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
"Hey W, Whaddya Say?"
Hey W, whaddya say?
How many kids did you kill today?
You pulled out your pen
And vetoed a bill,
And removed the funding
For the life-saving pill.
You’re not a Christian,
But a Darwinist I see,
To hell with your kids
I got mine covered for me.
I doubt that Jesus
Would smile at you now,
But “survival of the fittest” Darwin
For him, take a bow.
Dear George and dear Laura
Your girls have no fears,
They have Doctors and Hospitals
and regular Pap smears.
Our children are our future
And you are throwing them on the tracks,
For the sake of the dollar and corporate profits
And the salaries and bonuses of crony business hacks.
You’re in the pocket of the corporations
And it’s not best for the people.
You claim to be doing God’s work, and yet,
shame Christ’s tall and strong steeple.
Just the fourth veto in six years,
Keep the snowflakes, toss the rest.
Such a disservice you did to America
Vetoing children’s health care isn’t best,
Do you understand what you’ve done?
Telling the poor girl with asthma
That the emergency room is good enough
Just sit there in that miasma
Of overworked nurses and doctors
And antibiotic
We’re throwing away our resources
Leaving some kids with only a hug.
Yo Bonddad, keep up the good work.
Can you add your fave chart recast as a pct of GDP? As sharp as you are, a chart that is in dollars... non-constant dollars?
Also, the year(s) Clinton ran a surplus; where is the dip?
Googled and bingo:
http://www
Scroll down excellent essay for chart of debt vs. GDP -- kind of holding steady, but steady at a heady 70%.
It's ALL Reagan's fault. Ratio was 33% when he took office, after DECADES of reduction -- relative to GDP. Some "conserve"-ative.
Do I have this right?
Bush vetoes a bill designed to help low-income kids because it doesn't do ENOUGH to help low-income kids?
And yet -- in the SAME sentence -- he says it costs too much?
Aaaagh.
What the heck was Bush thinking?
Oh wait...
Yeah.
Take money from me and GIVE it to big insurance companies under the guise of helping children.
WTFG Democrats.
If the money was going to actually go to kids who really need it, I wouldn't complain about paying for it.
And they wonder why they lose so many elections.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good". It works the same on EVERY issue, no matter what it is.
Something, no matter how badly flawed, is better than nothing. And not being able to get the ideal, perfect answer to the problem is NOT an excuse for doing NOTHING.
George W. Bush has decided that we should spend less on health care for kids. I challenge anyone to find anything more important in any of the spending bills he signed. Got a few? OK, now count how many OTHER things are in there. Go ahead. Sometimes I cannot believe real human beings support what this man stands for and what he does. This has nothig to do with liberal or conservative, Dem or GOP, red or blue. This is about humanity. And once again, Bush shows his is severely crippled.
The cost of 41 days in Iraq could provide insurance for 1.2 million more Americans.
Sign it Bush, just end the war 41 days earlier.
If tax cuts are good; LET'S BE GREAT END ALL TAXES ON EVERYONE.
In other words, you want to continue spending like we're at war, long after the war has ended...
Brilliant!
Wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread must be right around the corner the way you libs think.
Actually, publicly financed health care is cheaper and better.
http://www
Liberals would like to TAX like we are at war. Conservatives want their children to borrow against their childrens finances to pay for war. I guess Conservatives want to "Conserve" their own money and lives, while they also like being "Liberal" with soldiers lives and the future financial meltdown of America.
Wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread could well be the result of a Republican President and 6 years of Republican majority congress.
"Discretionary spending increased from $649.3 billion in 2001 to $1.016 trillion in 2006. That's a 56.47% increase."
And total spending has gone from 1.8 trillion to almost 2.8 trillion. So non-discretionary spending has gone up double what discretionary has.
And here was have Dems asking for even MORE entitlement dollars. Brilliant!
First, the use of teh catch-all term "entitlement" shows a remarkable lack of understanding. It belies a limited, reactionary mind incapable (or at least unwilling) to make distinctions. Second, the bill has massive public support, so trying to hang it on the Dems is either stupid or dishonest. Third, what's your point re: discretionary spending? Does it not show that the Bush Administration is in fact not conservative? Also, could we perhaps cut some of the military budget, or not pay for first-class airline tickets, or perhaps close corporate tax loppholes, or do any of a hundred other things to open up money to HELP CHILDREN GET HEALTHCARE!?!?! I cannot beleie the Mormon Church teaches it's members to support wars of aggresion and not HEALTHCARE FOR CHILDREN.
And Who has been in control thru that period?
Once again, let's ignore the bear in the room and point the finger at the Dem's
Guess you want to give up your entitlement to get income tax benefits due to your mortgage..
I agree that the members of Congress should have to pay for their own heathcare and fund their own pensions. They should get nothing better that the people they are elected to represent. They're mostly millionaires already and their congressional salaries alone would put them in the top 5% of the population. They are probably making at least 4-5 times the average income of their constituents, many of whom have no healthcare. It's nothing more than welfare for the wealthy. Things would be different if some school teacher or fireman making $30,000 a year could get elected. But that will never happen in this country.
Amen, babylonandon. Congress should also have to give up their pensions. Live in the world you legislate, dudes. Then maybe we'll get some action on real issues. Oh, and if military action is taken by American forces ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, dependents of congress and the president should be required to enlist and serve in the infantry on the front lines. We just cannot continue to be ruled by a class of citizens that does not feel the reprocussions of their own decisions.
Why should we give this taxpayer-funded insurance to the kids of folks making over $50,000 a year (up to over $87,000) or to "children" over 18?
The plan was too broad and the Democrats refused to change those numbers.
By the way...NOBO
SCHIP is administered by the states, who set the salary limits on the program. The $87,000 is a made-up Bush distortion, based on the fact that New York was *considering* allowing families who made up to four times the poverty level ($20,650 for a family for four) enroll in SCHIP. Incidentally, the actual figure being tossed around by Republicans is $83,000. Just thought you might want to get your talking points straight.
I was in a hurry. I don't get much time to read and post.
Why? Because insurance for your "folks" making $50K a year would cost up to $10K. What's driving health costs isn't lawyers, it's insurance companies pushing their profit margins, and hospitals using cost measures to pass the unpaid ER bills generated by the uninsured onto people with insurance. The 1 in 6 people who don't have any insurance (the vast majority because they can't afford it) are driving the cost of insurance higher because hospitals pass the costs of dealing with the uninsured on to the insurance companies, who pass it right back to the people with insurance.
SCHIP handles people with no financial means to get their own insurance, CHILDREN, and helps contain costs for people who have it. Looks like a win win situation to me.
Oh, and based on SCHIP's track record, it works.
Thank You!!!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
