Cavuto links Dems' use of kids in SCHIP debate with Saddam's TV interview with young British hostage
Fox News' Neil Cavuto juxtaposed
a video clip of children pulling red wagons in front of the White House as part
of a recent demonstration against President Bush's threatened veto of
legislation to increase funding for the State Children's Health Insurance
Program with a still image of Saddam Hussein and a British boy that was
taken in a TV interview in which Saddam
appeared with Western hostages in the
lead-up to the Persian Gulf War.
On the October 2 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto asked, "[W]hat does this?"-- while he aired a video clip of children pulling red wagons in front of the White House as part of a recent demonstration against President Bush's threatened veto of legislation to increase funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $35 billion over five years -- "have to do with this?" -- whereby he aired a still image of Saddam Hussein with a young British boy, an image from a widely publicized TV interview that aired on Iraqi state television in which Saddam appeared with Western hostages to whom he had refused exit visas in the lead-up to the Persian Gulf War.
Cavuto juxtaposed the two images to set up
a debate between conservative radio talk show host Ben Ferguson and Democratic strategist
Julian Epstein about the use of "kids as props." After asking: "Remember that
picture? Saddam posing with that little boy right before the start of the first
Gulf War," Cavuto stated: "Now, some Democrats are using kids to strong-arm
President Bush into approving a very costly health care bill." Cavuto then
asked Ferguson, "So, Ben, you say they're
props," to which Ferguson
replied: "Sure they are. We have seen this happen multiple times before. You look at the school
lunch program back in '94, and what did they do, they paraded them out on
Capitol Hill and they held up a bottle of ketchup and said, you know, 'Are the
Republicans trying to take away kids' only, you know, hot meal a day. Is this
going to be a vegetable?' " Epstein, however, noted that "politicians have
been kissing babies from time immemorial" and pointed out that Bush has also "used children as props on things that were much more
controversial, things like the stem cell research veto, things like the No Child
Left Behind." He later stated, "[I]f you want to have a child-free zone for
politicians, then I think you can't be selective on it."
President Bush did in fact veto the bipartisan SCHIP legislation on October 3. The Washington Post reported that in vetoing the bill, "the president finds himself isolated politically," adding that the bill "is broadly popular in Congress, even among many Republicans."
From the October 2 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: In the meantime, what does this have to do with this? Remember that picture of Saddam posing with a little boy right before the start of the first Gulf War? Now, some Democrats are using kids to strong-arm President Bush into approving a very costly health care bill. Now the president is expected to veto it tomorrow. So are kids being used as props? With us now radio talk show host Ben Ferguson and Democratic strategist Julian Espstein. So Ben, you say they're props.
FERGUSON: Sure they are. We have seen this happen multiple times before. You look at the school lunch program back in '94, and what did they do, they paraded them out on Capitol Hill and they held up a bottle of ketchup and said, you know, "Are the Republicans trying to take away kids' only, you know, hot meal a day. Is this going to be a vegetable?" Every time you see where kids can be used, they use them to get people to say, "Oh my gosh, I can't imagine that we would not treat kids with health care." And no one's claiming that we shouldn't treat kids who do not have health care. What they're claiming is you don't give health care to families that are making $83,000 year that don't want to pay for their own health care, and they're using kids that know nothing about this to make their point. And it's sad.
CAVUTO: Julian, what do you think of that?
EPSTEIN: Well, I think politicians have been kissing babies from time immemorial, ever since there's been politicians. I think to single out the use of children in a press conference when you're dealing with a health care issue as an example of something crossing a line seems a little bit odd to me, since Republicans, including President Bush, have used children as props on things that were much more controversial, things like the stem cell research veto, things like the No Child Left Behind, which is a controversial, a very controversial piece of legislation now. Even last week, the president used children as props when he made his famous gaffe about the word "childrens is learning." And of course, remember on 9-11, the president was reading My Pet Goat to fifth graders. So, I think it's -- if you want -- if you want to have a -- if you want to have a child-free zone for politicians, then I think you can't be selective on it.
FERGUSON: I'm not being selective, I think --
EPSTEIN: You are being selective, you're only citing Democrats.
FERGUSON: No I'm not, I think that - well, first of all --
EPSTEIN: You didn't cite any Republican examples.
FERGUSON: -- when the president was reading of 9-11, it had nothing to do with legislation. The second thing is this, you don't use kids to make your point. Pass your legislation on the merit of the legislation. It can work on the Democratic and Republican side, but when you take kids to the gates of the White House to drop off petitions, which you know will not be accepted by the Secret Service -- because everyone that went with them was smart enough to know it wasn't going to work -- you're using children.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
How disgusting, to compare anything the Democratic Party does to what Saddam Hussein did in 1990 is an OUTRAGE.
No money for healthier kids, plenty of money for war profiteers.
While I think he's wrong, Bush's arguments against expanding SCHIP, except for the "too expensive" part, are perfectly legitimate.
The major objection is it will cover "Kids" up to 25 years of age and families making up to $85K per year. That seems to be a little beyond the scope of "low income children"
It doesn't matter because the states can run the program like a health insurance company after a certain threshold of income is met (above 150% of the FPL).
A note: Upon reviewing the SCHIP proposal, a report from leading national insurers did note that SCHIP should not increase the number of people who move from private health care to government health care.
