Democrats fail to persuade Republicans in new SCHIP vote.
By paulseale Posted in Congress | Democrats | SCHIP | Veto — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from the diaries by Neil. Sometimes bad deeds get punished.
Maybe it was the less than 24 hours given to Republicans to look over the bill.
Maybe it was the announcing and voting of the bill at a time when over a dozen Republican law makers left Washington to tend to their home districts.
Maybe it was because Democrats refused to allow ammendments to or even consult their counter parts from across the aisle on exactly what compromises needed to be made for the bill's passage.
Or maybe it was because the bill only made superficial changes which did not seek to put poor children first while still enrolling massive ammounts of adults and illegal aliens.
What ever the case was, while the new SCHIP program passed Congress, it did not garner enough yes votes to become veto proof. In fact one Republican Vern Ehlers (R-Michigan) who voted for the bill the first time voted against this proposal.
Read On...
South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson puts it this way:
“The Democrats’ latest SCHIP maneuver is just more of the same,” said Wilson. “The superficial changes they have made fail to accomplish the original goal of SCHIP by refusing to first insure the over 500,000 currently eligible, uninsured children.”
Indeed, how can Democrats make claims that problems with the programs were fixed when the language of the bill does not follow? Are they looking for more cover fire by the mainstream media? Perhaps.
What ever the case is, they are short on substance and long on rhetoric. If there is a hope to find a compromise, which Republicans are saying they want, then the Democrats should take the opportunity and act like leaders. Then again, maybe this is just another ploy to buy more time to attack Republicans from a false foundation. I mean why stop a bad thing (free press attacks on Republicans) however wrong headed it might be, right?
Pherhaps Congressman, Roy Blunt, puts it best:
"Many of us had hoped the majority would take our concerns to heart and come back with an SCHIP bill that extends quality health care to poor kids first. Instead, we got a hastily assembled bill that few of us were given an adequate chance to read – resulting in a final product that addresses none of the serious issues that have plagued the Democrats’ plan from the outset."
Indeed. One thing is for certain. If Democrats where really interested in compromise, the situation would be radically different than what we are seeing. Pelosi and Hoyer would be reaching out to Republicans and including them in the process, not freezing them out or waiting for a signficant number of opponents of the bill to leave for their home districts.
The result is another promise from Bush to veto the bill and more time for the legislation to languish in Washington. To that end, I ask this question: Is this what passes for leadership today?
Thats the real bad part about this whole thing. It will have to go through the senate and house conferences again - meaning more time spent on something that should have beent taken care of long ago.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
It's time for Democrats to come to the table to talk about a viable alternative.
...until they deal with the problems we already have with existing entitlements?
Thanks to my Rep., Dr. Charles Boustany (R-LA) for voting no.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
Speaker Pelosi's only change to the status quo was the alienation of more Republican votes she needed to over-ride President Bush's veto.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
I don't understand something and hope that someone here can explain it to me... In the current bill section 605 which is titled:
"NO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS; DISALLOWANCE FOR UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES."
It states:
"Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents. Titles XI, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act provide for the disallowance of Federal financial participation for erroneous expenditures under Medicaid and under CHIP, respectively."
But yet... I see republicans saying stuff like the author of this thread said:
"Or maybe it was because the bill only made superficial changes which did not seek to put poor children first while still enrolling massive ammounts of adults and illegal aliens.
So... What gives? Spelling mistakes aside… How could they be correct in saying stuff like that? I really hope this isn't a tactic that is south of honesty on the front page. The republican party doesn’t need any more dishonesty. We need above the belt, true leadership at all levels.
...so I hope someone here can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am of the understanding is that the bill enables states to shift their funding around so that the door open is left open for indirect funding (via these shifted state funds) of illegal immigrants.
I would like to see in the language of the bill how this could be the case since it so clearly states in section 605 that this is not permitted.
Please... One of you really savvy smart politicos help us! :)
Money is fungible.
Every dollar you give me to fund legal residents, is a dollar that frees me to pay for illegal aliens.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Why did forty three republicans vote for SCHIP?
Is this fact not an obvious example of "lobbyists in action." What true republican would vote for another branch of government? Last time I checked WE WANT SMALL GOVERNMENT. A real republican would vote to give tax breaks to companies that gave free or discounted insurance for children.
