WSJ editorial said Bush supports a "20% expansion" of SCHIP -- not according to CBO
SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal editorial claimed that President Bush's proposed $5 billion increase in funding over five years for the State Children's Health Insurance Program would be a "20% expansion." But the Congressional Budget Office found that Bush's proposal would underfund the program by $9 billion during that period.
An October 13 Wall Street Journal editorial criticizing the response by congressional Democrats to President Bush's veto of legislation that would increase funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $35 billion over five years asserted that "in truth, the Bush Administration endorses a modest expansion" of the program. The editorial went on to claim that "after his veto Mr. Bush repeatedly signaled a willingness to compromise and spend more than the $5 billion he would prefer to pump in -- which is by itself a 20% expansion." In fact, Bush's plan to "pump in" an additional $5 billion over five years would underfund the program by $9 billion during that period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, in May, the CBO estimated that "maintaining the states' current programs under SCHIP would require funding of $39 billion for the 2007-2012 period." But a $5 billion increase from baseline funding -- Bush's proposal -- over five years would total $30 billion.
From the October 13 Wall Street Journal editorial:
After President Bush vetoed Congress's major expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, Nancy Pelosi declared: "President Bush used his cruel veto pen to say, 'I forbid 10 million children from getting the health benefits they deserve.' " As far as political self-parody goes, that one ought to enter the record books.
It's wrong on the facts, for one, which Speaker Pelosi knows. The Schip bill was not some all-or-nothing proposition: A continuing resolution fully funds the program through mid-November, so none of the 6.6 million recipients will lose coverage. And even if Washington can't agree by then, there will be another stopgap, because Schip might as well already be an entitlement. In truth, the Bush Administration endorses a modest expansion. A majority of Congress backs a much larger expansion. The controversy is over the role of government in health care.
The 10 million children that Ms. Pelosi cites are the sum of the current enrollees plus those who could join under the Democratic plan (which also has the support of some wayward Republicans). Never mind that up to 60% of these children already have private insurance, which Schip would displace as it moves up the income scale. Only by Beltway reasoning could "not expanding" count as "denying" public assistance. Hillary Clinton went further and said the President was actively "stealing" health care from needy kids.
Despite all that, after his veto Mr. Bush repeatedly signaled a willingness to compromise and spend more than the $5 billion he would prefer to pump in -- which is by itself a 20% expansion. His offer has been spurned flatout, and an override vote is scheduled for next week. Despite their howls about "the children," Democrats and their media partners are happy to milk them for political gain.
Unfortunately, that narrative was bolstered this week by some conservative bloggers. After the Schip veto, Democrats chose a 12-year-old boy named Graeme Frost to deliver a two-minute rebuttal. While that was a political stunt, the Washington habit of employing "poster children" is hardly new. But the Internet mob leapt to some dubious conclusions and claimed the Frost kids shouldn't have been on Schip in the first place.
As it turns out, they belonged to just the sort of family that a modest Schip is supposed to help. One lesson from this meltdown is the limit of argument by anecdote. The larger point concerns policy assumptions. Everyone concedes it is hard for some lower-income families like the Frosts to find affordable private health coverage. The debate is over what the government should do about it.
Reportedly, Bush's objection to expanding SCHIP is that it smacks of socialized medicine. Ironic, isn't it, that Bush opposes sociialism in any form while at the same time he attempts to recreate America as a fascist state?
Politicizing children in a political fight to bring healthcare to children.
So? Big flippon' deal man.
Is there something wrong with politicizing a righteous cause?
Funny, my friends that are anti-abortion use that same reasoning and phrase all the time.
Your friends are not funny, zealots trying to impose something is far different than trying to help children.
Your friends want to deny people living right now the right to control what goes on in their body. At the same time they don't want those same people (women) to be able to take steps (birth control) to protect themselves from having unwanted/accidental pregnancies.
To your friends, unborn fetuses are more important than children living in the here and now where as those fetuses can't survive without the mother.