Well Fox could have been a bit less controversal but if the issue is Dem's using children to advance their agenda that's been going on for years.
Please explain to all of us why it is wrong for Dems to use kids to promote a program that helps kids?
Low income children are already well provided for. This expansion would cover "kids" up to 25 years of age and families making up to $85K in income. Without proper safeguards this could entice middle income families - who already have health coverage - to drop their plans and get on the government bandwagon. The conservatives see this as a step towards socialized healthcare which they strongly object to.
Using children is meant to tug at your heart strings. It is disingenuous to use the children, who are already covered by the plan, as pawns to expand the plan beyond it's scope. If the add featured 22 year old men driving to work in their new cars you might not be so inclined to support it.
W,
Please provide some information regarding where you go the numbers $85K and 25 years old.
I haven't seen that anywhere.
I hope these links post.
Article as follows
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118662306308792513.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The information the article was based on.
http://www.ncsl.org/print/health/CRSSbyS0807.pdf
Wow. Funny thing, but I went straight to your link of the bill, bypassing the wall street journal article. And, it turns out that the numbers you cite are bogus. The bill states up to 300% poverty rate, which means the only way to get to 85k is for a family of five. Do you really think that it is reasonable for a family of five to be able to afford private insurance for 3-4 kids? As for the 25 year old, the bill specifically raises the possible eligable age from 19 to 21. No mention of 25 anywhere in the bill, unless you are referring to pregnant women, who can be covered.
Maybe this is an example of the biased, lying reporting we can expect from a WSJ run by Murdoch.
The Senate bill will allow families with incomes up to 300% above the FPL and states are allowed to add an additional 100%, The actual ceiling would be $82,500 - so I over spoke by $2,500- my bad. Twenty one would be the cutoff age but parents can be on the program for an additional two years after the birth of a child. A family getting pregnant at 21 could indeed still be in coverage at 24.
SCHIP was a program created by the Republican congress in 1997. The original scope of the program was to cover children in families who's income levels are too high to qualify for medicaidyet too low to afford private insurance. It may be a rare occurance but it is possible that a family of three with an inclome in the low $80Ks could be on a welfare program for health insurance. Is that the proper role of the federal government?
This is known as incrementalism. First go round it's low income children. Ten years later you add middle inclome families. Ten years later another class - then another. You can always find a hard luck case to justify expansion - where does it stop?
The plan was to add a 61 cent tax per pack of cigaretts to fund the higher cost. You and I both know that the majority of smokers these days are in the lower and middle income brachets. Cigaretts are already the highest taxd product on the market - so the burden for this expense is actually being paid by the people who use it. Cigarette smoking is in deep decline - which is a good thing. However as older cigarette smokers die off, and lower income families are priced out of the market the funding for this program will dry up. We all know that once an entitlement is created it NEVER goes away so where will the future funding come from?
I did not see the part referring to allowing states to cover an additional 100%, but I'll take your word for it. That said, the $82,500 is not the level for a family of three, that is just slanting the argument to make it look like it is covering people who could afford it themselves (although I think even then, it would be tight given the current rates). The FPL for a family of 3 is 17,170, so 400% of that is 68,680. That is pretty low for a state with a high cost of living.
As for the age 25. If that is just a reference to the coverage for a parent for up to two years after birth, that is a pretty sneaky and intentionally misleading statement. You were making it sound like it extended the child coverage up to age 25. How is it so bad that a mother can get some postnatal coverage for herself? When did that become so horrible? Who cares what age she is?
And, bottom line: these provisions are items that allow a state to extend coverage if they choose. So if a state with a very low cost of living chooses not to extend coverage that far, they don't have to. I don't see why they wouldn't, because it is a win-win for every part of their society and economy to extend it as far a s possible.
I appreciate your argument and where you are coming from. SCHIP was a program to help children caught between the poverty level and the high cost of medical insurance. FYI - $62,500 is well above the median income level.
If you want to offer a similar program to older and higher income brackets thats fine - however don't do it under the guise of providing for low income children. Don't do it through incrementalism. Offer it under a separate program so existing programs like SCHIParent effected when resistance is strong enough to trigger a veto. I believe the Dems did it that way because they wont be able to muster public support to pass it on it's own - then they grandstand and whine that nasty Repubs don't care about the children. That's what leads to the news stories that this thread is based on. ( No need to respond that Repubs work that way to - I know they do - it's all part of the spending fiasco in Washington)
We could get into a good debate on whether a government bureaucracy can better run the healthcare system, and it's impact on the economy - but thats another topic for another day.
Now you're being disingenuous. You state that they shouldn't use kids because kids are already covered by medicare. You know that is a false statement. Millions of kids currently do not have health insurance because their parents earn too much for SCHIP, but cannot afford private coverage. We can have a whole discussion about how if the 22 year old uses the program, it would also be helpful to society and the economy, but we both know that the vast majority of participants will be children similar to those used in the ads.
Low income kids are covered by Medicaid. Kids caught between the FPL and middle income are covered by SCHIP (see my post above)
Beyond that it is about personal responsibility. If I need something important I rearrange my priorities to take care of my families needs. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to take care of me - that is my job. If I can do it - anybody can.
