SCHIP Sinks, Again

Like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, the President and Congress are going through a dance that will keep children in need from having access to affordable health insurance.

CNN

President Bush vetoed an expansion of the federally funded, state-run health insurance program for poor children for a second time Wednesday, telling Congress the bill "moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction."

In his veto message, President Bush calls on Congress to extend funding for the current program.

In his veto message, Bush said the bill is almost a duplicate of the proposal he spiked in October.

"Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, I must veto this legislation, too," he said in a statement released by the White House.

The bill would have expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program by nearly $35 billion over five years, the same as the measure Bush vetoed October 3. Track recent and historical presidential vetoes »

The president had proposed adding $5 billion to the program and said the version he vetoed would have encouraged families to leave the private insurance market for the federally funded, state-run program.

Democratic leaders said the new version addressed Republican objections by tightening restrictions on illegal immigrants receiving SCHIP benefits, capping the income levels of families that qualify for the program and preventing adults from receiving benefits.

Though the measure had strong bipartisan support, it fell short of the two-thirds majorities needed to override a presidential veto in the House and Senate.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Democrats were more interested in scoring political points with the veto than in reaching a compromise with Republicans.

"We could have resolved the differences in his program in 10 minutes, if the majority had wanted to resolve the differences," Boehner said. "This has become a partisan political game."

The program currently covers about 6 million children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid -- the federal health insurance program for the poor -- but who can't afford private insurance.

Democrats wanted to extend the program to another 4 million, paying for it with a 61-cent-per-pack increase in the federal tax on cigarettes.

"What a sad day that the president would say that rather than insuring [millions of] children, 'I don't want to raise the cigarette tax,' " said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

She called for a January 23 vote on whether to override the veto.

Meanwhile, Bush called on Congress to extend funding for the current program to keep the 6 million now covered on the rolls.

Grassley Frustrated with Bush on SCHIP

It's a good day when I agree with Charles Grassley, a rare day, but a good day...From the Gazette

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, biting off his words in anger, accused President Bush Wednesday of being deceptive in negotiations to salvage a popular children’s health insurance bill for poor children. Grassley said that after months of negotiations, he was shocked that Bush unexpectedly said he cannot condone paying for coverage by the State Children’s Health Insurance Bill with 61-cent per package increase in the federal tobacco tax.

“When you keep moving the goal post, you cannot negotiate in those circumstances,” Grassley said. “They are throwing cold water in my face by moving the goal post.” Bush vetoed a $35 billion bill, saying it was bloated in costs. His veto was upheld. The House passed a more modest bill but not by a margin sufficient to withstand another Bush veto.

Grassley and Democratic and Republican leaders have been negotiating with the White House to find a compromise. Then Bush announced his opposition to the cigarette tax increase. “This is the first time I believe this has come to my attention that this tax issue is an issue with the White House,” Grassley told reporters.

He said negotiators have been able to work with Bush on other objections, but now objections to the cigarette tax increase makes it all “a whole new ballgame. “Maybe it makes negotiations impossible,” he said. “I have been at this for six months and we did not discuss anything but a cigarette tax. The president making it a part of the debate is really a shock to me.”

SCHIP Sailing Again

In a move that is likely to put more pressure on Republicans in Congress and the White House, the NY Times reports:

Sensing a political advantage, Democrats rushed Wednesday to move a health care bill for children back to the House floor, having made minor changes to win over more Republicans.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House would vote Thursday on the new bill. Like the original, which President Bush vetoed three weeks ago, it would cover 10 million children through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and increase spending on the program by $35 billion, for a total of $60 billion, in the next five years.

But the new bill would tighten eligibility for the program, generally barring the use of federal money to cover illegal immigrants, childless adults and children of families with incomes exceeding three times the poverty level: $61,950 for a family of four.

“The bill addresses all of the concerns that were expressed by our colleagues and by the president,” Ms. Pelosi said. “We hope the Republicans will take yes for an answer.”
Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan, said the changes would improve the bill and would pick up some Republican votes.

