Bush to Poor Children: Fuck You

[NeoGoomba]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21111931/

Bush vetoes child health insurance plan
President, Congress battle over $30 billion coverage difference
MSNBC video


Bush vetoes child insurance bill
Oct. 3: President Bush on Wednesday vetoed an expanded child health insurance bill. NBC's Jeannie Ohm reports.
MSNBC


Video

President Bush in his own words
A look at some of the defining moments of George W. Bush's presidency. Produced by Kevin Flynn and Lisa Desai.
MSNBC.com


INTERACTIVE

Inside the Bush White House
Click here for a look at George W. Bush’s administration

Updated: 10:22 a.m. ET Oct 3, 2007
WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto."

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America. "

The White House sought little attention, with Bush casting his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage. He was discussing it later Wednesday during a budget speech in Lancaster, Pa.

Socialized medicine?
The State Children's Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.

Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families.

Democrats deny that, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

Veto override considerations
Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But this was not the case in the House, where despite sizable Republican support, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's expected veto.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out."

It took Bush six years to veto his first bill, when he blocked expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells last summer. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research.


Click for related content
Bush's letter to Congress on insurance bill veto
War between the states over health insurance
In veto math, the magic number is 146
Bush veto: A blessing or curse for Republicans?
New York Times Politics


In the case of the health insurance program, the veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads Monday attacking eight GOP House members who voted against the bill and face potentially tough re-election campaigns next year.

And Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups planned more than 200 events throughout the nation to highlight the issue.

Fucking speechless.

[Chardok]

This is actually brilliant political manuvering. The republicans were fucked no matter what they did (including bush) if he passes it, his base goes all "WTF?! HAX" on him, and if he vetoes it, the dems get to say "HE HATES CHILDREN!!!!"

Brilliant. I love it. How's it taste, Mein Fuhrer?

[Crossroads Inc.]

NOone should be surprised by this. And not just because Bush is a heartless Bastard, But hes been SAYING he's going to VETO it for the past month, did anyone NOT expect him to follow through with it?

[Ryan Thunder]

I suspect a fine print attack. The Dems included something unacceptable in the text of the bill that wasn't really related to the subject.

Because the idea that the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet is a heartless sob (who was elected, like it or not) just doesn't appeal to me as a citizen of another country at all...

[Shinova]

America's leaders really have something against socialized medicine, don't they.

[Chardok]

America's leaders really have something against socialized medicine, don't they.

Yes, they do, and God HELP you if you point to Canada as an example. They'll Brand you as an unpatriotic communist defector and tell you to go live there.

[Kanastrous]

Why do you hate freedom, anyway...?

[Edi]

I suspect a fine print attack. The Dems included something unacceptable in the text of the bill that wasn't really related to the subject.

Evidence?

Because the idea that the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet is a heartless sob (who was elected, like it or not) just doesn't appeal to me as a citizen of another country at all...

You're a fucking moron, is what. Bush happens to be precisely that, a fact which he has amply demonstrated time and time again during his tenure. Your personal incredulity is not a valid argument.

[Gerald Tarrant]

I thought it might be appropriate here to post the President's statement explaining his intent to veto.

The Administration strongly supports the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Since SCHIP was created, it has been widely acclaimed for its success in reducing the number of children without health insurance. The Administration is committed to making sure that poor children have health insurance and to that end, supports focusing resources on providing coverage to low-income children. It is urgent that Congress complete its work and send the President a bill he can sign before the program expires September 30, 2007. In fact, the President would sign reasonable legislation to reauthorize SCHIP today. The President’s Budget included a proposed $5 billion expansion of the program over five years, which translates into a 20 percent increase in funding above the baseline. However, the President has several concerns about H.R. 3162 and the House approach to SCHIP Reauthorization. Accordingly, if H.R. 3162 were presented to the President in its current form, he would veto the bill.