Remember that a government that can do anything for you can do anything to you. The economy will do just fine without socalized medicine.
"The economy will do just fine without sociallized medicine" Because it is doing so well already without it? Ask the Chamber of Commerc or GM and see what they say about that one.
As for your first statements, there is no level or personal responsibility that can cover a family making ~60k with a 2-4 kids for the bill of a private health plan. And if one or more of those kids has a pre-existing condition, forget about it. Or maybe the family just gets coverage for the kids, but then Dad gets sick or hurt and looses his job, or his job gets sent overseas and one of the kids gets sick, or Mom has to go to the hospital and the bill is $10,000. They instantly loose their coverage, and they can't even declare bankrupcy anymore thanks to the republican congress (the vast majority of personal bankrupcy has been for medical bills). Please explain to me how personal responsibility would help in those situations.
Your point here is well taken and valid. However I the problem here is not enough government funding for health care insurance - the problem is the high cost of health care and the insurance associated with it.
Throwing more money at the problem doesn't solve the problem - it just exaserbates it. At some point there is going to have to be a pianful revolt to help bring back what has been allowed to spin out of control for too long. Socailized medicine is not the answer however - it has proven a mediocre success at best where ever it's been tried. Buerocracies always cause more problems than they solve.
Socialized medicine being a a bust wherever it's been implemented is your opinion. There are alot of people in countries with socialized medicine who would think you crazy. I do agree with you that the costs of health care and health insurance is absurd and needs to be curtailed. One of the things that socialized healthcare does is get the health insurance corporation (you know the per profit middleman) out of the equation automatically reducing costs.
My parents are retired and on Medicaid and Medicaid works alot better than the only crappy insurance plan my employer provides.
Here's a hypothetical. If you could only afford buying a home in a good neighborhood for your familiy of four or having full health insurance, which would you choose?
If you chose the home, and someone in your family became seriously ill or injured, requiring weeks or months of hospitalization, you would have to draw down your assets, lose your home, savings, get liens on your wages, etc and then if you also lost your job, Medicaire would kick in.
If thats your idea of a good system. So be it.
(sarcasm) You're right. Bush would NEVER use children for photo ops for issues such as rejecting stem cell research. (/end sarcasm)
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html
I can't believe anyone could be against a bill that funds health care for children. What happened to "Pro Life"??? Does that only count until the child is born, then they should just fend for themselves?
The spending argument is completely bogus. This is a President who NEVER vetoes spending increases, has put our budget into record deficit level, and who has plenty of money for new nukes, wars against non-enemies, or missile defense shields which won't even protect against low-flying missiles. The cost of the program is miniscule compared to our overall federal budget, or even paltry compared to a single request to fund the Iraq War.
Endless money for pointless wars, but none for poor children....and this man calls himself a "Christian"???
Yes, pro-life means "pro-before-birth".
After that, many if not most of these people are anti-life: for war, for the death penalty, against universal health care coverage.
Yes, pro-life means "pro-before-birth".
Fawlty, you are so right. After birth children are SOL according to these hypocrites.
See, I don't believe they are anti-life.
They believe that human life is a sacred thing. For war - means that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives for the betterment of others' lives and freedoms. For the death penalty - means protecting society from individuals who pose a threat to their safety. Against Universal Healthcare - means that they believe that by opposing a universal healthcare plan they can uphold the high standards of privatized medicine and also attract and keep talented and skilled doctors in a profession that compensates them appropriately and also allows hospitals to maintain standards that does not force them to cut corners when money comes up short, in essence, providing quality care for patients.
However, I DO understand that they are FOR giving every life a chance, an opportunity. They believe that life is started at conception, and a beating heart can be heard in the earliest stagest of pregnancy, and that life has a right to the same freedoms the rest of us have.
I can easily see where they are coming from.
Excellent points Brian.
Clueless in FL - do you even know what you are talking about? Low income children (and families) are covered by Medicaid. Look at your paycheck deductions - the witholding for Medicare is helping to pay for it.
The SCHIP program - to cover children caught between the poverty level and middle class - was instituted by that Far right Christian Republican congress of 1997 - you know -- the ones your arch nemesis Rush Limbaugh helped get elected. The additional funding for an expanded SCHIP was to come from a new 61 cent per pack cigarette tax - a burden on predominantly low income earners. It would not have taken any money from existing commitments.
SCHIP is not being cancelled - just being sent back for a more reasonable alternative.
At what point does it become a parents responsibility to care of their children?
W4,
Now I can ask you the question, do you even know what you are talking about.
Do you have any idea how this program came about?
I'd be interested to hear your spin!
I must have struck a nerve with my comments, or you would not have to resort to personal attacks and distortions. Yes, the program covers people who are not poor enough to be covered under Medicaid, but who still have no health insurance. It covers lower income children who have no health coverage.
Studies have been shown it is actually beneficial economically to states to cover them through the SCHIP program rather than force them to use emergency services for all their health problems (which is what happens when people have no health insurance).
The fact is, the expansion of SCHIP was approved by BOTH PARTIES by a sizeable margin in both the House and Senate because it is NEEDED.
Our government does not just exist to wage war or build new nukes to destroy the planet 3 more times over. Government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare of it's citizens. So I would argue that making sure our children have health coverage is a vital role of the federal government.
