Fox's Garrett falsely claimed CBO determined that revised SCHIP bill "would cover fewer children"
SUMMARY: In reporting on the House's vote to pass a revised bill expanding the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Fox News' Major Garrett asserted,
"Congress' own accounting office said the new SCHIP bill would cover fewer
children and at greater cost than the original bill." In fact, the Congressional
Budget Office said that the revised bill would cover as many children in SCHIP
and Medicaid as the original bill would have covered.
During the October 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report With Brit Hume, Fox News congressional correspondent Major Garrett reported on the House's vote (265-142) to pass a revised bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and asserted, "Congress' own accounting office said the new SCHIP bill would cover fewer children and at greater cost than the original bill." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that the revised bill would cover as many children in SCHIP and Medicaid as the original bill would have covered. The CBO estimated that the revised House bill would enroll 7.4 million children in SCHIP and 26.7 million children in Medicaid for an estimated total enrollment of 34.1 million children. CBO estimated in September that the bill vetoed by President Bush would have enrolled 7.8 million children in SCHIP and 26.3 million in Medicaid, for an estimated total enrollment of 34.1 million children. Bush has threatened to veto the revised House bill.
Garrett's false assertion echoes a misleading White House Statement of Administration Policy that claims the revised bill "would enroll 400,000 fewer in SCHIP in 2012 than were enrolled through" the earlier bill, but fails to note that the revised bill would enroll 400,000 more children in Medicaid than would have been enrolled through the earlier bill.
In contrast with Garrett's assertion, an October 26 Washington Post article on the bill passed by the House reported that a CBO analysis "showed that the new version of the children's health insurance bill did make some substantive changes that Republicans had demanded. Under both versions, the combined average monthly enrollment in SCHIP and Medicaid would be about 34.1 million people, according to the CBO. But there is a shift toward serving poorer children, a key Republican demand. In the new bill, Medicaid enrollment alone would be about 400,000 individuals higher than under the vetoed bill, while SCHIP enrollment would be about that much lower, according to CBO documents. Almost half of the 3.9 million uninsured children projected to gain coverage under the revised bill would be covered under Medicaid, of whom about 80 percent live below the poverty level, said Genevieve Kenney, an Urban Institute health economist."
From the October 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BRIT HUME (anchor): The House has passed a revised bill on health insurance for poor children, although not by a sufficient margin to override the veto that President Bush has again promised. The final tally came after heated objections not only to the substance of the bill, but to the timing of the vote. Congressional correspondent Major Garrett explains.
[begin video clip]
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA) (House Speaker): Once again, a strong bipartisan majority will speak up for America's children.
GARRETT: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi teed up debate on a slightly revised bipartisan bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as SCHIP. But first, she had to quell a GOP uprising over scheduling the vote while many California lawmakers were tending to fire-ravaged constituents.
REP. ROY BLUNT (R-MO): We've got a million people displaced, more people displaced in the country today than anytime since the Civil War.
GARRETT: So Republicans gummed up the works with meaningless procedural votes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I ask for a recorded vote.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Speaker, I request the yeas and nays.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That I ask for a recorded vote.
GARRETT: The GOP hijinks burned more than three hours off the clock, as members smoldered over Pelosi's decision to rush the new SCHIP bill to the floor in the face of the wildfires, and in defiance of her own promise to give members 24 hours to read bills before a vote.
BLUNT: This is a bill that doesn't even have a single House sponsor. It's 293 pages. If it's such a great bill, why not let the members read it?
GARRETT: Pelosi said the House could not wait to act, even though the Children's Health Insurance Program is funded through mid-November. Pelosi said that despite his near constant focus on the wildfires, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger asked about the SCHIP bill's future this week.
PELOSI: One-point-two million children in California will benefit from this SCHIP bill that we are passing in the Congress today. The governor understands that, he's been a strong supporter of it, and he is helping us to pass this legislation.