Mr. Upton was among 44 Republicans who voted last week to override the president’s veto of the earlier measure. Supporters fell 13 votes short of the number needed to override in the House. The bill had passed in the Senate with more than the two-thirds majority needed to override. More

Why SCHIP Really Sunk

Despite the need for SCHIP (State's Children Health Insurance Program) to cover more uninsured children and pregnant mothers, this week Congress was unable to override the President's veto. The reason is abundantly clear for those who follow the train of thought that led to the veto.

If SCHIP were to be expanded, it is feared that it would be at the expense to private insurers. An article on SCHIP on Wikipedia states: In a 2007 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, researchers determined that "for every 100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children." The CBO speculates this is because the state programs offer better benefits and lower cost than the private alternatives.^[9] A Cato Institute briefing paper estimated the "crowding out" of private insurers by the public program could be as much as 60%.^[10]

The Watchdog Blog reports "Government operated health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) operate with far less administrative expense that the so-called “market-based” private insurance programs. In fact, private health insurers and HMOs now href="http://www.pnhp.org/physiciansproposal/proposal/Physicians%20ProposalJAMA.pdf">consume 13.6 percent of premiums for overhead while both the Medicare program and Canadian NHI have overhead costs below 3.2 percent. "

Given the amount of lobbying the insurance industry does ($227 million in the first half of 2007), it would seem the veto is a preemptive (turf protecting) strike against the "terrorist threat" of national health care being built from the foundations of SCHIP, Medicaid, and Medicare.

And, as reported in the Congressional Quarterly, "A Families USA analysis of Census Bureau data finds that more than one out of three people under age 65 — approximately 89.6 million Americans — were uninsured at some point during 2006-2007.

Most of the uninsured lacked coverage for long periods of time, the study found. Nearly two-thirds were uninsured for six months or more and over half were uninsured for nine months or longer."

Given that increases in spending for SCHIP worked out to an estimated $555 per child per year, it will be a tough sell to convince American families that SCHIP is a bad plan, if for no other reason than one visit to the emergency room can easily cost that much or more.

The revamped SCHIP bill will go through this year or it will be another nail in the Republican's White House chances.

SCHIP Sinks in Override

A 2/3 vote to override the President's veto for funding to renew state children's insurance programs failed in the House by a vote of 273-156 with four not voting.

Send your comments to these "Nay" Voters -

Aderholt, Akin, Alexander, Bachmann, Bachus, Baker, Barrett (SC), Bartlett (MD), Barton (TX), Biggert, Bilbray, Bilirakis, Bishop (UT), Blackburn, Blunt, Boehner, Bonner, Boozman, Boustany, Brady (TX), Broun (GA), Brown (SC), Brown-Waite, Ginny, Burgess, Burton (IN), Buyer, Calvert, Camp (MI), Campbell (CA), Cannon, Cantor, Carter, Chabot, Coble, Cole (OK), Conaway, Crenshaw, Cubin, Culberson, Davis (KY), Davis, David, Deal (GA), Diaz-Balart, L.Diaz-Balart, M.Doolittle, Drake, Dreier, Duncan, Everett, Fallin, Feeney, Flake, Forbes, Fortenberry, Foxx, Franks (AZ), Frelinghuysen, Gallegly, Garrett (NJ), Gingrey, Gohmert, Goode, Goodlatte, Granger, Graves, Hall (TX), Hastert, Hastings (WA), Hayes, Heller, Hensarling, Herger, Hoekstra, Hulshof, Hunter, Inglis (SC), Issa, Johnson (IL), Johnson, SamJones (NC), Jordan, Keller, King (IA), Kingston, Kline (MN), Knollenberg, Kuhl (NY), Lamborn, Lewis (CA), Lewis (KY), Linder, Lucas, Lungren, Daniel E., Mack, Manzullo, Marchant, Marshall, McCarthy (CA), McCaul (TX), McCotter, McCrery, McHenry, McKeon, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller, Gary, Musgrave, Myrick, Neugebauer, Nunes, Paul, Pearce, Pence, Peterson (PA), Pickering, Pitts, Poe, Price (GA), Putnam, Radanovich, Reynolds, Rogers (AL), Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rohrabacher, Ros-Lehtinen, Roskam, Royce, Ryan (WI), Sali, Saxton, Schmidt, Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Shadegg, Shimkus, Shuster, Smith (NE), Smith (TX), Souder, Stearns, Sullivan, Tancredo, Taylor, Terry, Thornberry, Tiahrt, Walberg, Walden (OR), Wamp, Weldon (FL), Weller, Westmoreland, Whitfield, Wicker, Wilson (SC)

