Fox's Garrett noted Boehner's plea for "bipartisan" approach to SCHIP, but not bill's bipartisan support
On the October 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, reporting on President Bush's intent to veto a bill passed by Congress that would renew and expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Fox News congressional correspondent Major Garrett reported that "House GOP leaders who vowed to sustain the president's veto accused Democrats of pursuing a strategy of blind confrontation" and then quoted House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) asking: "Why don't we work together in a bipartisan way to make sure that we get health insurance to lower-income kids who need it? Why does everything have to be a political game here in Washington, D.C.?" Yet Garrett did not mention that, in fact, Congress did pass the SCHIP bill "in a bipartisan way" -- 18 Republican senators and 45 Republican House members voted for it.
From the October 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
GARRETT: Congress sent President Bush a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the current State Children's Health Insurance Program and braced for a veto.
HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER STENY HOYER (D-MD): The president does not like to pay for things. And maybe that is why he is opposed to this bill.
GARRETT: The bill raises the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents, leveling it an even dollar per pack. The White House opposes the cigarette tax, which it calls regressive, and attempts to expand health coverage to children of parents who earn, in some cases, more than $80,000 a year.
DANA PERINO (White House press secretary): People who smoke are usually ones -- the majority are in the low-income bracket. And so they're raising taxes on something to pay for a middle-class entitlement. It just -- it's just completely irresponsible.
GARRETT: Democrats said the public is in their corner.
HOYER: Once again, the Democratic Party finds itself aligned with over 70 percent of the American public, a very risky political stance for us to take.
GARRETT: House GOP leaders who vowed to sustain the president's veto accused Democrats of pursuing a strategy of blind confrontation.
BOEHNER: Why don't we work together in a bipartisan way to make sure that we get health insurance to low-income kids who need it? Why does everything have to be a political game here in Washington, D.C.?
GARRETT: Saddled with low approval ratings and repeated failures to change Iraq war policy, congressional Democrats will now challenge the White House and Republicans on spending at home versus spending in Iraq.
Shorter Boehner (no pun intended):
Why don't you just work in the spirit of bipartisanship and let us have our way?
My favorite was when I heard a Bush sound-bite the other night in advance of his behind-closed-door veto today saying that this bill would hurt poor people because it would be paid for with higher cigarette taxes.
First of all, there's a kind of bizarre, twisted logic in Bush's thinking right from the get-go. But mostly it's just this idea of a guy who passed a massively regressive tax cut telling the country that he's looking out for poor people. Dude, stop looking out for poor people. They can't take any more of your help.
Under this current regime running things in DC I would be dead set against a universal health care system, mainly because this clowns would so royaly screw it up that it wouldn't even be worth it......
Under normal circumstances I'd be all for a universal health care plan that is paid for by our taxes that covers EVERYBODY!!
Plenty of reasons.......
1. Why should the rich be able to buy and have health insurance that covers anything and everything. And what little it doesn't, they can easily afford to pay that away.
While the vast majority of us either have to fend for ourself with little to no insurance, pay those pesky $20 copays, for-go check-ups (i.e. preventative health) that would likely make health insurance cheaper in the long run!
2. How can anyone call themselves an American when they knowingly allow any fellow citizen to go without health insurance? Let alone 49 million of them!
I don't want to hear that lame ass BS that we all have universal health care coverage already (The ER Room) If this were truely universal then we wouldn't be getting that multi thousand dollar bill from the hospital 3 weeks later..... That is NOT insurance in my book!
We are in serious trouble from many fronts in this country and the big business corporation and their political lackies are the ones screwing us all!
Under normal circumstances I'd be all for a universal health care plan that is paid for by our taxes that covers EVERYBODY!!
And one that takes insurance companies out of the loop. There's an inherent conflict of interest when an insurance company tries to make a profit by denying care to someone who needs it. Medicare runs with an amazingly low administrative cost (something like 8%, if I'm not mistaken) and people love it.
Further, why the hell is health insurance tied to employment? What a crazy system. If nothing else, you'd think our supposed capitalists in the administration would want to remove that particular burden from big (and small) business.
This is one of my complaints with our Democratic candidates, too. Only Edwards has a plan that bypasses insurance companies, I think. Well, Kucinich probably does, too, but sadly he's unelectable because he's unelectable.