H.R. 3162 is objectionable on several fronts. First, as a general matter, the legislation is structured in a way that clearly favors government-run health care over private health insurance. The result of this approach would be a dramatic encroachment of government-run health care resulting in lower quality and fewer choices, which the American people have repeatedly rejected. Second, the legislation dramatically expands Federal spending far beyond what is necessary to reauthorize SCHIP responsibly. Third, it will result in the elimination of benefits and choices for millions of Medicare beneficiaries including both senior citizens and individuals with disabilities. Fourth, it would weaken scrutiny of Medicare’s unsustainable fiscal path by eliminating a current law provision that informs the American people when Medicare’s financial condition has deteriorated. Fifth, it weakens the ability of States to cover unborn children under their SCHIP programs. Finally, it imposes a massive, regressive tax increase.


When the SCHIP program was enacted in 1997, with bipartisan support, Congress created a fixed allotment to States for the first ten years of the program. H.R. 3162 takes a decidedly different approach. It transforms the program into an effectively unlimited entitlement program that reaches far beyond the targeted population of poor children, and applies growth rates that are both far in excess of health care inflation and the aggressive expansion of programs by States. At a time when the Medicare program has an unfunded 75-year obligation of $34 trillion, Social Security has an unfunded 75-year obligation of $7 trillion, and the Medicaid program is consuming an ever-increasing share of Federal resources, it is unwise to expand the government’s unfunded obligations.


The bill dramatically expands SCHIP in several ways. For example, the legislation would permit States to subsidize coverage for all “children” up to 25 years of age, whether they are a citizen or not. This change opens the door to providing permanent coverage under SCHIP to childless adults, who have traditionally been ineligible for Medicaid or SCHIP. In addition, the Administration is particularly concerned that the absence of strong anti-fraud provisions and the dramatic liberalization of the citizenship documentation requirements would result in unacceptable increases in coverage under SCHIP for individuals who are currently not eligible for the program.


Increases in SCHIP coverage under this legislation will be offset by losses in private health insurance coverage because the proposed SCHIP expansion targets families at income levels where most children already have private health insurance coverage. The true net increase in newly insured children is estimated to be between 40 and 50 percent of the increase in enrollment levels under SCHIP. As a result, the cost per each newly insured individual under the bill could be as high as $4,850 in 2012 in combined Federal and State spending. H.R. 3162 expands the SCHIP program and encourages States to provide coverage to families with incomes of up to $83,000 per year or even more. This bill essentially extends a welfare benefit to middleclass households. The funding levels that the bill provides are far more than necessary to accomplish the goal of covering low-income children.


H.R. 3162 also proposes to dramatically reduce payments to Medicare Advantage plans, which nearly 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries rely on for their Medicare benefits. These payment changes are so draconian that the likely effect will be to eliminate the private Medicare Advantage option in many areas for many beneficiaries – particularly in rural counties or small urban communities where Congress expressly intended to provide choices for beneficiaries. And even where the option remains, the payment cuts will reduce important benefits that beneficiaries currently have access to through Medicare Advantage – such as benefits that fill the gaps in coverage in traditional Medicare, provide $0 premium drug coverage, and limit their potential out-of-pocket spending. Further, other changes in the bill will significantly reduce the ability of beneficiaries to choose a low-cost plan benefit package that best meets their needs. The legislation prohibits enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans that bid above the benchmark. It mandates a medical loss ratio of at least 85 percent. It overturns the concept of actuarial equivalence by prohibiting differential cost sharing from fee-for-service Medicare. This point is particularly notable, as it would result in Medicare beneficiaries being forced into a one-size-fitsall plan, something that nearly 90 percent of part D enrollees rejected. H.R. 3162 imposes needlessly complicated barriers to employer group retiree coverage. Finally, the legislation opens the door to direct State regulation of the Medicare benefit as provided in Medicare Advantage plans, something that Congress deliberately pre-empted in the Balanced Budget Act and strengthened in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA).