As is obvious with regards to their objection to even funding SCHIP, once the child is born it's like "to hell with them"
I don't get it...
"...those fetuses can't survive without the mother."
Liberals can't survive without their mothers either. That's why they need a nanny-state to take care of them when their mother kicks them out of the basement.
It must be so satisfying to be so perfect and unhindered by personal tragedy or catastrophic events. I really hope that something terrible does not happen to you or your family to cause you to need those services you rail against.
Why is it so terrible to live in a society that helps those that need help? Even if you have no soul, do you really think that our economy would be better without the social safety net?
Actually, Jawill, I have no problem with the people of a community or even a state voting to tax themselves in order to provide specific social services. What I have a problem with is having the federal government involved in any way. It inevitably turns into nothing but a pork-fest.
Sure that is how we got rural electrification, Social Security, the Highway system.WAIT no it isnt. Some things take National resources. Did the military turn into NOTHING but a porkfest? Just because the hivemind told you to believe it doesnt mean it makes sense
There's this little island paradise about 90 miles south of Florida that I think you would really love, Solon. Why don't you go live there? The government takes care of all your needs just the way you want them to.
There is a capitalist paradise called Guatemala down South of here why dont YOU go live there where your black fascist heart will fit right in. Our country would be so much better without fascist morons like you. So why dont YOU leave.
Brutus is stupid and cant survive without his hivemind master the Oxymoron telling him what he believes. Without that daily conditioning his basic stupidity would cause him to forget to breathe. You are a moron Brutus, you are embarassing yourself.
That's swell. The argument makes sense when one is talking about actual living, breathing children.
My goodness, what happened to Bush's principles? It's okay to increase socialized medicine by $5 billion, but not $10 billion? On what dollar amount does the noble principle start kicking in?
And let the record show that large social programs that do a ton of good for many, many people are dirt cheap compared to the other crap the government spends its money on. What do you say we try liberalism once and see what happens? It's about the same relative cost as a risky free-agent signing by a pro sports team. I think our country can take the hit.
Steeve, why don't you go back to Russia where you belong, you Communist SOB...? ;>)
"What do you say we try liberalism once and see what happens?"
We have, Steeve. It always fails. Ever hear of Johnson's "great society"? That's when the poverty rate stopped declining.
Another Moron with a head-full of...
Limbaugh lies.
Good argument fungus.
Careful there, Brutus. Your glass house is cracking.
"It always fails"??
Let's count the "always":
FDR: liberalism worked.
"Great society": only a token was passed. Liberalism was not tried.
That's it. Not much of an always. Let's at least try it as often as we tried that crazy "cutting taxes raises revenue" idea.
"Let's at least try it as often as we tried that crazy "cutting taxes raises revenue" idea."
Why do you libs always want to ignore the fact that every time income taxes have been cut, we have become more prosperous as a result? Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, Bush (tax revenue is at record levels) have all shown that.
If you punish people for working, you get less work.
WOW just how delusional are you anyway. We became MORE prosperous after Coolige? Ever hear of the great depression? Planet Wingnut history is much different than planet Earth. The Golden age of American economy ws the 50s when tax rates were high and we invested in the infrastructure. The Highway system, the satellite system, rural electrification hydroelectric power. Our country prospered from ALL those societal investments
Big deficits follow big tax cuts, and they don't increase revenue: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/failing-to-pass-the-laffer-test/
Our most prosperous times -- 50s and 60s -- were times of big taxes on the rich. And your "punishment" logic is goofy. How many people will say "I don't want to be a millionaire. The tax bracket is a killer."
Our second most properous time -- 90s -- were during a tax increase: what Limbaugh called "the biggest tax increase in history".
I'll trot out my fundamental theorem of liberalism: a rich person is still rich after taxes.
You are WRONG again. What were the chances?
