MSNBC reported Bush "wants to see more [health] coverage for poor children" -- but not according to CBO
On the September 20 edition of MSNBC Live, correspondent Jeannie Ohm reported that President Bush, who was about to hold a news conference discussing health coverage, "will make comments about where he stands on the issue" of expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), adding that "[h]e wants to see more coverage for poor children." In a later segment on MSNBC Live, Ohm reported that "the president wants to make it very clear that he does not support what Congress is currently proposing, about $35 billion over five years; instead, he wants to see a much smaller amount, about $5 billion." But she did not report that the Congressional Budget Office estimated in May that "maintaining the states' current programs under SCHIP would require funding of $39 billion for the 2007-2012 period and $98 billion over the 2007-2017 period -- increases of $14 billion and $48 billion, respectively, over the baseline spending levels." Ohm also did not report that Bush has threatened to veto a Democratic bill that would substantially increase SCHIP funding. During the subsequent broadcast of Bush's press conference, MSNBC on-screen text read: "Pres. Bush talks about health care for poor children."
In a September 17 article, The New York Times reported: "Senate and House negotiators said Sunday that they had agreed on a framework for a compromise bill that would provide health insurance to four million uninsured children while relaxing some of the limits on eligibility imposed by the Bush administration." The article continued: "The compromise, which resembles a bill passed by the Senate with bipartisan support, sets the stage for a battle with President Bush, who has denounced similar legislation as a step 'down the path to government-run health care for every American.' "
Bush has proposed increasing funding for the program by $5 billion over five years, compared with the $35 billion Congress is pushing for, as the Associated Press reported.
In addition to threatening to veto a bill that would substantially increase federal funding for SCHIP, according to New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), the administration has proposed changes to the program that would impose "thresholds that are impossible to meet for nearly every state and impose a one-size-fits-all solution to a dynamic and complex problem." Spitzer and Schwarzenegger further wrote, in an August 29 letter to Bush, "The recently proposed SCHIP rules will reverse longstanding agreements with the states and reduce the number of children who receive health care. We strongly urge you to reconsider these recent policy changes, which simply diminish state flexibility."
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the September 20 edition of MSNBC Live:
OHM: But also the president really, for his part, he's trying to direct the focus on children's health care. Now, there's been a lot of talk among the presidential hopefuls about what they want to see happen with health care. This is the opportunity for the president to weigh in. There is a debate on Capitol Hill over what's known as the SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Well, the president will make comments about where he stands on the issue. He wants to see more coverage for poor children -- [anchor] Contessa [Brewer].
From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the September 20 edition of MSNBC Live:
OHM: But the president will try to steer the conversation, if you will, on health insurance. You know, a lot of the presidential hopefuls have been talking about health insurance -- Hillary Clinton unveiled her plan. Well, the president will be weighing in on a debate that's happening in Congress -- it's known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP -- and the president wants to make it very clear that he does not support what Congress is currently proposing, about $35 billion over five years; instead, he wants to see a much smaller amount, about $5 billion. So, again, this news conference, a lot of topics will be covered here this morning -- [anchor] Mika [Brzezinski].
So Bush wants more poor children and MSNBC spun it differently?
MM is misleading its readers.
The truth is that President Bush's $5 billion dollar increase proposal is a 20 percent increase over current levels of funding.
Also ... Omitted by MM is the fact that Congress' SCHIP bill "[t]urns a program meant to help poor children into one that covers children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year."
Myth/Fact: Five Key Myths About President Bush's Support for Schip Reauthorization
MM conveniently left out some important facts! Hmmm ...
Not cool, IMHO.
Excellent work, shoes. We all have to remember that this is a SUPPLEMENTAL program. Nobody would die if this thing went away completely. I can't stand our attitude toward healthcare in this country. It's not the federal government's responsibility to insure us. It's NOT the fed's responsibility to "help the poor" (btw, there are no "poor" americans). Leave it to the states. Remember them?
leave it to the states? like maybe texas under governor bush, when he tried to cut children from the program?
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071907.shtml
Ok, mefirst, I read that link. What's the big deal? He didn't eliminate eligibility for the so-called "poor" children.
if you are defining "poor" strictly as poverty level, that is correct. but as the link makes clear, there were those who fell in between being eligible to get medicaid and being able to afford private insurance. bush set the bar lower than many other states. while at the same time pushing for [you would never guess this]....tax cuts for the oil industry. the concern of this administration for our struggling oil companies is a wonder to behold.
But the oil companies truly are struggling. They haven't seen a profit percentage increase in almost 20 years.
yeah, cry me a river over their record profits.
Your capacity for self deslusion is astonishing. There are no poor Americans??? I guess you suffer from the traditional rightwing fantasy that things become true if you SAY they are. This is a democratic Republic. The Government has the obligations we democratically DECIDE it has. This is the only industrial country in the world without universal healthcare. You rightwingnuts dont get to define reality
shoes should know there are facts and then there are "facts". if a $14 billion dollar increase is required over the next five years just to maintain present levels of state programs, then $5 billion would actually be a cut. bush only gets worried about the deficit when it comes to social programs.