And like I said, the SCHIP expansion funds are NOTHING compared to our overall federal budget each year. Seems like a very small price to pay to get millions of American children the health coverage they need.
This is called distraction...to distract viewers from the fact that while campaigning in 2004 Bush promised to expand SCHIP. Maybe he was lying...?
IRONY,
He wants to expand it by 20%! Are you paying attention?
Brutus,
Can you provide some details on your claim? I'm not saying it isn't true, but how do you know that's the case?
Skeptical,
The current program, if continued, would have a budget of $25billion. The president is asking for $30billion. The vetoed bill is $60billion.
Details Brutus not statements. I can say that the current levels are $75 billion that doesn't make it so.
Now, let me try this again, where did you get the numbers? A link would be helpful!
Skeptical,
Let's just stick to one thread, please, instead of typing the same thing twice.
Brutus,
I'm following your two posts about the same thing!
They want to add about 4 million kids to the program while still insuring those already in the program. It will cost about 60 billion dollars to do this.
"He wants to expand it by 20%!"
Wow! Three years after his promise to expand the program he wants to kick it up by a whole 20%? How magnanimous of him. The final inrease won't be $35 billion, but I can assure you it will be significantly more than Bush's proposed $5 billion increase. Watch how many Republicans start jumping aboard with the Dems on this.
"Watch how many Republicans start jumping aboard with the Dems on this."
I'm not even going try to argue with that. The republicans like spending my money almost as much as the dems.
I think you meant to say: "The republicans like spending my money more than the dems.
Expand it by 120%, wtf, let's err on the side of improving health care instead of improving how far a aquadron of jets can fly. For crikes sake, if we can afford to pay private body guards $1200 day, we sure the eff can afford to insure a few million kids.
Damn right. I want to pay for insurance for children whose parents make $80,000 a year.
Leather, your an idiot (as usual)
The $80,000 applies to certain states, like New York for example. Is $80,000/year a lot of money in New York??... you know, where it costs at LEAST $2000/month ($24,000/year) to live in a studio apartment!! It's called the (S.O.L) standard of living, and that varies widely from state to state. The bill merely takes these differences into consideration.
So, should we pretend that this 20% is enough to even cover the extra kids that have fallen under the current levels for SCHIP eligibility because of Bush's failed economic policies in general? If we are smart enough not to, we can see that the 20% is barely keeping up with a citizenry steadily sliding into poverty.
Right wing uses kids as props = good
Left wing uses kids to deliver message = bad
Got it! What about boxes with made in China stamped on them? is there a rule on how those can be used as props? How about giant banners on aircraft carriers? and how about the soldeirs = who is allowed to use them as porps? I need the rules for backdrops and props Cavuto - help me out!!!!!
Uggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Stooooooop whipping out historical dictator comparisons when you don't like a policy, puhleeaaasee..
I am not in agreement with Bush on this bill, although I do have reservations about it as it will cover more than children than it may need too financially and may urge parents to drop private coverage - I believe it is an important piece of legislation nonetheless and I support it.
That being said, whenever proponents or opponents use and exploit our emotions to garner support for or against a bill, I am suspicious. Hauling kids out with red wagons is not arguing a bill's merits, but rather whipping up an emotional response rather than debate it's fiscal and legislative worthiness.
Nice post Tommy.
Tommy,
I support the proposal by Pres.Bush vs. the democrat's bill because I believe it is closer to reality.
Government spending programs never go away...they just get bigger and bigger. The original SCHIP bill in 1997 called for spending 2.4B/yr...it now costs $5.0B/yr.
That tells me that the president's proposal of an increase of $5B could easily hit $10B...and the democrats proposal of $35B could hit $70B...and that's the real shame of our out of control federal spending.
For better or worse, the CBO estimates that to maintain the current program cost...including the rising cost of health care, inflation and increasing enrollment by nearly 1 million...will cost the federal govt. an additional $8B over the next 5 years.
Here's the scoresheet for the proposals for funding over the next 5 years:
Pres.Bush - $30B
CBO estimates - $33B
Democrat proposal - $60B
It's an irresponsible power grab attempt by the democrats. It's a very transparent attempt to incrementally move toward taking complete control of the health care industry.
"The original SCHIP bill in 1997 called for spending 2.4B/yr...it now costs $5.0B/yr." Wes
In 97 there were 266, 490,000 people in the US, today there are more than 300,000,000. That's about 30,000,000 more kids today than ten years ago. Add to that the high cost healthcare and that 2.6 billion difference, then and now, sounds almost comensurate with the rising cost of living.
The raw data on the increase in population has no correlation to Schip enrollees. The eligibility is on a needs basis...has nothing to do with per capita.
The current Schip program has increased enrollment by about 1MM over the last five years...the CBO's estimate of an additional $8B over the next five years factors in an increase of another million children...about the same growth rate of the last five years.
Speaking of needs based qualifications...does the CBO take into account stagnant wages and higher costs of living for working class folks?
One way to find out...follow mmfa's link and read the report...it's chock full of info.
Maybe you should explain it to me as if I were a wee little lad. I do not see any MMFA links to the CBO report to which you made reference.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210015
It has nothing to do with you being a "wee widdle wad". I just thought you were capable of using mmfa's handy little search feature...or even that big bad world of Google...my mistake.