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=372
During the 1960s median black family income rose 53 percent; black employment in professional, technical, and clerical occupations doubled; and average black educational attainment increased by four years. The proportion of blacks below the poverty line fell from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968. The black unemployment rate fell 34 percent. The country had taken major strides toward extending equality of opportunity to black Americans. In addition, the number of whites below the poverty line dropped dramatically, and such poverty-plagued regions as Appalachia made significant economic strides.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060403fa_fact
Between 1964 and 1973, as Johnson’s Great Society programs went into effect, the poverty rate fell from nineteen per cent of the population to 11.1 per cent.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=372
In 1960, 40 million Americans, 20 percent of the population, were classified as poor. By 1969, their number had fallen to 24 million, 12 percent of the population. Johnson also pledged to qualify the poor for new and better jobs, to extend health insurance to the poor and elderly to cover hospital and doctor costs, and to provide better housing for low-income families. Here too Johnson could say he had delivered. Infant mortality among the poor, which had barely declined between 1950 and 1965, fell by one?third in the decade after 1965 as a result of expanded federal medical and nutritional programs. Before 1965, 20 percent of the poor had never seen a doctor; by 1970 the figure had been cut to 8 percent. The proportion of families living in houses lacking indoor plumbing also declined steeply, from 20 percent in 1960 to 11 percent a decade later.
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-welfarepoverty.htm
Myth: Welfare increases poverty.Fact: The more welfare, the less poverty -- both historically and internationally. Summary The historical evidence is clear: welfare reduces poverty, and the lack of it increases it. In the 1920s, fully half of all Americans could not make ends meet. Roosevelt's New Deal programs had reduced poverty to about 20 percent in the 50s. Johnson's Great Society reduced this to 11.1 percent by 1973. Since the rise of the corporate special interest system in 1975, individual welfare benefits have been shrinking, and poverty has been steadily rising, to over 15 percent today.
See just because the hivemind TOLD you to believe this doesnt mean its true. Do you EVER know what you think unless the OXYmoron tells you what to think?
“Fact: The more welfare, the less poverty -- both historically and internationally.”
How could anyone in their right mind…Never mind, I forgot I was talking about Solon.
The countries with the most welfare are communist. What communist country in the history of the world has had less poverty than the U.S.?
“Roosevelt's New Deal programs had reduced poverty to about 20 percent in the 50s. Johnson's Great Society reduced this to 11.1 percent by 1973.”
The poverty rate had been dropping steadily before 1965 (people were working and earning, not sitting on their butts crying for welfare). There was a sharp drop after JFK’s tax cuts took effect in 1963. After Johnson’s great society BS was fully in place (1968-1969) the decline stopped!
If you pay people not to work, you end up with a lot of people who don’t work. That doesn’t reduce poverty, idiot.
Take off your aluminum skull-cap and go outside every once in a while, Solon. Maybe you could try getting a job. You might learn something about the real world.
Wow you really are STUPID MAX. Poverty was falling BEFORE 65 because of the FDR New Deal programs. What YOU said was poverty rates STOPPED declining after Johnsons programs. No they didnt the FACTS show you are wrong as you usually are. Just because the Limborg hivemind TELLS you something doesnt mean its true. The poverty rate continued to drop as we expanded the Social programs. Reality is a concept you ought to look into.
The Dept of Health and Human Services FY2007 is the biggest slice of the budget. If that's dirt cheap, you must be Bill Gates.
Your figure is wildly misleading in that human resources accounts for the biggest NON-MILITARY portion of the budget. Military spending accounts for 51% of the total budget. If you add in the war appropriations that were left off the budget, it jumps to 60%.
Oh yeah, and failing to expand public assistance to those in need is the same as denying help to those in need.
I mean if folks are needy and one goup says to them that we're not going to do anything to help you, how is that anything but denying help?
Everyone should understand how hard this bill is for Bush. It is hard for him to support, or write a bill that gives no entitlements to corporations that have supported his presidency. Just about everything that he has done as president has benefited his backers. This is doing something for nothing.
Look at it this way: poor kids don't have money; what good is it going to do to give them Health Care? It is not like they have money to give him.