GARRETT: President Bush vowed to veto the revamped Children's Insurance Bill, sure to lengthen a standoff that began when the House sustained his veto of the first SCHIP bill.
MICHAEL LEAVITT (Health and Human Services secretary): The bill that is currently considered being considered by the Congress essentially floods this program with money, and then would blow the doors off eligibility.
GARRETT: Congress' own accounting office said the new SCHIP bill would cover fewer children and at greater cost than the original bill. Democrats said Republicans will eventually regret their intransigence.
REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D-NY): At the end of the line, the question is going to be, did you vote for health care for 10 million children, and did you vote to support the $35 billion that's necessary to do it?
GARRETT: The Bush administration said it considers this new bill a budget-buster.
LEAVITT: This bill clearly has as much as $15 to $18 billion more than is necessary to carry out a policy that cares for poor children.
[end video clip]
GARRETT: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will bring this bill to the Senate floor next week, probably Tuesday or Wednesday, adding another chapter to the Groundhog Day quality of the SCHIP debate, and putting off negotiations, it appears, Brit, between the White House, congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans.
HUME: That on a bill that the president could sign, you mean?
GARRETT: Indeed.
HUME: All right, Major, thank you.















If it gets vetoed, send the EXACT SAME BILL back. Again, and again, and again...
I agree but we should mind the possible 'side effects' of continually 'playing' with Bush. He's already deranged enough... we don't want to drive him to the point where he will lash out at the press corps, Congress, or Iran. Rumour has it that he is back on the sauce again and he is getting even more frazzled.
Of course... the first two would make for some highly entertaining teevee.
And don't forget GWB's other problems!
[link to www.globemagazine.com]
The expansion that is attempting to be passed is not what the original bill was designed to do. The original bill was designed to cover the basic insuranceof CHILDREN of LOW INCOME families.
The first bill was scam by the left - trying to cover people up to age 25, covering illegals, and covering families who make $80k per year. That is not a childrens health care bill, that is a left wing step to universal government run health care. If you want universal health care, thats fine, however dont try to sneak it in and call it a childrens health plan for poverty.
The new bill is still covering families that are not LOW INCOME. Families making $60k per year are not low income, and are well enough off to pay their own insurance. The age of the people being considered "children" are still a problem.
If you want to get a bill to pass, then play by the rules of what the plan was designed to do: treat LOW INCOME (40k is stretching it) children, keep it for CHILDRENS (age 17 and less), keep it away from Illegals. If they do that, then many more people would support the bill. But increasing it by $35 billion to cover adults, and people who are middle class is ridiculous and not necessary. If they covered all children in families that made 40k or less (age 17 and less), and NO ILLEGALS, they wouldnt need 1/3 of what they are requesting.
Also, just another comment. If they did what I recommended in the final paragraph, there would also be no need to raise taxes on cigarettes - because that is an unnecessary tax increase. If they did that, even more republicans would pass the bill.
Until they do, Bush has vouched to Veto every single bill that comes his way (providing he has the ability to veto based on the number of votes).
MrDingyReid,
A good analysis of what the Democrat congressionals are really up to: getting middle class voters hooked on government-provided health care. After all, why would one keep one’s health care policy if one could get it for nothing (ignoring the tax consequences of those who are just above that qualification margin, of course)?
It actually amounts to coercion by the government into a dependency on government that did not exist previously. It’s the same game the Democrat party has been playing with the tax code since the New Deal: get voters dependent on government for needs far beyond what government should be satisfying and these voters will keep voting for the party that promotes this dependency.Yes, and they've already got us sheep totally dependent on them for things like highways, police, telecommunications, defense. All part of a vast left-wing conspiracy going back to Washington!
Sheesh, what an idiot....
I assume from your remarks that you will refuse to collect your social security "on principle." No Medicare, either.
Great. Go take a job for $60K a year in San Diego, California and show us how easy it is to make a living.
I bet his $60K wouldn't even allow him a month on one of those burned-out properties.