If you're going to berate me for technological incompetence, you should at least be able to demonstrate competence yourself. Your link is busted. It doesn't work.
But moreover your dodges, evasions and insults indicate that you don't have a strong grasp of the numbers you cite. It appears you have selectively quoted them for the singular purpose of launching a partisan political attack on a program with which you disagree.
Take up your beef on the link with mmfa...it's their link and their link system.
It makes no difference to me if you want to goose step to the democrat talking points and sound bites...it certainly is a lot easier than reading and comprehending the CBO report.
Partisan...you bet. I'm opposed to the democrat party's attempt to nationalize health care...with this obscene $60B proposal. I'm opposed to adding "adults" to a "children's" health care plan...adults who are making 3 to 4 times over the poverty line.
I'm opposed to encouraging people who currently have private health insurance to drop their insurance in favor of a government hand out...and becoming wards of the federal govt.
I'm in favor of the president's proposal to fund a program that targets needy children...in opposition to increasing the nanny state.
Covering children is obscene? How about the biggest obscenity of all? $8,000 a second is the cost for the occupation of Iraq.
Bloody death and destruction to enrich the coffers of Bush's buddies, but wow, too much money to cover children. Their parents should be responsible, etc.
Nope...just the $60B.
Goose step? Nice ad hominem, buddy. No need to shame me for agreeing with a commonsense consensus.
Building consensus is how things get done in a democracy. Presentation of ideas and building support for it is what participation in our system is about.
I'm proud to have common ground with so many of my fellow Americans.
We simply disagree that quality healthcare is a commodity to be readily purchased by the more financially disciplined among us. Not every person is born to be a saavy moneymaker. Tons of folks enjoy doing work that will never make them wealthy, they just love doing their work and doing it well. Why should they be penalized by a market that favors wealth over labor?
I view national healthcare, along with education and living wages, in the context of national security. The more people we can gaurantee access to quality healthcare, the more vibrant and secure our country will be.
However, it is a sign of hope that you do not oppose SCHIP in general (just the Democratic proposal.) I admire empathy in anyone regardless of their political bias'.
Gee Wes,
I just read the CBO "A Paper" dated May 2007, and in that they estimate a required budget of $39 Billion to maintain current levels of coverage with an estimated increase of 700,000 enrollees.
The Democrats proposal includes changes in eligibility to try and provide coverage for more children that do not have healthcare which is why it costs more.
Why do you not want to help provide healthcare for children? I thought you were pro-life!
Gee skep,
You forgot to read the entire report. Over the last 5 years...children enrolled in Schip has increased by 25%.
During the last 5 years the number of adults enrolled in Schip has increased by over 200%...so this is not just about the children...it's a sneaky way to achieve nationalized health care for everyone.
That's good news if you're in favor of national health care...I'm not.
I support the president's proposal for children's health care...not welfare for adults.
Gee Wes,
I did read the entire report and your numbers are no where to be found.
Do you always lie or do you just like making up numbers?
- On balance, CBO estimates, the net additional federal cost to maintain current programs under SCHIP would be $8B over the 2007-2012 period - CBO report
And the democrats want $35 billion...
Nice try Wes,
Using made up numbers again!
Next on Neil Cavuto, here is a picture of Harry Ried waving to somone he knows across the street. What does that have to do with this picture of Hitler giving the Nazi salute? They look pretty similar don't they?
"FERGUSON: -- when the president was reading of 9-11, it had nothing to do with legislation."
Yeah, so explain what Saddam has to do with Congress and Legislation.
Cavuto's right. They used a twelve year old kid in their Saturday radio address to whine about how Bush was going to take away his health care.
Only the socialist democrats could call a 20% increase (which is what Bush wants) in a program a cut. If they thought that he would sign their obscene $60billion program they would have tried to get $120billion just to make sure he would veto it. Then they would cry about how he wants to cut the program by 50%.
Again Brutus,
Please back up your claim of Bush trying to increase funding by 20%.
Also, why is it okay for Rep's but not Dem's?
Again Skeptical,
Current program = $25b, Bush's request = $30b, vetoed bill = $60b.
Again Brutus,
I am supposed to just believe your numbers, please provide some semblance of backup!
If you're skeptical, Skeptical -- Look it up! If you have access to a computer there's this cool service called "Google". Type "schip" into the search box and hit enter. Then pick some of the results that look pertinent. I hope this helps.
Brutus,
I did and that's why I'm asking you the question, because from my research it will require $35 billion to maintain current levels and the additional money is to allow more "poor" children and their parents to get coverage.
So, skeptical,
According to your research and understanding, expanding the program from $25b to $34b would actually be a cut in funding? I would defy anyone to show me one single poor kid who would lose benefits under the presidents expanded funding of $30b.
Hey Brutus,
Ever hear of rising costs, oir maybe inflation. The bill doesn't cover inflation so for the past five years there have been shortfalls of roughly $5 billion. So add in that $5 billion plus another $5 billiion for inflation over the next five years and you cover exactly the same number of children. That doesn't even begin to address the children that will fall under the poverty line in the next five years that can't be covered because Bush has "cut" funding.