(italicized indicate Democrats voting nay)

Killjoy King Says House Won't Flip S-CHIP

I feel for the poor souls in Iowa's 5th District...From Radio Iowa

The only member of the Iowa congressional delegation to vote against an increase in funding for a children's health program says there are not enough votes in the House to override the President's veto of the bill. A vote is scheduled for Thursday.

Fifth District Congressman Steve King says the 35-billion-dollar increase in the S-CHIP program would allow more adults and illegal immigrants to reap health benefits from it, and that prompted him to rename the program.

"You know, people ask me what S-CHIP stands for, and that is the State Children's Health Insurance Program," King said in a call with reporters today, "but I think it also stands for Socialized Clinton-style Hillary-care for Illegals and their Parents." King says the health benefits from the program are not going to the children living in poverty for which they were intended.

"This has gotten so far out of proportion that, for example in Minnesota, 87 percent of those who are on S-CHIP are adults, not children," King said. "We need to reform this program, we don't need to grow it out of proportion and distort it. And we don't need to lay the cornerstone of socialized medicine."

Jon Stewart on the SCHIP

Bush Going Down with the SCHIP

A NY Times editorial spells out the misinformation that the White House is pushing to justify President Bush's vetoing of the SCHIP bill. Over the past decade, SCHIP has reduced, by one-third, the number of uninsured children in low income households a drop from 22 percent to 15 percent, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund (report).

Trying to justify his ideologically driven veto of a bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, President Bush and his staff have fired a barrage of misinformation about this valuable program. Before the House votes on whether to override the veto, all members — especially those from Mr. Bush’s party who say they are concerned about millions of uninsured children — must "look behind the rhetoric.


A couple of quotable statements from the editorial:

"The White House declined overtures to join in consultations while the bill was being framed, according to Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican sponsor. Like so many other things that Mr. Bush has gotten disastrously wrong, he’d already made up his mind and had no interest in listening to others’ arguments."

"Perhaps the most eye-catching argument from the president is that the vetoed bill would have allowed S-chip to cover children in families earning $83,000 a year. That claim hangs on the extremely flimsy thread that New York — where insurance and living costs are higher than in many other parts of the country — has proposed extending the eligibility level to 400 percent of poverty, or $82,600 for a family of four. As far as most states are concerned, the bill would discourage covering such children, by allowing the enhanced S-chip match only up to 300 percent of the poverty level."

Though the program officially expired on Sept. 30, emergency funds currently allow the program to continue at least for the time being.

Grassley: "Yes" Bush Holding SCHIP Bill Hostage

A battle over the President's policy view of using tax deductions to afford private health coverage rather than helping uninsured kids to Medicare coverage may lead to a dissertion by Iowa's Chuck Grassley.

The Washington Post reports that our most senior Senator accused President Bush yesterday of holding up a bipartisan three months, along with campaign advertisements accusing Republicans of abandoning children. That way, pressure would mount either on Bush to sign the bill or on House Republicans to override the veto.

expansion of the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program hostage. Asked if Bush was holding the children's health bill hostage, Grassley said, "Yes." Grassley said if he were the Democrats, he would send the SCHIP expansion to a vote every

"The president has a goal that I share, that we need to take care of the uninsured through private health insurance," said Grassley, relating a sharp conversation he had with Bush on Thursday morning. "But you can't put that on this bill."

If Bush Gets His Way: SCHIP is Sinking

Taxing cigarettes at a higher rate equals hurting poor people. This is the logic that Preisdent Bush uses to explain why he would oppose the proposed plan by Democrats to fund the SCHIP program to include an additional 4 million uninsured children for healthcare coverage.

According to CNN
Speaking to reporters at a White House news conference, Bush threatened to veto the bill, which he said Democrats in Congress have come up with to "score political points in Washington." He said it would "raise taxes on poor people and raise spending."