Salary in Austin TX:$60,000Comparable salary in San Diego CA:$92,022.02If you move from Austin TX to San Diego CA...Groceries will cost:26.667%moreHousing will cost:165.653%moreUtilities will cost:8.469%moreTransportation will cost:15.042%moreHealthcare will cost:20.201%more
it looked good in preview!
Salary in Austin TX:$60,000
Comparable salary in San Diego CA:$92,022.02
If you move from Austin TX to San Diego CA...
Groceries will cost:26.667%more
Housing will cost:165.653%more
Utilities will cost:8.469%more
Transportation will cost:15.042%more
Healthcare will cost:20.201%more
And what does that prove - dont move to San Diego unless you can afford it! Common sense.
The point was to prove that the cost of living changes depending on where you live. It's telling that in your world the answer is for everyone making $60K a year to move to west virginia to live like a king. There enough jobs there for 10 million+? Yeah, didn't think so.
Well MrDumbassBush you arent very bright if you cant understand that SIMPLE argument.
Isn't that always the argument that the righties point out? "Oh, you can't say this, because it doesn't mean the same in another part of the country ..."
I remember a bunch of Republicans in DC pointing out how they can't get along on $162K salaries (with free health care and ice delivered to their offices every morning!)
Why do you take it to the extreme? Why dont you go make 60k/yr down in West Virginia, and live like a movie star?
The dollar amounts only make sense in the bill if to justify them per market. 60k in one area is not much, but in another, its twice the average income!
Considering the fact that I live in a neighbouring state therefore I know something about it, I can tell you that there are FEW jobs in WV that pay the princely sum of $60/year - unless you wanna work for the Feds and those jobs are all snapped up. Many of the 'good jobs' are in neighbouring VA and MD and $60K/year is really 'stretching it' unless you wanna live 4 hours away from your job.
Thus proving my point - so now that we've established that the cost of living in WV is extremely low, and the job pay reflects that, we should go ahead and pay for child health insurance for every kid in the state? lol.
You really don't know how to read, do you? Rabbit's statement in no way backs up what you just claimed!
Salary in Austin TX:$60,000
Comparable salary in New York (Queens) NY:$91,162.11
If you move from Austin TX to New York (Queens) NY... Groceries will cost: 36.201% more Housing will cost: 135.812% more Utilities will cost: 42.357% more Transportation will cost: 11.222% more Healthcare will cost: 14.977% more
I bet this moron thinks that a gallon of milk in WV only costs 99 cents or a gallon of gas in WV costs only $1.50/gallon according to his so-called 'logic'.
Hint, hint... a gallon of gas in WV actually costs MORE than in my neighbouring state. So much for 'lower cost of living', right?
http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/sbsavg.asp
Salary in Austin TX: $60,000
Comparable salary in Martinsburg-Berkeley County WV: $59,663.52
If you move from Austin TX to Martinsburg-Berkeley County WV... Groceries will cost: 2.165% more Housing will cost: 9.573% more Utilities will cost: 1.267% more Transportation will cost: 2.913% less Healthcare will cost: 0.672% less
Well, since housing costs more there than here, I should be living like a hollywood movie star too! Sad to say, it isn't so...
Most of those Martinsburg residents making the 'good money' work in Washington DC and its suburbs. A good three hour or so trek on good days. :)
That is an aberration... most of WV isn't so 'lucky'.
You are so breathtakingly IGNORANT. $40K is 'stretching it'? Where the hell do you live... in the sewer?
$40K won't get you very far in most parts of the country... that is, the parts of the country that are somewhat decent, unless living in the slums as an alley cat is your 'thing'.
Im 28, make 50k/yr in Ohio, which is much higher than the average or median income. In fact, a 2500 sqft brand new cluster home in suburbs can go for under $200,000.
What that goes to show is that cost of living in states like ohio, michigan, indiana, west virginia, kentucky, NC, SC, etc are much lower than California, NYC, Florida, etc.