See Brutus, your whole premise was wrong from the get go so you made a bunch of stupid statements and tried to chastise people when you were flat out wrong.
Next time you say something, get the facts straight first, because here we deal with facts not right-wing talking points.
Skeptical,
Those are the facts that I posted. It's your wrong assertion that poor kids are going to be dropped from the program.
I say again -- I defy anyone to show me one poor kid who would be dropped from the roles under the presidents expanded program. It ain't gonna happen. The current funding, without Bush's requested expansion, covers a lot more people than was originally intended when this program was sold to us.
Brutus,
Did you even read my post. I just completely explained it to you. If the program isn't funded to at least $35 billion then at least 2.0 million poor children will not be covered.
Skeptical,
What do you consider poor?
Brutus,
My definition of poor is someone that cannot afford healthcare coverage, but this program defines that as someone whose income is 200% of the poverty level.
You'll find kids losing their insurance or kids unable to be enrolled in the program if healthcare costs continue to rise, and poverty levels and the number of uninsured continue to increase.
As long as wel let in unskilled illegals, we are doomed anyway. How can the US continue to allow these people to bring out social programs down?
What? Skipping the klan meeting to post on MMFA?
The five billion dollars is nowhere near enough to cover the rising cost of healthcare and the addition of new enrollees.
"addition of new enrollees"
Now there lies my issue with the program. At the rate of Immigration, I feel this would be a failled policy. We MUST get a grip on immigration before we add no social programs like such.
add NEW social programs like such.
Some of those new enrollees are 25 years old and their families could make up to $80,000.
Dave,
Where did you get those figures?
"Some of those new enrollees are 25 years old"
I think they’re trying to make it compatible with the tax code. The tax code allows someone to be claimed as a dependent up until the age of 25 but for some reason ($$$) republicans aren’t complaining about that.
"their families could make up to $80,000."
In New York (from which this originated) 80,000 is not a lot of money and the proposal was rejected anyway.
I debunked this one with W4-whatever on the first page. The 25 years old, $80,000 is some right-wing lie. I read the actual bill. I suggest you do the same. The bill expands the eligible age (if a state chooses to do so) from 19 to 21. Not 25. Also, to get to $80,000, you would be referring to a family of five at 300% of current poverty rate (the bill does not specify numbers, just percentages of the poverty line). I happen to think that $80,000 would not come close to covering private insurance for 3-4 kids.
I happen to think it is ridiculous for other people to pay insurance costs for a family that makes $80,000 no matter what state they live in. That is obscene. And giving free health insurance to a kid who has turned 18 and is capable of working and paying for his own insurance is obscene also. Helping the poor yes, helping the lazy no. This is nothing but a scam to socialized medicine and it ain't gonna fly.
Are you suggesting that 18 is some magic age? That when a person lives that long they are awarded a job that will pay the cost of living in addition to the high cost of health insurance?
Cavuto's right. They used a twelve year old kid in their Saturday radio address to whine about how Bush was going to take away his health care.
So the twelve year old shouldn't whine about a person planning to endanger his healthcare?
Loonz,
Did you read the rest of the post? Their assertion that the kid is going to lose his health care benefits is a complete lie! Even if the program didn't get the increase that Bush is asking for the current beneficiaries would be covered.
Not so Brutus.
Bush is underfunding the program and will eliminate people from the program.
Did you read the rest of the post? Their assertion that the kid is going to lose his health care benefits is a complete lie!
No it's not. Bush just vetoed the Bill and the bill passed without a veto-proof majority. The kid will lose his insurance if the Dems cannot find seven more votes.
So, you're in favor of twelve year olds determining the worthiness of legislation?
Yes Tommy,
That's how people like Harry Reid, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Algore, etc. get elected.
Well you said it ;)
I was going to say that there are dozens of twelve year olds who I would rather have in the Senate besides Ted Kennedy and some of the others.....but then we would have to take them seriously. :)
So, you're in favor of twelve year olds determining the worthiness of legislation?
I think twelve year olds are more capable than Bush and most republicans.
Bush proudly and happily surrounded himself with children as he vetoed stem cell research funding in front of the press. Yet, strangely, he vetoed this bill behind closed doors. I was hoping he would have invited those same kids to the White House so that he can explain his veto to them in the front of the press. That would have made for some great TV.
Pete,
Those children had at one time been frozen embryos. He didn't ban or veto stem cell research or funding, only federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that caused the destruction of any more embryos.
The embryos were destroyed anyway.
All you lefties should have funded research on them. There is no ban on embryonic stem-cell research.
The government should fund it so no one person owns a patent on anything that comes out of the research.
And why weren't you there to save the "children" before they were discarded?
And all of that is really beside the point, isn't it?
Why is he so proud of protecting embryos that are going to be thrown away, but he's not willing to tell children of middle-income families that the government will not help them get the medical care that their parents cannot afford?
"...but he's not willing to tell children of middle-income families that the government will not help them get the medical care that their parents cannot afford? "
At least you admit that we're not talking about free health insurance for just po' folks -- not under the current program, the Bush proposal, or the outlandish socialist's bill.
So your saying that "middle-income" families shouldn't have the choice tax-payer subsidized health care that the congress and administration has access too?