The president said he supports reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, at $5 billion above its current funding.

Democratic congressional aides say their party wants to expand the program to cover an additional 4 million children and pay for it by raising the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents per pack. Bush opposes that, and has threatened to veto the bill.

"The legislation would raise taxes on working people," Bush said, and would include children who could receive health care elsewhere.

Bush urged Congress to pass an extension of the current plan, "that I can sign," by its expiration date of September 30, or, he said millions of children might be at risk.

Critics say the funding that Bush favors won't pay for the 6 million children covered over the next five years.

The bill would add $35 billion over five years to the current $25 billion.

Two House Democratic aides said the deal is a bipartisan one because Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Charles Grassley of Iowa negotiated and signed off on it.

The aides said they have a veto-proof majority in the Senate and that it will pass in the House with some support from moderate Republicans, but concede they may not have a veto-proof margin.

Democrats emphasize that Bush is reneging on his campaign promise during his 2004 convention speech to cover children's health care.

About 9.3 percent of children under the age of 18 and 43.6 million Americans -- 14.8 percent of the total population -- had no health insurance last year, according to a government study released in June.

"Compassionate Conservative" Doing It For the Kids?

President Bush has threatened to veto an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program that would provide 9 million more children with health care but could face the first veto override of his presidency, according to The Los Angeles Times.

The House and Senate have yet to pass the bill but many Republicans have said they would join Democrats in an override. Some Republicans have expressed concern that Democrats could use the president’s opposition to hurt GOP incumbents in the 2008 elections.

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows 65 percent of those polled disapprove of the president's job performance, second only to President Nixon's all-time low of 66 percent. The White House's new strategy is to veto bills in order to look strong and to play off a Congress that is also not very popular.

Bush to Support Cigarette Makers Over Children's Health?

President Bush on Wednesday reiterated his threat to veto Senate legislation that would substantially increase funds for children's health insurance by levying a 61-cent-a-pack increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes. The tax increase would be used to subsidize health insurance for children and some adults with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but not high enough to afford insurance on their own. -AP

Iowa and Other States Are Running Out of Health Dollars

The AP reports some states are warning that hundreds of thousands of poor children could lose their health insurance if Congress doesn't act soon to come through with more money for the program.

The situation is most severe in Georgia, where officials plan to stop enrolling kids in the state's PeachCare program starting March 11 because of a $131 million shortage.

The problem is that many states have nearly used up their annual federal subsidy for child health care, and it is not even midway through the fiscal year -- a situation some are blaming on the formula by which the money is doled out by Washington. Congress has been unwilling so far to deliver more money.

The uncertainty is making it difficult for some states to draw up their new budgets, because they do not know how much they will ultimately get from Washington.
In the meantime, states are scrambling to protect youngsters.

In Iowa, which is looking at a $16 million shortfall by the end of the state's fiscal year in June, lawmakers are pushing for a $1 cigarette tax increase to pay for children's health care and related programs. Some states plan to shift some children to the Medicaid rolls, at least temporarily. Others say they will pour in additional state dollars.

At issue is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which was started by Congress in 1998 and is funded by a combination of federal and state funds. Participants also pay premiums.

SCHIP's current budget is $5.5 billion. But states say the amount falls $745 million short of what they need.The program has had funding problems in the past. But "you've never had this many states before. It's never been this much of a shortfall before," said Genevieve Kenney, a policy expert at the Washington-based Urban Institute. "And Congress isn't moving."

Georgia's senators, Republicans Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, have proposed shifting money from states with surplus SCHIP money, like Texas and Connecticut. But states with surpluses are not eager to give up the extra cash.Dennis Smith, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations, said President Bush favors redistributing any unspent money to those states with deficits. "

There's plenty of money. It's just in different places," Smith said.

SCHIP funding is based, in part, on the number of uninsured children in each state. So, those states that use the program most aggressively to reduce their number of uninsured children end up coming up short on federal funds.Another problem, say critics, is that the funding is based on outdated census data. That has been especially problematic in states like Georgia where the population has swelled in recent years, in part because of an influx of Hurricane Katrina refugees.