I guess thats too much for you to understand. Probably why you want something for nothing.
Goody for you that you have your $50K/year gig in Ohio. Consider yourself lucky as Ohio has a horrible unemployment record... just like all those 'lower cost of living' states you cited. Especially Michigan.
Which brings me to this... if the cost of living in Ohio is so damn good then why all those foreclosures? You guys are in the Top Five last time I checked.
Im sure we are in the top 5. And some of the foreclosures are just for what you stated - high unemployment rate.
However, land values here were increasing very well, and with so much open land, people were building houses much bigger than they could afford, thus being greedy, thinking they could turn the house over for profit on a 5yr interest only loan. We see how that worked out.
Wrong again - I work in the real estate industry in Ohio and foreclosures aren't happening because people were moving into houses too big for them to afford. People were maxing out their equity because they needed the money to pay their bills! (And I bet many of those bills were for medical services)
No MrDumbassBush probably YOU are just bone ignorant. The point is you keep talking about a specific dollar amount as if it means you DONT need the help and everyone else is patiently explaining that a specific dollar amount in some places goes a whole lot farther than other places.
That is a pitifully mindnumbing expose' on your ignorance of this bill. You spout the 80,000 dollar figure just as the President and every other right winger has done, knowing it is a lie. Since you seem to be quite informed on this subject, tell all of the readers where that 80,000 dollar figure originated from. While you are at it, don't purposely forget to tell us that each state sets its own limits on coverage as it pertains to income. Also, don't forget that the 80,000 dollar figure was merely a proposal by New York state which derived from a proposal to increase the cap to 400% of poverty level in that state ONLY. A proposal which was dismissed by the administration. Such a proposal would never have had a chance but, guys like you conveniently use it in a disingenious manner. The reality is that you know it is not true but say it anyway which is the definition of a LIE. You have lied just as Bush and his minions have done concerning this bill. The sad thing about all of this is that you and your cohorts have no reservations about long term spending in Iraq which will reach 2.4 TRILLION dollars. You have no problems nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq. But when it comes to asking for less than 50% of the most recent Iraq war funding (35 billion) for AMERICANS you cling to lies and try to sell your disagreement in the form of this being an entitlement program for people who don't need it. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"this being an entitlement program for people who don't need it. "
The original bill served its purpose and still does. What you said above is EXACTLY what the revisions are - entitlement program for people who do not need it.
Do not duck the original point at hand, sir. You tried to pass the LIE on with the 80,000 dollar bull$h*t. You tried to equate this bill with giving ALL families who make 80,000 per year SCHIP funding for their children's healthcare. You then throw in the illegal alien crap, which you know is further bull$h*t designed to scare the public. Then you conveniently forget to address why you suport 2.4 trillion in nation building for Iraqi's and Afghans and oppose helping AMERICANS.
You have no further credibility in this debate until you can tell us where in the bill it allows families who make 80,000 per year to receive SCHIP. As long as your lying we ain't buying. One more thing, this is not a new entitlement program, therefore it is not some kind of new innovative way to sneak universal coverage on the populace.
Achrispage6992,
Quit the nit-picking and note MrDingyReid’s point: the congressional Democrats are trying to foist a dependency on the middle class that was not there before. Same old game of buying votes by transferring wealth.
Iraq is a different priority. Unlike where to draw the dependency line in providing tax-payer funded health care, Iraq is absolutely essential to the survival of freedom and democracy as we know it. It’s easy to get to that conclusion if you can extrapolate, but I doubt you can do that.versus buying office by preventing votes. Can't have the people's voice heard if you want a republican administration, cause they sure can't win on the issues.
It was only a matter of time before we got the brainwashed talking point about helping someone creating a dependency. Sure, let those people DIE from lack of healthcare we dont want them dependent. Yes Iraq was a completely different priority. Bush lying to take America into a war for oil and a neocon wetdream about a reverse domino principle. We can always count on Oldmarine for the latest hiveming talking point bereft of logic, insight or REALITY
I can not believe media matters missed this one.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58323
<!-- end head -->Radio giant jokingly uses anti-war logic for California crisis
Using irreverent humor to blast the politicizing of California's wildfires, radio giant Rush Limbaugh today adopted some anti-war logic to call for the firefighters to be brought home.
