could afford.
And the right wing troll shits have the gall to talk about government spending? They're too blind to understand that this stubborn fascist has betrayed all of us who actually do believe in fiscal restraint and a reasonable (not large) size of government.
No arms came bundled with the SCHIP bill, but with the veto came seven Governors who are now sueing Bush, including my state Governor. Seems he ignored a little law when he vetoed funding for the organization....no, not Bush?
For some mysterious reason there are so many lies floating around about this bill and what it would supposedly cover...Please read the bill for yourself and help to spread the truth.
the posts were listed backwards... hmmm.
Sorry about that.
Read the second one first and then the first to get the correct order.
Thanks.
But that is your style, George,
You’re not a nation-builder.
You told us that yourself, when you said,
“I’m not a nation-builder.”
So, why should we be surprised?
When you’ve left cities and countries devastated
What’s a few poor kids and their health care?
Preventative medicine is over-rated.
Is it really better for the insurance companies
to control who lives and who dies,
Than the government that makes war
and sends soldiers to fry?
Do we think we will be treated worse than the soldiers,
baking in the heat in Iraq?
And if so, where does that leave us?
Are our choices only: a hard place or a rock?
If we can’t trust the government
With covering the cost of health care for our kids
Then what are we doing sending them to war?
We must have real change, or we are all face the Skids.
The soldiers are coming home broken
and not getting their care.
Maybe the soldiers and the children can march together for justice?
Because the rest of us raising this cry, might just as well not be there.
And, George, this is your the legacy:
that of an uninterested stock pond fisherman.
Toss ‘em back when they’re little snowflakes
and kill ‘em when they’re little men.
We know we are all fodder
In your selfish game plan
You have killed so many people
You are a cruel and callous man.
How much more can the U.S. take?
This latest blow is a wow-er.
After leaving some kids behind,
I can’t believe you’re still in power.
Excellent post Webweaver!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