Ah- HA!! The final segemt of no child left behind... unless they're KIDS!!
'segment'.. it's been a while...
other news oultlets have quoted Bush as saying he doesn't want it to be 'socialized' funding... 'socialism'... the new BOOGA- BOOGA word from tghe right...
He also refused to comment on Israel's bombings in Syria.
We need Seymour Hersh to get to the bottom of this one.
LOL. Yeah, right. He's had us at war with Iran about 50 times now. He's made a jackass out of himself over and over again.
He wants to see more health coverage for poor children, but only wants to spend $5 billion to do it, $34 billion less than what the CBO recommends. That in itself shows me that he really doesn't care about health coverage for poor children.
Actually, bootsy, he wants YOU and I to spend $5 billion. And since we haven't spent that kind of money on "poor" children (which I've yet to see in this country), then WE must not care about poor children. I'm with the Pres. on this one. Enough is enough.
For every 4 children added to SCHIP, one private health case policy gets dropped. So if 4 million additional kids are covered, then the private health care industry loses 250,000 policies.
Your facts and figures don't seem to line up. If there is one policy lost for every 4 children added to SCHIP and, there are going to be 4 million children added, wouldn't that be 1,000,000 policies lost?
Well good to know BL. I'm willing to go with the larger figure. Call me silly, but I'm willing to go quite a long way for the healthest possible children. I figure the savings in problems not allowed to fester and cripple otherwise viable people who would further load the medical system, as in the not to long run amount to an incredible deal.
How much is enough for you. What percentage of preventably damaged children in the population is your line in the sand.
As a taxpayer, I'm fed up with financing irresponsibility and laziness. Have you noticed that when the candidates roll out the "45,6,7 million" people without insurance statistics, they merely state that these people are "without insurance?" They will NOT identify these people as "those who cannot afford insurance". BIG difference! They know that if they say that there are 47 million people who "cannot afford" insurance, they would be liars! The true number of people who "cannot afford" insurance may never be known, but it's damn sure alot less than 47 million. But I'm supposed to sign on to a nationalized healthcare program to "help" these 47 million? NO WAY!!
why not give everyone access to basic care, and then if you want more pay for it. do you have a problem with the money that the insurance companies take off?
Everyone DOES have access to basic care now. And, no, I don't have a problem with the money that the insurance company takes, because at this point, we give it to them voluntarily. We can shop around and get it cheaper if we REALLY want to.
no, you cannot "shop around and get it cheaper" because doctors and hospitals give better rates to the insured. and you can say going with the insurance companies is "voluntary", but if you get seriously ill or even somewhat seriously, you can easily go bankrupt without insurance. [not that you can't with insurance]. i think it would be a better idea to put the money toward actual health care instead of the bottom line of some insurance company, but you don't.
Yep everyone has access to basic care. A majority of people won't be left to die in the waiting room. A majority of people will also be treated EVEN WITHOUT INSURANCE....they will just be in debt for the rest of their lives. The main issue is that healthcare itself is MADE expensive by our current system. The bureaucracy is designed not to maximize profiit through efficiency or volume or consolidation....its designed to nickle and dime everyone concerned.
The insurance companies have been working long and hard to tilt everything to their advantage and prevent competition....rather uncapitalist of them actually...
So I think the answer is to cut out all the red tape and underlying bs that makes healthcare so expensive. Some exotic procedures will never be available to all because of the expense involved, but it is not up to the system to provide the cutting edge healthcare to all...the market should still drive that. But everyone should be able to go get reasonably priced care without insurance, especially for common everyday things we all will experience.
So yeah, everyone can get insurance....if you pay bottom basement for minimal coverage with a huge dedictable just about everyone could afford it.
NO they dont that is another in your long line of delusions. Basic health care would include preventative and diagnostic health care those without the means or insurance CANNOT get those things 18000 people a year DIE in this country due to lack of access to health care.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm
WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.
Whose "laziness" and "irresponsibility" are we talking about?
The children that the program is talking about insuring are known as the children of the "working poor". Meaning that their parents work at demeaning jobs for chump change that won't cover most of the monthly bills.
I've worked some of these jobs and let me tell you they f#$%ing suck. I don't even have kids, so I don't how these people do it without going insane.
Some of these people are a part of the "Welfare to Work" programs, which amounts to punishing people who go off welfare to get jobs. They end up losing their benefits earning only minimum wage or slightly above.
Waaa! If I hear one more sob story about a "working family" that can't afford health insurance but CAN afford the newest cell phones, internet access, and cable/satellite TV, I think I'm gonna puke.
there are working people in this country who are homeless, even though they are working. they don't have a roof over their heads, much less internet access. but your tears are all for bush and his oil buddies.