"I think it's time to bring the firefighters home. I think it's time to bring the firefighters out of there – it's just too dangerous," Limbaugh said on his top-rated program, noting the front-line responders were in grave danger. "They're in there on a false premise anyway, that they can put out the fire. We can't win against the fire, folks, just like we can't win in Iraq. So if the liberals want to politicize this, then I ask them to be consistent and admit defeat to the fire, admit we can't beat the fire and get these brave firefighters out of there ... ."
Limbaugh continued comparing the battle with the blazes to waging the Iraq War, noting, "It's just gonna be back next year anyway. We're putting so many brave people at risk here fighting a fire we can't win. Sound familiar, ladies and gentlemen?"
Makes a hell of a point.
No it doesn't. It's just circular logic, cause Iraq isn't a threat to the US, the fires are. Apples and Oranges...
Snoopy,
Ask him to tell you where int he SCHIP bill it gives all Families who make 80,000 a year SCHIP funding. They continually use that figure which was merely a dismised proposal from New York State as some kind of reality that was inserted in the bill. Those who use it are LIARS. Gobbels would be proud of such use of disinformation.
Either he doesn't grasp the concept that the cost of living changes from location to location, or he's one of them dopes that thinks the solution is to quit your job and move to a cheaper place to live and work (the assumption being you can find the same paying job there). It's like living in a perpetual cloud...
Only to dittoheads like yourself.
Sure it makes the point that the Oxymoron hasnt got a shred of human decency and has so little respect for the intelligence of his audience he will even try something as stupid as this. And he is right since his brainwashed hivemind morons will just cheer and pretend the Oxyemporer has beautiful clothes
Limbaugh is noted for “illustrating absurdity by being absurd”. It’s to be expected that MM and folks who don’t like Limbaugh are only too happy to take such statements out of context, i.e. seriously. The suggestion by leading Democrats that it was Bush’s commitment of CA National Guard troops to Iraq that contributed to the fire damage is absurd.
"Officials are concerned they may not get the usual help from the military. At the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota, Bill Adams, the staff fire manager, said that helicopter pilots were not available and that military transport planes used to carry firefighters were "locked up" to bring troops home from the Middle East. Even the catering vehicles and shower equipment used by firefighters had been bought up by countries in the Persian Gulf.
"In the last few years, we've been heavily dependent on the military," Mr. Adams said. "There will be no military assistance at this point, although some of the National Guard might be available."
The above was quoted from a 1991 NYT article during the first Gulf War. I posted the link in another thread. It explains that the national guard is utilized extensively during forest fires, and this help was not available during Gulf War I because of the deployment.
Sure because joking about people dying in Iraq and California is just SOOO funny. That is if you are brainwashed enough it is. Do you know why there arent any good jokes about the Holocaust? BECAUSE IT ISNT FUNNY. Neither is the Oxymoron.
First of all, welcome to our new Republican troll.
Second, I'm confused...didn't President Numbnuts veto the bill because it covered TOO MANY kids?
Apparently, Rush has trained him well the way he trains all of his moronic clones.
I don't give a crap if you make $82K a year and you can't afford healthcare. That's your problem. Get a job at Wal-Mart. They provide benefits for full-timers making close to minimum wage. If you have 4 kids and all of the daddies are nowhere to be found that is also your problem. In the words of Chris Rock "put down the d_ck!"
Whatever pickle your in is your problem. We all have problems.
Spoken like a true hateful con. Nice.
Your family and friends must be proud.