CHIP uses the same private insurance model that President Bush supported in creating the Medicare prescription drug benefit. If certain members of congress and the Administration really feel strongly that it’s wrong for the federal government to support health care coverage, maybe they should start by giving up their own taxpayer-subsidized health care through the federal employees’ program.
Right f**cking on, Train!
"...maybe they should start by giving up their own taxpayer-subsidized health care through the federal employees’ program."
Sounds good to me. Gotta start somewhere.
"Sounds good to me.."- Brutus
Yeah... NOW that I brought it to your attention(as IF you didn't already know)! Its funny, you save your most scathing criticisms for the Democrats trying to help working class and poor families, but BushCo gets a free pass... until you get called out of course.
Pathetic
It seems many people here wish to debate the bill - and that is fine - all for it. But what this post is about is Cavuto's comparing the use of kids in demonstration in support of a bill expanding Children's Health care, to Saddam Hussein's use of a british boy in a photo to threaten his enemies. Debate the bill fine - don't compare the tactics of American's to an evil murderous dictator. Cavuto crossed a line here regardless of your opinions of the bill.
You are absolutely correct.
Here's what MMFA does, nothing more, nothing less:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Some posters here seem to need a daily reminder of MMFA's purpose while they try to argue for or against policy.
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively getting Rush Limbaugh off of the air and we don't care how we do it. If we have to run 20 threads a day until we meet our goal, we'll do it.
You can't get Rush off the air (he's too popular with the far right) but you can diminish his relevance.
They haven't been very successful. Too bad, so sad.
He'll be around as long as there are enough people who like misinformation, spin and venom to support their own hard hearts and bigotry.
There is no 1st Amendment issue surrounding what MMFA is doing. The 1st Amendment protects Limbaugh's right to say what he wants, but it does not guarantee him a job, a microphone, or an audience.
Exposing people for what they are will not, in iself, get them taken off the air. Media personalities get taken off the air when their employers and/or syndications decide that their comments have made them too much of a liability, OR, as in the case with ESPN and Limbaugh, by way of resignation.
I think Limbaugh's radio show will never suffer such a fate, because those with the power to remove him have long since shown that they do not care about content or character, just broad appeal and the bottom line.
Here is some evidence to back up your statement:
Thanks for writing, C%%%. On the surface, your idea makes sense -- let's have balance and diversity. However, it's kind of like the person at the rock and roll station saying, "let's give our listeners a little break, and we'll play some classical or country music this afternoon ... then after a couple of hours, we go back to rock and roll. We have done this kind of thing before many years ago. What happened is that the conservative listeners tuned out when the liberal (progressive) programming came on, and they would often forget for a number of hours (or days), to come back to the conservative programming. And, the liberal listeners would forget to tune in at all, because the programming wasn't there all day long. Sooooo, the station lost listeners, ratings and money. For years, too, we ran ABC Information News, which our listeners perceived as left-leaning. There was alway this constant complaint of ... Rush Limbaugh said such and such, and then, at the top of the hour, ABC news said just the opposite. Our listeners also perceive that ABC-TV, NBC-TV, CBS-TV, CNN, Rocky Mt. News, MSNBC, New York Times, etc., all slant left, and that Talk Radio is one of the few oases of conservative ideas. Sorry, I'm so wordy. Have a great new year! Jim TerLouw, General Manager, KNZZDave, I've said it before, Rush, Bill, Sean and Melanie are the gifts that keep on giving each time they open their mouths. We don't want them off the air.
You are right BW, the bill itself isn't even the topic!
Julian Epstein really nailed it--thus killing any possible career as a Fox News regular.
We should stop dumping on Bush as if he's this evil villain who hates kids. He, along with many Americans, believes government involvement in health insurance is not the best way to go. Coming from that standpoint, his veto makes perfect sense, because the SCHIP expansion is absolutely an attempt, among other things, to expand government health insurance for kids.
I believe the majority of Americans want the government to be more involved, and that the government should be a competitor in the market, and families should be able to choose from the gov. plan or private plans as to who provides their health insurance. Just because I think that, however, doesn't mean that I think Bush hates kids because he disagrees ideologically with me.
"We should stop dumping on Bush as if he's this evil villain who hates kids."---Dexteritas
I got it now. Republicans have a birthright to dump on Democrats, and Democrats shouldn't fight back.
Why don't you just take the higher road with "Two wrongs don't make a right?"
Because it doesn't work, as Ann Coulter has pointed out many times.
If we had nationalized health care, then none of this would be an issue. Case in point, the automobile industry, which is crashing and burning getting killed, so GM et al say, by the cost of health insurance. Yet Corporate America and many of the public continue to squawk about the boogeymen socialism, communism, or whatever. It's amazing that so many people would rather watch the United States turn into a 3rd world country, as long as there is no socialism.
I was actually under the impression that the auto industry is for gov. health care.
Immigration at it scurrent state will turn us into a 3rd world nation.
And so will the emigration of solid, living-wage jobs.
Sorry, you are wrong. There are only so many poor we can take in. We only have so many low skilled jobs to offer. Get with it. It ia all about numbers.
SORRY PETE, missread your post. You are absolutly right!
Damn those brown people. They don't even talk like me! They're ruining this land originally inhabited by white people. Especially those of us in the west, like Colorado, where I can see no irony in the fact that this used to be part of Mexico and is even named in Spanish.
hahaha.. you think Republicans don't like immigrants??