Those people make up a VERY small number and you know it. Oh, and studies have shown that over 20% of the uninsured children in this country are the children of Hispanics. NO media outlet gives us THOSE numbers, do they? I wonder how many of them are ILLEGALS? Also, a GREAT majority of the uninsured children in this country go uninsured for LESS than a year. Man, take some time to do some research before you decide what you're buying.
whatever number they make up, they are out there. maybe you should do the research instead of just making statements about all those families with cell phones and internet access.
That makes us even if I hear one more of you Ebeneezer Scrooge worshippers spewing this heartless soulless let them DIE unless they can cough up the cash garbage. I am going to puke. Do you even remember what it was like before your soul dried up and blew away? Or did it just vacate your body about the age of four when you tortured your first small animal to death?
BL as a rate payer for comercial health insurance you are finacing irresponsibility and laziness. If your figure difference between those able to aford vs willing to pay is big then it should be out there somewhere. You are more vauge than they are with your accusation.
For all your loud rhetoric, you havn't answered my question. I don't think you will. Here's another. Why should we bother with someone who hates children?
Who hates children? I love children. Especially my own. And you know what? I have devoted my life to making sure that my children are taken care of and have a fulfilled life. So much so that I make the sacrifice to send them to private schools and fund college savings accounts. Gee, if EVERYONE were as devoted to their own children as I am to mine, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we?
And, furthermore, don't accuse me of not answering your questions when, until you made that crack about me hating children, you haven't struck the question mark key during this entire exchange.
The question was, how many children are you ok with not having health insurance? Your nexy post said basically you didn't care. You were more concerned about irresponsible and lazy people.
Ergo?
Once again, MY concern is that MY children live a nurtured and fulfilled life. And once again, if EVERYONE made their OWN children's well-being a priority as I have done, WE wouldn't be having this conversation.
Your answer as I understand it then is as long as your chidren are ok and have access to good healthcare that is the beginning and end of it.
You open yourself for thin slicing with this position, but I really don't see you even noticing.
Did you notice that our current medical system is part of our dropping to 42nd in life expectentcy. Two decades ago we were 11th. Infant mortality rating 40th among industrialized nations. A high rating for deaths in the first year of life.
We may spend the most for our heath care per person in the world. Is this where market driven forces have put us?
Your path is not a path of survival.
No, sir. My answer is that everyone should put their children's well-being on a higher pedestal. THAT would cause the BIGGEST difference. I agree that insurance is too darned expensive. I never said that it wasn't. But, I don't feel that we should hand our health over to politicians at this point. Government should be our LAST resort.
I do NOT feel that our medical system has had any part in dropping our life expectancy. It is well-known that we have the best medical professionals in the world.
I feel that our LIFESTYLE has caused the drop in our life expectancy. Obesity, fat-laden foods, sedentary behavior. I have traveled abroad and I have seen the difference. We (as a country) are eating ourselves to death.
Infant mortality cannot be blamed on the doctors and hospitals. If the children are clinging to life when they are born, medical personnel can do only so much. Pregnant women are drinking, smoking, and doing drugs at an alarming rate in this country. That is what is causing the infant death rate.
Which brings me back to my original point. If everyone would take care of themselves better and take care of their children better, most of our problems would disappear. You cannot govern values and personal responsibility, it's up to the people to do it for themselves.
- But she did not report that the Congressional Budget Office estimated in May that "maintaining the states' current programs under SCHIP would require funding of $39 billion for the 2007-2012 period - mmfa
mmfa did not report what the CBO actually said...only a couple of lines down from their cherry picked number...in the CBO report.
The CBO stated that the net cost of SCHIP would be $33B from 2007-2012...not the mmfa reported number of $39B.
Proving once again...that when mmfa has an agenda...they are no better than the other hacks in uncritically reporting the entire story...some watchdog.
could you point out exactly what page of the report that is on? since you've read it.
mmfa did not report what the CBO actually said...only a couple of lines down from their cherry picked number...in the CBO report.
uh, you just repeated yourself. i asked you where in the report that is. there are 36 numbered pages. which page?
uh, click on the handy dandy link provided by mmfa...it will magically take you right to the page...boy, technology is wonderful...for some.
obviously i clicked the link. that's how i knew. it magically took me to page one of 36.
Page 14 of the report said EXACTLY what MMFA said it did. WORD FOR WORD
"Pres. Bush talks about health care for poor children."
Poor children are one thing. No 25 year old should be considered a child. They should be considered adults, go out and get a job, and pay for their own insurance. And, IMO, a family making 80 grand should not look to this program for assistance. Enough handouts is enough. A veto would be completely justified.
those are fair and debatable issues. and the insurance is not free. there is a cost even with the government picking up the rest. and that brings up the issue again of money going to insurance company profits when it could be going directly to medical care. but the question here is whether bush wants to add more coverage for children. he doesn't. he doesn't want to even maintain present levels.