I suppose that is a good question but... I think the one I posed is equally important. If what they say is true I would like to know how it could be the case when reading the bill it clearly states otherwise. Also... I think that if it is a legitimate argument that we need to be able to express how it is legitimate since the wording of the bill suggest otherwise. If it isn't legitimate then it will be exposed... Hell, if I can find it then I can assure you Nancy and company can too. Each blemish only hurts that much more and only goes to discredit the real legitimate points. Take for example the 200,000 childless adults who would be covered under the CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN.
Just a thought. Regardless of the possible value added by SCHIP, and there may indeed be some as it was a program initiated by Republicans we have lost some of what I consider are our principles.
Fact: Republicans helped to establish another benefit program through the original SCHIP.
Fact: We have a President and congress who endorsed a drug prescription plan for senior citizens.
The second action seems to me to be a bigger leap into the government provided health care. But through both of these actions, we have lost the moral high ground to limit government (and health care) and appear to be hypocritical. I don't disagree that we need to turn back the tide and quickly. SCHIP is a huge expansion, and Kids First appears to be a better direction to go. But why the missteps in these areas?
Erik
Medicare Part D didn't expand coverage to include even a single person not already covered by government health care.
The whole point of this SCHIP legislation is to expand coverage to include many people who are not already covered by SCHIP.
That is a big difference.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
But it did expand the overall program, exacerbated the costs involved and increased the money taken from the taxpayer.
The initial SCHIP legislation created new coverage that was not available before. The new SCHIP legislation expands this coverage to those not already covered by the current SCHIP.
Regardless, it flies in the face of limiting governments role.
Erik
The bigger leap into government care involves adding people to the program. Sure, medicare is now more expensive, but at least Part D didn't make any more people dependent on government health care. The seniors have already had socialized medicine for a long time now.
SCHIP expansion is significantly less acceptable than Medicare Part D, because it does make new people dependent on the government for their health care. It is an introduction of socialized medicine for the masses. Step 1 in implementing HillaryCare.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If the government spends more taxpayer dollars does the size of government increase? Yes, I believe it does. It takes more $ and then gives more $ out to support the program. In my mind, it is a bigger leap into government care. Here is the cost comparison from CBO.
Ten year projection of Part D: $558 Billion
Ten year projection of new SCHIP: $71 Billion
So, which expanded/expands government more based on dollars? Easily answered - Part D.
Number of people on Part D (which will continue to grow): 11 million
Number of people proposed on new SCHIP: 7.9 million
Which expanded/expands government more based on total enrollees? Again - Part D
Two different issues here:
1. Increasing the number of people in programs - increases the size of government handouts.
2. Increasing the amount of handouts to people in programs. Makes those people more beholden to the programs and likely increases the popularity of the new system to that group. Hence, they will broadcast what they are getting to others.
Anyway, either way they are both expansions to government and according to my numbers Part D was the winner for money and total number of people supported. And, again I know that the Part D did not increase the number of people in the program and the new SCHIP would.
Erik
And, again I know that the Part D did not increase the number of people in the program and the new SCHIP would.
And that is the entire point. Making more people reliant on the government is worse than expanding benefits for those already reliant on the government. Each one of those people gets a vote, you know. Who are they going to vote for once they are dependent on government programs?
How do you think we got sucked into Medicare Part D in the first place? The senior vote is critical, so we promised them this garbage during the 2000 election cycle. How long before we are making the same promises about SCHIP? Adding people is a good way to ensure that happens sooner rather than later.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Although the costs on Part D are higher, I do see and ultimately agree with your point that bringing more "sheeps into the fold (in for slaughter)" is worse then the monetary expansion.
What is happening is a consistent nickel and diming (sp?) starting from FDR's programs and continuing till now. The big government philosophy chips away and grabs this group and then that group - unless the program being funded doesn't function well. But, hey, it's the government's money. And not many put two and two together that at the end of the day the money given for some of these unnecessary programs is yours and ours.
If only we could eliminate any tax withholding...and move the tax pay date to the end of October....and ensure that every single American pays taxes. We would then start to see some dynastic changes. I saw someone else propose that idea...that would be the day of revolution in government policies. Too bad this wasn't done when we had a Republican majority and a Republican President. No, we had to go and increase the hand-outs.
Erik
Instead of political show boating, Democrats need to join Republicans to figure out a MUTUALLY acceptable compromise and quit acting like spoiled kids!
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.