Come on! We were all immigrants!
Republicans don't care for granting amnesty for people who committed a crime getting here. Amnesty for illegals is like allowing a murderer go free because he was able to hide in the mountains for years... and has become one with nature.
Illegals tend to get paid under the table.. because they are here illegally... they take away jobs from Americans, and hurt businesses and lower wages because other businesses have to cut costs to keep up with companies that employ illegals.
and then guess what happens? well, because the costs have to be cut so far to compete.. businesses have to send jobs elsewhere.. "emmigrate them" as one poster wrote.
so now businesses are sending work overseas.. and Americans lose out on more work... all because you wanted to let ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS have amnesty...
Republicans don't dislike the people, just the crimes they commit, and the way the system is trampled upon.
Amnesty is like murder? You're a loony extremist. Sorry, it's undeniable.
Another missed oppurtunity by a so called Dem strategist on Fox.
The Republican prop argument is a ruse. A stupid, dishonest red herring. A picture is worth a thousand words and politicians know this very well, Fox pundits know this better than most politicians. So talking about a picture, an image is a waste of time unless your agenda is to impugn the motives of the opposition and/or distract from the big picture.
In the big picture, healthcare is a matter of national security and an issue of personal freedom. A sick nation is an unstable nation and any citizen held down by the weight of high healthcare costs is not free.
It's the profit before people mindset that creates a state of national insecurity.
It's the profit before people mindset that creates a state of national insecurity.
That's what makes our healthcare system "uniquely American", Roundhouse. Anyway, we loathe paying taxes. Isn't that the main reason we went to war with the British in the first place? :)
Sorta, my friend. We broke from the Brits over taxation...because representation was absent. In other words, we were getting no return on our tax investment. ;)
Yeah, I know. :) I was being a bit flippant there. It's hard to convey such things through words, and smilies can be kinda useless. :D
Anyway, I actually believe most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes if, as you say, there was a big return on their investments (i.e. health care, college tuition, rebuilding infrastructures, better standard of living, etc.).
We agree.
Have you been posting here long? I don't read every thread, perhaps I missed your posts.
Na, I haven't been here long. I usually just stay quiet and read the other comments, but I'm starting to post more often.
Mr. Epstein makes a very good point about Pres. Bush using children in a number of publicity photo shots, campaigning events, and bill signings. There was nothing wrong with children delivering petitions to the White House, because the SCHIP bill was about them. It seems that whatever the Republicans do in this regard is right, but if the Democrats do it, it's wrong--the same old double standard. This was freedom of expression, our constitutional right.
Cavuto has always been an idiot. Feguson apparently more so. Note to the idiots at FOX, Saddam was using kids as a prop, but with SCHIP, without the kids there is no controversy. In SCHIP, they are not a prop, they are what the bill is about.
How freakin' stupid do you have to be to work at FOX.
I think Cavuto was pretty clever to conflate the two. The Dems always do that, bring out the kids. Clinton had an Easter egg roll on the Whitehouse lawn to put pressure on Congress for a kids vaccination program.
The other day, Clinton was talking about the need for us to spend billions of dollars to help the world and brought up a story about a four year old who fell in the Ganges, was saved from drowning, only to die of infection from what was in the water. Well, that probably happens about a thousand times a day.
Recently, six people in the U.S. have died from a strange parasite that you can contract from warm stagnant water. It gets in your nose, eats through to your brain, and you're dead in two weeks. Stuff happens, but Clinton has to bring up the little kids to make political points.
Can I please ask you "give-away", "womb to tomb" Libs a real honest question ? Since when did a 25 year old person become a child ? Hilary and the Dems plan would include "children" to the age of 25 !
And, since when does a household making $80,000.00 a year qualify as POOR ? You have got to be kidding me, this program originaly was designed to help POOR, UNINSURED CHILDREN, not 25 year olds making $80k...
When will the give aways stop.
The Libs / Dems say they will "partialy" pay for this EXPANSION of the program by invreasing the cig tax... Wait, aren't we trying to ban cigs in every part of our Nation... New York has banned smoking in your car, most States have all kinds of non-smoking rules. More and more Americans ARE quitting, so the math dictates that we will NOT be raising the money needed to fund this expansion because the number of folks getting / paying the new higher tax will decrese, so where do you think the money will come from... ??? ME & YOU, as always...
When is enough enough ? Help poor kids & families I get that, ok.
But 25 year olds or folks making $80k... ???
Props are props, I will not say that both sides don't use them, but what I do think is that it is NOT about the poor kids, it's about another step towards the "womb to tomb" socilized medicine and other LIB views that is the most horrible, not props.
mg, looks like you just tacked this same post onto different threads but have you read the discussion preceding? From earlier in this thread:
I debunked this one with W4-whatever on the first page. The 25 years old, $80,000 is some right-wing lie. I read the actual bill. I suggest you do the same. The bill expands the eligible age (if a state chooses to do so) from 19 to 21. Not 25. Also, to get to $80,000, you would be referring to a family of five at 300% of current poverty rate (the bill does not specify numbers, just percentages of the poverty line). I happen to think that $80,000 would not come close to covering private insurance for 3-4 kids.