Of course you dont. You got yours, so everyone else can just crawl off and die. What do you care. They should however die quietly so their suffering dont annoy you. Because its all about YOU. Selfish, self centered dont care about anyone but themseleves, Ebeneezer Scrooge worshipping, weasels dont deserve to live in a good society.
ahiddensaint764, I'm also surprised MM didn't grab onto that. So according to Rush, if you oppose the war in Iraq and think the troops should come home, you must also want firefighers to stop trying to put out fires and rescuing people. Right, because they are the EXACT SAME THING...Talk about your crappy parallels and false equivalences.
cArn, I'm no rush listener. I am actually a Transgender progressive. I think Rush is a idiot and only caught that recently. Usually media matters catches the stuff Rush says that is stupid. I didn't see it here.
Btw I'm sorry if by posting it I confused people, but my only intent was to show how crazy these neo-cons can be. Non of their logic makes sense to me. First they veto S-CHIP which would help people. BTW thinkprogress had a great peice on how Fox is trying to spin the wildfires. They claim it is Al Quada setting them. All these people know is mocking others and stupidty.
Please know I'm not a Neo-con far from it. I think Media Matters is great and I hope they keep up the good work. People fear media matters only because it is keeping a record of what these people do.
For years the right-wing was able to get away with lies and now media matters is catching them. I do not know when this comment will make it up because I'm still new, but a thank you to the staff at Media Matters for what they do. Hope that clears up a lot of peoples confusion.
Yeah, it's your problem. I don't care if it adversely affects your child's health. It's all your fault. I won't even bother to examine the unique circumstances surrounding the issue of income. $87k is a lot of money no matter where you live in the U.S., right? I'll just blame the parents for being lazy, and accuse the mothers of being whores.
$82,000 is not a made up number buddy-boys!
Its also not really a relevant number. It was a proposal by New York that wasnt FOR all of the country.
If you truely want to help others donate your own blood, sweat, tears and personal resources the way conservatives do. Typical liberal. Big talker, bleeding heart, but you probably don't take any personal action. Plenty of studies have shown that conservatives donate a heck of a lot more than liberals. There is a big difference between Socialism and actually caring for your fellow mate. Might want to work on your argument.
What a load. If conservatives really donated their time and money like you claim we'd know it because hell would freeze over. Your side is nothing but talk, and talk is cheap. That's why your college age republicans keep making up excuses to not join the military and fight, preferring to be cheerleaders on the sidelines.
Sure like the study that put Salvation Army kiosks in San Fransisco and Montana and didnt take into account that the Salvation Army had just run a very public campaign to discriminate against homosexuals. Those studies arent worthless for anything but propaganda purposes. Sure we ought to treat it as CHARITY so selfish miserly cretins who care only about themselves can skate out on their social responsibility. Like most cruel ignorant conservatives you only care about yourself and YOU want a free lunch on the rest of society.
Donating is great, but how effective is it in the long run? I'm more concerened with where my money is going and how much of an impact it's having on people. Oh, and since you know nothing about me, I suggest you keep your baseless accusations to yourself.
Wow! That was insightful. I am sure that your tax dollars are spent in a much more productive way when it comes to helping others than your personal time and personal financial donations that go directly to charities or those in need.
What BS. Charities are not immune to systemic breakdowns - same thing with government. Remember the Red Cross after 9/11?
BOTH are 'good' but neither one is 'better' than the other. Get off your superiority high-horse, you miserable hateful wingnut.
Nice strawman. I never claimed that my tax dollars were being used in exactly the way they should. FEMA is a perfect example of this. The government needs to be held more accountable for the tax revenues it receives and how they are being used. I was questioning the effectivness of charities and how accountable they are about the money being sent to them. Tossing more money at a problem means nothing when it isn't under tight scrutiny. Ideally government programs would be more productive because there should be more oversight and far more money going into the system than voluntarily donating to a charity.
Chill dude!
Just out of idle curiousity IZAS, was that directed towards anybody in particular?
If i covered fewer people, I would support it.
Do you mean "if it covered fewer people I would support it."?
That would make Ebenezer Scrooze very proud, (before he got scared straight.)