So the next time you think about this issue, remember the tough decision "Da Decider" faces and understand that he cannot fully fund a program that benefits neither he nor his cronies.
Sorry, meant "live" their own lives.
Oops, I meant that to be under my post.
This article basically just points out that Bush wants to grow the government and spend more money, but just not as much as the Democrats. Bush has been a big government liberal on spending issues, but he and the Republicans still like to point out that they're not quite as bad as the Democrats. Big deal. We need a political party that actually supports limited government and lets people with their own lives without interference from the government. Bush isn't quite as bad as the Democrats, but he's still fiscally irresponsible and has hurt the Republican Party in that regard.
That pretty much sums it up, Rino Hunter. Bush will sign a bill that expands it more than the 20% increase that he has proposed, calling it "fiscally responsible", and it will still be viewed as a "draconian cut" by the libs.
Gotta love those Libs, though. They are the only ones who can somehow come up with logic to say an increase in spending is actually a cut. And they can also tell me that I should be happy paying more taxes, since I've benefitted the most. I tell can tell you one thing, they really do have stones.
Great job here by Media Matters...
The Journal editorial is flat-out lying. Think about that? A major newspaper, with national circulation, is lying through its teeth.
You wonder why this country is in the shape its in?
What's the lie fungus? It's a 20% increase - $25B to $30B.
But you need an increase of 56 percent to maintain the program at current levels. Where is the other 36 percent?
So, by your calculations if my taxes go from $25k to $30k this year it was a cut. I look at it as a 20% increase, but since you libs wanted $60k from "rich" people like me to pay for your idiotic socialist programs it was actually a 50% cut.?
Make that stupid argument to one of the kids that will not have health insurance because he/she was dumped from the program.
Anyone who gets dropped from the program gets dropped because their parents make enough money to buy their own insurance. What needs to get dropped is their expenditures on cable TV, beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets, the payments on their $400,000 houses, etc.
$14 billion dollars is needed to keep up with inflation. What don't you get?
This is pretty simple I will try to make it as simple as possible in deference to you. If your foodbill is 200 a month if buying the SAME FOOD will cost you 275 a month next year. Only budgeting 225 is not EXPANDING your food buying program it is reducing it ask your wife who will have to cut BACK ON SOMETHING. More money is not an expansion of ANYTHING if it is buying LESS. Try to keep up
I just asked my wife. She said she can still feed a family of four for $200. That extra $25 will buy a couple of tasty steaks!
I guess you did that rather than address the point. I understand 8th grade math is too much for you to understand.
Don't you Cons realize that it costs more in tax dollars for uninsured sick kids to be treated in an ER versus having insurance and being able to get regular treatments through a Family Practice doc? And, that's not just for kids; that applies to any uninsured person.Since when did healthcare become a privilege? If everybody has equal access then society as a whole benefits. The tax burden would lessen for all.
"Since when did healthcare become a privilege?"
You tell me, demi. It's not a right or a privilege. You have the right to enter into a contract with a health care provider. They charge a certain amount for their services and you decide whether or not you will pay it. If you decide to, you can also enter into a contract with an insurer to cover catastrophic costs. If you're a liberal you can cry and demand that someone else pays for everything for you.
No. You just use the government as your insurance company.
That's what I said, Loonz, cry and whine for someone else to pay.
My interpretation of you:
Yeah if it wasnt for those socialist child labor laws those kids could work in sweatshops and buy their own insurance right Ebeneezer Brutus Do you even remember what it was like before your soul dried up and blew away?
Loonz has it right.
But I will add that, that is one sorry way to refer to struggling working families, Brutus. Crying freeloaders?
Sorry but quality healthcare is not a commodity from which to suck a profit. Healthcare is a human right and is essential in truly preseving our national security.
The American labor force is the most productive labor force on the planet, we make this country competitive in the global economy. And yet we still have working families struggling to pay their doctor because all that income we are generating is not being reinvested in us. It's building factories outside he country, it's paying for more missiles and it just plain isn't being reconnected to productivity growth.