As was evident from the President’s budget, the Administration is committed to strengthening the long-term fiscal integrity of Medicare and Medicaid. The Administration is therefore concerned to see that H.R. 3162 would eliminate the excess general revenue trigger, a fail-safe measure that encourages Congress to act to preserve Medicare for future generations. In addition, H.R. 3162 curtails the Administration’s ability to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid program integrity. Specifically, the Administration would be prohibited from implementing a number of savings policies that would ensure Medicare payments accurately reflect the costs of services and guarantee that appropriate Medicaid services are reaching intended beneficiaries. The Administration is also concerned about a number of the spending provisions in H.R. 3162. For example, the bill would extend a Medicare provision, intended to be temporary, which would result in payment increases to a small number of select hospitals. The bill also would raise physician payments in 2008 and 2009, while calling for unrealistic reductions in physician payments in 2010 and 2011 that hide the true cost of the bill. The Administration notes that the legislation includes some Medicare savings proposed in the President’s budget as offsets. However, these savings were intended to extend Medicare’s long-term sustainability for future Medicare beneficiaries and not to be used to increase other spending.


Moreover, according to Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the spending and revenue changes proposed under H.R. 3162 as reported by the Committee on Ways and Means would increase Federal deficits by $72.9 billion over ten years. The Administration believes that this deficit increase should be addressed by eliminating excess spending in the bill, and not by further raising taxes or relying on budget gimmicks.


H.R. 3162 wrongly weakens the current option available to States to cover unborn children and their mothers. The new option would exclude coverage for certain unborn children and their mothers who would be eligible under the existing regulations. The Administration believes every human life has value, and every child should be welcomed into life. Unfortunately, H.R. 3162 seems to depart from that important belief.


H.R. 3162 provides for a two year extension of Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA). This program has recently been extended as part of a package that has included the Title V Abstinence Program. Any two year reauthorization of TMA should include a two year reauthorization of Abstinence.


H.R. 3162 establishes a Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund that is financed by mandatory transfers from Medicare and a new tax on the issuer of private health insurance. The Trust Fund would be used to support comparative effectiveness work conducted by a newly-established Center at HHS. The Administration is concerned about the impact of this funding on the Medicare trust fund and objects to adding a premium tax to the cost of health insurance for all insured Americans.


Finally, Federal revenues relative to the size of the economy are already above their historic average level, and the use of tax increases to fund spending increases is undesirable and inadvisable. Yet that is exactly what H.R. 3162 does. Even worse, it does so by increasing a highly-regressive tax on tobacco, in addition to the tax on health insurance.


This legislation is a wholesale, unapologetic move to government-run health care for large classes of children (including “children” up to 25 years old) and a return to one-size-fits all choices for Medicare beneficiaries. The Committees that drafted this bill have chosen the path of partisanship rather than the bipartisan tradition which marked the initial enactment of SCHIP and the MMA.

A link to the PDF here

His reasons are bolded and each point is explained in the subsequent paragraphs. His veto statements for the both the senate and house bills were published July 30th, and August 1st respectively

[Kanastrous]

H.R. 3162 wrongly weakens the current option available to States to cover unborn children and their mothers. The new option would exclude coverage for certain unborn children and their mothers who would be eligible under the existing regulations. The Administration believes every human life has value, and every child should be welcomed into life. Unfortunately, H.R. 3162 seems to depart from that important belief.

There it is. Can't go improving access to medical care, for actual born-and-running-around-this-side-of-the-birth-canal children, if it means excluding coverage for certain unborn children.

I wonder specifically which 'unborn children' the author has in mind.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Hmm, probably spoke too soon. I ought to have included this. This is his veto statement as of October 3. link

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 976, the "Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007," because this legislation would move health care in this country in the wrong direction.

The original purpose of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was to help children whose families cannot afford private health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid, to get the coverage they need. My Administration strongly supports reauthorization of SCHIP. That is why I proposed last February a 20 percent increase in funding for the program over 5 years.

This bill would shift SCHIP away from its original purpose and turn it into a program that would cover children from some families of four earning almost $83,000 a year. In addition, under this bill, government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children. If this bill were enacted, one out of every three children moving onto government coverage would be moving from private coverage. The bill also does not fully fund all its new spending, obscuring the true cost of the bill's expansion of SCHIP, and it raises taxes on working Americans.

Because the Congress has chosen to send me a bill that moves our health care system in the wrong direction, I must veto it. I hope we can now work together to produce a good bill that puts poorer children first, that moves adults out of a program meant for children, and that does not abandon the bipartisan tradition that marked the enactment of SCHIP. Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 3, 2007.

[Darth Wong]

I suspect a fine print attack. The Dems included something unacceptable in the text of the bill that wasn't really related to the subject.