Kucinich is totally electable. All the Dems have to do is vote for him in the primaries. But the Dem leadership and their big biz owners marginalize him because he's a real socialist/liberal, not a phony like Clinton or Obama. He gets purposefully left out of debates, cut out of pictures of the Dem pack, and ABC just pulled an online poll because he was winning it. He has a ton of support from the trenches, but the officers hate him because he offends the greed of the Party owners. He also stands against the Dem relationship with AIPAC. He should run as an independent, which would guarantee him a lot more media coverage. I may have to find his email adress and make a few suggestions.
Why would you want Kucinich to run? That would only guarantee the election to a republican. Us dems need to learn to circle the wagons like the republicans do. Don't forget 2000. Without the independent candidate Gore wins easily and the nightmare war we have does not exist.
Ahhh, more Democrat bs. Let's dissect this, shall we.
A. Nader had NO effect on the Florida outcome, Gore "lost" by less than 550 votes and enough Democrats were kept from the polls to make it a clear win. So blame Repub tricks and Gore's weak campaign for that loss, not someone else.
B. You Dems circle the wagons around the far-right candidates all the time and tell yourselves that the real liberal can never win, so you keep re-electing far-right Dems who do the same crap the Repubs do. So why not just vote Repub, we get the same crap policies either way. It's YOU who refuse to vote for the liberals in the party then whine when some independent liberal gets a few votes every four years.
If you support war crims in Iraq and Israel, a never-ending war on Islam for the oil and arms industry, the destruction of the US economy by the corpos and their pet Congressmen, the incarceration of the entire black male population, and the bankruptcy of the American working class, then keep slagging Kucinich and voting Democrat. As for me, I'm gonna vote AGAINST all that.
This was certainly a bi-partisan effort...but I agree with Boehner's overall point.
The American people want...it's for the children...the American people expect. When you hear those words...hold on to your gawd damn wallet.
About the only time we see a bi-partisan vote is when it comes to increasing spending from these gutless, unprincipled cowards.
Waste and fraud is the only thing our federal govt. is good at...and they think they can run the medical industry...LMAO.
I agree.
...although I do believe that Boehner is a liar and a complete partisan.
Please explain to me, then, how the over head for Medicare and the VA system are under 5%, and the average for private insurance is over 25%. It seems to me that the fraud and abuse is on the other side of the coin on this one.
THe funny thing with the health insurance debate is that it's not like we don't have plenty of examples in other countries. And before I get a bunch of anectdotal crap, just remember that every other industrialized nation has national health care and gets FAR greater results for FAR less money. And that is an undisputable fact.
Over head expenses have nothing to do with efficiency or quality....but it makes a nice bed time story if you're promoting socialized medicine.
The federal govt. is not capable of running a complex program like health care...have you driven on the federal highways lately?
Over head expenses have nothing to do with efficiency or quality.
You're gonna need to back that up.
It seems you conveniently overlooked the second part of my post when you made the silly claim that the federal government is not capable of providing health care. Explain, then, how the federal governments of all those other countries can and are doing it MUCH better than our private companies are currently doing it.
And what does the federal highway comment have to do with anything. The federal gov't does not directly maintain any highway in the country. And the ones in poor condition are because of state budget shortfalls following the bad economy and less federal dollars. I see it in my state. Obviously, if a road is in bad shape, it is because it has not been maintained. Or are you actually suggesting that the gov't does not have the technological ability to build a road.
I'm referring to the U.S. government...not any foreign country...and our govt. is not competent enough to run a national health care program efficiently.
The federal govt. is responsible for maintaining the interstate highway system...and maintaining the graft and pork spending in their recurring Transportation bills.
The state govts. have relinquished their autonomy in funding local roads by whoring for federal tax dollars...playing right into the hands of the corrupt politicians...who have highjacked the system for their own greedy goals.
First: Are you suggesting that the federal government systems of other countries are better than ours? How unamerican of you. Seriously, do you really think that they are more capable than we are? That seems to me to be just a stupid comment designed to cover-up your inability to defend a loser point.
Second: I'm sorry, but the federal gov't does not maintain any highways! There are no federal highways. There are interstate highways, and each state maintains their portion. They receive partial funding from the feds, but the feds don't do any work. When was the last time you saw the federal public works department patching a pot hole on a highway? Maybe you have these views about our federal gov't because you have no idea what they do.
Wes,
Don't let the current administration influence your opinion on the incompetence of the federal government. Without junior, the federal government managed to win two world wars, ESTABLISH the interstate highway system, and take us to the moon in less than 10 years, less time than it will end up taking to get us from Iraq back to der Homeland, and presumably less time than it will take us to recover from the mess that "the decider" has made so far. Of course, being a conservative, you take for granted these advancements, one of which allows you to share your accusation of incompetence with the rest of the world from the comfort of your parents basement.