Just keep on insulting everyday people, Brutus.
But I will add that, that is one sorry way to refer to struggling working families, Brutus. Crying freeloaders?
It makes it easier to not care if you dehumanize people and call 'em names. You can let 'em suffer through little pains until the problem becomes critical so they use costly emergency room services. You can pretend they don't need schools as good as the rest of us and then you get to decry the increasing crime rates.
And if ya just call 'em names it makes it way easier to drop bombs on thousands of 'em.
And if you are a conservative hiveminder you can say I got mine get yours or go somewhere and die quietly. What a guy
And they can also tell me that I should be happy paying more taxes, since I've benefitted the most. I tell can tell you one thing, they really do have stones. Dave
Just wondering if there was this much concern when BILLIONS of YOUR TAX DOLLARS are STILL UNACCOUNTED for in Iraq?
Now we need another $200 Billion for a 'war' that has not and will not make us safer and has no ending vs 35 Billion for Children's Health care. Priorities?
Just wondering if there was this much concern when BILLIONS of YOUR TAX DOLLARS are STILL UNACCOUNTED for in Iraq?
Of course I was, and I further inquired on the return for the investment for the war in Iraq. I contacted both of my Senators. In return, I received nice "form" letters from both Chuck and Hillary advising that they were "looking" into it. But they both thanked me for my concern.
Gotta pity those cons who are SOOO bad at math and basic reading comprehension. If it would take nine billion more to keep the EXISTING PROGRAM AT CURRENT LEVELS. Then coughing up about half of that is still somehow an EXPANSION of the program. I guess they are compelled to believe whatever the hivemind tells them to believe.
Brutus...
How would you feel about taking a remedial math course? I would think that about a 4th or 5th grader could follow the math in the Media Matters thread--but it seems lost on you?
Fungus,
Get a calculator and figure out what 20% of $25 billion is. Then add that number to $25 billion and what do you get?
OK except an expansion of the money spent is NOT an expansion of the program as the Wall Street Journal made it sound. This is simple. It will cost more to keep the EXISTING LEVELS as has been explained so this is NOT an expansion of the program
Exactly it pretty much sums up the hivemind position. What you guys were TOLD to believe. Reality, that is what the CBO showed with actual numbers doesnt really come into the picture because the Oxymoron didnt TELL you to beleive that. You two guys are just sad.
Any time a brain dead conservative starts...
babbling about "cutting the government," and then doesn't have the intelligence or integrity to say what he would cut, I just dismiss them out of hand, like you would a 2nd grader.
We should start by getting rid of all corporate welfare. That would save us around $200 billion per year. We could also reform the farm subsidy program. Right now almost all the subsidies go to the big corporate farmers, and they really don't need it. More of the subsidies should go to the small family farmers who really need it, and the big corporate farmers shouldn't get anything. That would save a lot of money and make the program more efficient. We should then freeze spending on all entitlement programs, at least until the budget is balanced. We shouldn't increase spending in ANY AREA until the budget is balanced. We could also have more over sight on the military budget and get rid of all the waste that goes on there. We can still spend money on equipment for our troops but not have all the waste that we have right now.
This is the first time I can say that I agree with nearly everything you just said.
It seems obvious to me that the only way we could ever even come close to achieving the things you mentioned would be through publicly financed elections. In the current system, the candidates need those millions of dollars coming in from corporations and their interest groups. That one move to public financing could end up saving hundreds of billions in the long run.
Works out well, too, because as of next year, cutting that first $200B would give us a surplus (though my guess is that the "emergency funding bills" wouldn't be included in that calculation.) So it'd be no problem to fully fund the SCHIP bill.
Bush has been a big government liberal on spending issues
He's a big government conservative. The only difference between the two parties on spending is where the money comes from. Democrats tax (preferably the rich) and republicans borrow (leaving their children and grandchildren to foot the bill).
He's a big government conservative.