Because the idea that the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet is a heartless sob (who was elected, like it or not) just doesn't appeal to me as a citizen of another country at all...

Ladies and gentlemen, you will never see a finer demonstration of the mentality of the Mindless Middle. "Uhhhh, it just doesn't feel right!"

[Patrick Degan]

And as always, the message from the Bush maladministration:

"Heh —FUCK YOU, 'MURRICA!"

[Galvatron]

I wish someone could post a cleverly worded definition of the Mindless Middle on Urban Dictionary that I could share whenever a Mindless Middler chimes into a debate.

[CmdrWilkens]

Oddly enough getting votes in the House for this one should be achievable. The Senate has already passed with enough of a margin and no one there is going to risk switching votes. In the House with elections right around the corner it should be easy enough to bring pressure on a few stubborn Republicans and then override the damn thing and give the finger to Bush. Hell just once fucking him for something so heartless would revive some faith in the Dems.

[Chardok]

Shit...I could have gotten on Government health care...Man, that would've really been a Boon...I spend a frickin' mint every month and in co-pays for me, my Domestic Partner (Girlfriend) and my Son...that's depressing...

Oh well.

As if I needed MORE reasons to vote not republican. Fucking bastard. I've never loathed a human being...I mean truly loathed one. But this man is pure, unadulterated evil. I will hit my punchcard/touchscreen HARD next year. Anyone affiliated with such a vile oxygen thief can suck a fart out of my asshole. Goddamn him to the deepest layer of hell.

[Schuyler Colfax]

So this pretty much guarantees that our next president will be a democrat.

[Drooling Iguana]

So this pretty much guarantees that our next president will be a democrat.

Why would you imagine that the American people would vote against the party that's working so hard to save them from communism? You're not a Communist, are you?

[Kanastrous]

Communism is so eighties.

It's Islamofascism, now.

[Vaporous]

I suspect a fine print attack. The Dems included something unacceptable in the text of the bill that wasn't really related to the subject.

Because the idea that the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet is a heartless sob (who was elected, like it or not) just doesn't appeal to me as a citizen of another country at all...

It turns out that you can say bad things about the president when they're true.

[mr friendly guy]

I suspect a fine print attack. The Dems included something unacceptable in the text of the bill that wasn't really related to the subject.

Because the idea that the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet is a heartless sob (who was elected, like it or not) just doesn't appeal to me as a citizen of another country at all...

Ladies and gentlemen, you will never see a finer demonstration of the mentality of the Mindless Middle. "Uhhhh, it just doesn't feel right!"

Not to mention a blatant "appeal to consequence" fallacy.

[Ryan Thunder]

I suspect a fine print attack. The Dems included something unacceptable in the text of the bill that wasn't really related to the subject.

Evidence?

None. Sorry, I meant to state it as a possibility, rather than a fact. Should have read "The Democrats may have included..."

Because the idea that the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet is a heartless sob (who was elected, like it or not) just doesn't appeal to me as a citizen of another country at all...

You're a fucking moron, is what. Bush happens to be precisely that, a fact which he has amply demonstrated time and time again during his tenure. Your personal incredulity is not a valid argument.

What, I don't like the idea, so I'm a fucking moron? Brilliant.

[Kanastrous]

You'll get used to it.

[Flagg]

I suspect a fine print attack. The Dems included something unacceptable in the text of the bill that wasn't really related to the subject.

Evidence?

None. Sorry, I meant to state it as a possibility, rather than a fact. Should have read "The Democrats may have included..."

Because the idea that the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet is a heartless sob (who was elected, like it or not) just doesn't appeal to me as a citizen of another country at all...

You're a fucking moron, is what. Bush happens to be precisely that, a fact which he has amply demonstrated time and time again during his tenure. Your personal incredulity is not a valid argument.

What, I don't like the idea, so I'm a fucking moron? Brilliant.

Reality doesn't care if you like it.

[Ryan Thunder]

Reality doesn't care if you like it.

Your powers of observation do astound me, Captain Obvious.

Edi undoubtedly doesn't like it either. Doesn't seem to qualify him (or her... whatever) as a fucking moron.