(by the way: that interstate system instituted by the great republican patriot general Eisenhower was actually Hitler's idea, and has helped make our contemporary economy possible.)
Incompetence can be laid directly at the feet of the managers - those with oversight, those whose positions are accountable to the customers. The federal government is NOT the most efficient entity to run any enterprise, but I have yet to see any department that is not competent. And actually, without profit as their primary motive, corners don't have to be cut, and employees don't have to worry about being abused or exploited. Those that work for the federal government genuinely enjoy their jobs, and take at least as much pride in their product as their counterparts in the private sector.
Bottom line: your "government incompetence" argument against national health care insurance is baseless.
Medicare used to work pretty good, before the pharmacorps bought out Congress to damage it.
I certainly hope some will join Working Assets' campaign to persuade - or at least offend - any Repugnants representing them in Congress. Also, Senator Leahy's Green Mountain PAC has a nice "letters to the editor" site going on this same issue. Since I own one of those useless Repugnant Congress-critters myself, I can only suggest to Mike Rogers that I will be less likely to find opposition to his run in 2008, if he uses this great issue to declare his independence from partisan loyalties, and saves a few innocent lives with the effort.
Now the Democrats want free health care for rich people's kids???
Wow. After all the bitching about tax breaks for the wealthy they want poor smokers to buy insurance for rich peoples kids!!
The 11 percent rating is about to go to 6 percent. Worst congress ever.
200k/yr=not wealthy
85k/yr=wealthy
Conservative math. I guess it's back to school for me...
That is pretty funny. It's also funny that they oppose a "middle class entitlement", but have no problem giving huge tax breaks to billionaires who won't even notice it.
How about addressing the misinformation put forth by this talking head rather than dropping a smelling talking-point in the punch bowl?
Leather,
What you're saying is not true. Please read this article by the fully independent factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_false_claims_about_childrens_health_insurance.html
Then you can respond. A family of 4 making ~$52,000 is not rich. The Bush administration and his fellow republicans are simply lying to the public and you are falling for it.
WESLEY: "Waste and fraud is the only thing our federal govt. is good at...and they think they can run the medical industry...LMAO. "
Who's 'they'? The federal government?
You're saying "our federal govt." "thinks they can run the medical industry"? What does that even mean?
I think it's supposed to be some sort of dig at single-payer health insurance or any inclusive insurance scheme, but I can't tell for sure.
"Why does everything have to be a political game here in Washington, D.C.?"
Did he really say that? Does he think we're that stupid? Did he ask that question ten years ago?
If you are going to note it was a bipartisan vote, you should at least note some Ds voted "Nay". And did some of the Rs voting "Aye" do so merely to have a say in a compromise measure?
Does a program really have to more than double in size in order to be effective for those that really could benefit from it?
Does a program really have to more than double in size in order to be effective for those that really could benefit from it?
Expanding the program so that more uninsured kids can have insurance changes the effectiveness of the program for those that already had it... how? Your question makes no sense.
Democrats saw an effective program and wanted to expand it to cover MORE kids with its effectiveness. This is bad how exactly? And it's paid for with a tax on a product that leads to health problems for the users.
Yes.
Heard Dennis K voted against it do to dropping of benifits for imigrants. Its possible this veto could be overcome. Its possible some signing statement(s) could follow. Selfishness still has a few bullets left.
They also didn't mention that this already is a compromise designed to get the GOP on board. The House bill wanted $50B for SCHIP and funded it in part with adjustments to the wholly unnecessary Medicare Advantage boondoggle.
The administration talking point that, the expansion of this program will allow families who make over 80,000 to receive SCHIP is an outright lie. I fail to see why the press doesn't call them on this. The SCHIP program gives states the ability to set income limits on coverage. THe 83,000 figure came from New York states proposal to increase the ceiling to 400% of poverty level. That proposal was dismissed by the administration and now they try to use it in a disingenious attempt to make us believe that such a figure will be the norm. Lies, lies, lies. But of course, to hear Bush, it is the Democrats fault that children will be shortchanged needed healthcare because they want to increase funding for the program. Huh????????? January 2009 cannot get her quick enough. This man, Bush, the chicken hawk coward, needs to disappear into obscurity in the brush piles of his sucky ranch.