There's no such thing. Bush maybe somewhat of an R, but no way a Conservative. The fact that he may negotiate with D's to increase the spending is proof enough. A Conservative would eliminate the program outright, and rightly so.
How would eliminating Schip be the right thing to do?
He's a big government conservative.
There's no such thing.
Of course there is and both Reagan and Bush are prime examples. For the first five years of Reagan's presidency, spending as a percentage of the GDP increased dramatically bringing us some of the highest deficits we've ever seen (up until Bush's presidency). The spending curbed dramatically in his last three years of his presidency and it could have been due to the republicans losing the Senate in 1986. And you already know Bush's story.
Yep. Conservatives just leave it to Democrats to pay the bills afterwards.
"Democrats tax (preferably the rich) and republicans borrow (leaving their children and grandchildren to foot the bill)"
Sadly, I agree with you. That really is the only difference now between the parties on fiscal issues. The Republicans simply don't have the guts to cut spending. In my opinion, we need a political party that will cut taxes AND cut spending,
Republicans more than have the guts to cut spending -- on social programs they don't like. Republicans have no real desire to reduce taxes. They just want to give government money to their rich constituents either through corruption, bridges to nowhere, corporate welfare, and regressive tax structures.
Except that with Bush's tax cuts the MARGINAL TAX RATES for the poor and middle classes went down more than did the MARGINAL TAX RATES for the rich. The tax cuts actually made the tax code more progressive, which means that the rich now pay a larger overall percentage than they did before Bush's tax cuts.
Big whoop! The wealth gap widens and hard working people still can't afford heathcare. Tax cuts is no more than a slogan, they haven't improved the standard of living, not for the majority anyway. They've been fabulous for the leisure class.
You keep repeating this LIE. Just because the hivemind instructed you to believe that liberal means BAD doesnt mean it makes any sense. Bush is NOT in any way liberal on economic issues. THAT IS STUPID. His priorities in how he overspends is not liberal by ANY DEFINITION. You keep saying it in the vain hope repitition is a magic formula to make it true. Actually its just stupid. Bush overspends. THAT doesnt make him a liberal. Only a moron would think it does. Its HOW he overspends that is definitive and Bush overspends, as has been pointed out to fund corporate welfare and wars started with lies. Only the most terminally brainwashed and totally ignorant would claim that means he is liberal
The Medicare Prescription drug program was not a corporate welfare program. It was an enermous entitlement program that LBJ would be proud of. Bush has greatly increased spending on domestic programs. He's a "compassionate conservative," meaning that he loves to spend money on wasteful and counter productive social engineering programs.
Yes it was. IT was a program that did little to help seniors while providing a 139 BILLION dollar subsidy to the Pharamcuetical industry already one of the most profitable industries in the US.
Expanding Schip to cover as many children as possible, along with extending healthcare to all, is common sense.
Infrastructure is how citizens are enabled to prosper, so funding the infrastructure would seem the best way to enable prosperity.
People are the human infrastructure of our country, so investing in the welfare and health of people is a common sense solution to ensuring longterm prosperity.
Reading a little further on the CBO estimate provides the following...that mmfa chooses to ignore.
- The availability of additional federal funds for SCHIP would reduce the states needs for some Medicaid funds, so the net cost to the federal government would be smaller. On balance, CBO estimates, the net additional federal cost to maintain current programs under SCHIP would be $8B over the 2007-2012 period. - CBO estimate pg.26
The president has offered a raise of $5B...CBO says it needs $8B...the democrats want $35B.
So how does that contradict what mmfa is saying? His increase would be less than what the program needs to function in its current state. The dems have not pretended that their increase would increase the program. Bush, however, is doing his usual spin by touting his $5B increase as a more rational, conservative increase, when it really would take the program to lower levels than it is now. If he had real guts, he would say that instead of misleading everybody. If the media had any guts, they would say that every time they mentioned his proposal. "Bush's proposed $5B increase, which would fall $3B short of maintaining the current level of health coverage to poor kids." Something like that would be honest journalism.
Contradiction? It's mmfa's claim of $9B underfunding...when the CBO clearly shows $3B.
- "Bush's proposed $5B increase, which would fall $3B short of maintaining the current level of health coverage to poor kids." - jawill
I agree...that is a correct statement and should be reported that way.
I also wonder why the media doesn't report that the democrat bill reduces spending by $10B in 2012...the last year of the proposal.
The proposal funds 2011 at $13.8B and drops it to $3.5B in 2012.
I also wonder why the media doesn't report that the democrat bill reduces spending by $10B in 2012...the last year of the proposal.
Because it doesn't parse grammatically?
There is no such thing as a Democrat Bill there are DemocratIC bills and ReNAMBLAcan bills
You're reading the report incorrectly. The CBO report estimated 14B for the 2007-2012 period not 8B. The reason why you have to allocate 14B for SCHIP is because of the way SCHIP and Medicaid are funded. SCHIP has finite funding while funding for Medicaid is open ended. If the funding for SCHIP runs out, all those on it will be thrown into the Medicaid system. This will open up a whole range of services to the SCHIP participants in an open ended program while reducing or eliminating their premiums and copays. The savings can only occur if you allocate 14B to SCHIP.
I'll buy that...and it raises some questions.
Why then does the democrat plan slash spending in the last year of the program?
Why does a children's health care plan have about 10% adults in the plan?
Why then does the democrat plan slash spending in the last year of the program?
Don't know. You'll have to ask them.
Why does a children's health care plan have about 10% adults in the plan?
Because it really didn't make sense insuring the kids while leaving their parents uninsured.
And read the "Eligibility Criteria for Adults" section of the CBO report.
Why is it you ReNAMBLAcans are so stupid you dont even know the name of the largest political party in the United States
I wish I could remember the thread where that agument was trotted out last time Wesley.
The 35B was merely sustaining the program at current levels. Not allowing for increasing the number of children in the program, or inflation.
shrubs 5B both guts the program and interferes with exsisting state programs.
Frankly I don't care to see this bogus agument again, thank you. If I do, trust me I've got some mean questions locked and loaded.
The 35B was merely sustaining the program at current levels. Not allowing for increasing the number of children in the program, or inflation.
The bipartisan bill allocates 60B (a 35B increase) to SCHIP. They want to increase the program by 4 million participants.
When MMFA starts quoting the WSJ... well, as HRC says: cackle!!!
Oh, please stop. My sides are really aching!
And as Billybobbie says...moronic statement ensues. A pattern so far unbroken
I certainly hope MMFA is right. Bush should veto any new entitlements.
Ok let's start with no bid contracts for Bush buddies.
You idiots. If a program costs 25 million and you add 5 million you INCREASE the program by 5 million. That is exactly what the WSJ reported. Media Matters, that bastar...er, excuse me, bastion of truth takes a prediction of the future by the CBO ( at best an educated guess) acts like it is hard cold fact, compares it to an actuallly proposed numerical INCREASE to transform it into a decrease. Then they have the nerve to call what the WSJ reports misinformation. Heres some 2000 year old advice: it's real hard to remove the speck from the other guys' eye with that log in your own eye...even if you feel it makes a good weapon to beat your opponents over the head with.
You are stupid. You are VERY stupid. I notice whenever really ignorant morons like you begin a post with you idiots something monumentally stupid usually follows. You did NOT dissapoint. Ever hear of inflation? Things cost more over time for the same level of coverage. Now the Wall Street Journal didnt say the BUDGET of the existing program would be raised by 20% they said it would EXPAND THE PROGRAM by 20% which considering inflation and the cost of healthcare is raising in cost faster than the inflation rate that would mean more than 30% just to stay at existing levels much LESS expand the program by 20%. See people with normal IQs can understand this quite easily. Try to gain at least a passable understanding of 8th grade math before you come in here calling us idiots while demonstrating how astonishingly stupid YOU are and embarassing yourself like this.