I've said it before and I'll say it again: what a doooooooooooooouche.
The King of Douches. Who doesn't want KIDS to be fucking healthy?!!
WTF?!
He wants to see the private sector take care of it. What motivation does the private sector have to do that? Seriously!
Lovely. Of course he vetoed it. Him and his friends had nothng to gain from it.
I love how he kept calling them "poor kids". Not low income or disadvantaged or anything even remotely PC. I"m not usually one to advocate PC crap...but "poor kids" is just insensitive.





I hate to confuse the issue with facts, but damn ...
the fact of the matter is that Bush vetoed a SCHIP expansion proposal that would have provided federally tax funded health insurance for 'children' with family income levels of up to $70k-$80k per year in some states - despite the fact that the vast majority of these 'children' could be covered under parents' employers' insurance or private health insurance for a nominal cost.
(snip)"New Jersey will have to stop covering 10,000 children if the new rules go into force, Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine estimated.
On August 17, the federal government told states they would no longer be reimbursed for covering children whose family incomes top 250 percent of the federal poverty level.
But just last year, the Bush administration allowed New Jersey to cover children whose families earn up to 350 percent of the federal poverty level, Corzine noted.
The federal poverty level in 2007 for a family of four is set at a yearly income $20,650 for all of the states except Alaska and Hawaii."(snip)
... which means that the current 250% of the poverty level cutoff is a family income of $ 51,625 !!! The proposal that Bush vetoed, and the matter these states are suing over, would have raised the level cutoff for family income to $ 72,275 (higher in Alaska and Hawaii) !!
I also use the term quote 'children' because in some states the SCHIP program covers people up to 25 years old under their definition of 'children'.
Hmm i read that it provided coverage for a family of 4 earning up to 62K.... I have no prob with it but I am glad he vetoed it because - it may have raised the tax on my beloved cigars by as much as 3 bucks per stick. What i hate is that they want to fund these projects with mickey mouse taxes that may not even fund the program. These guys are lazy ... they could have found 30 billion somewhere in the budget.. The SCHip program has been around for 10 years, they were trying to expand it.
ANd btw Melonie - if they the families dont get coverage, we pay for their medical care either way ... certainly their catastrophic care. So I dont find that to be a valid argument against it... I think the idea is OK - but fund it properly and then come back in 2 years and see if its working...





yes, but think through the other side of the funding equation. If the state of NJ makes available free (federal tax funded) 'dependent' medical coverage via SCHIP to people earning $70k plus a year, then NJ employers have no reason to offer private coverage and absolutely no reason to contribute towards the cost of that private coverage. This means more profits for NJ employers, more NJ civil service jobs, and at the moment much higher excise taxes on cigars and cigarettes.ANd btw Melonie - if they the families dont get coverage, we pay for their medical care either way ... certainly their catastrophic care. So I dont find that to be a valid argument against it... I think the idea is OK - but fund it properly and then come back in 2 years and see if its working...
However, if these taxes cause the sales volume of cigars and cigarettes to be cut in half (which is not necessarily a bad thing from a public health standpoint), then the dedicated revenues to fund SCHIP will be massively in the hole. The only way to address this in the future will be to increase federal income tax rates in general in order to directly fund the costs of SCHIP ... i.e. the de-facto birth of national health insurance.
As to your point about 'paying for their medical care one way or another', I have to take issue given that SCHIP coverage is targeted at families earning $50k-$70k per year. It isn't like these children have zero options re private health insurance or dependent coverage under a parents' employer's insurance program. What we're really talking about here is people who are earning $50k-$70k per year avoiding the necessity of paying perhaps a thousand dollars per year out of their own pockets for private / employer health coverage. Arguably, the children of these parents are not going to be denied private / employer health coverage just so the parents can pocket an extra $1000 a year. You can COUNT on this being the case if those parents also understood that enacting SCHIP with a $70k eligibility threshold this year will very likely result in the parents' federal tax liability increasing by more than $1000 next year in order to cover the benefit cost vs tobacco revenue shortfall of their own children's SCHIP coverage!


My problem with GWB and his veto power is that he's barely used it; a bit more use of the bully pulpit for fiscal discipline would have done a lot to keep him from becoming the modern-day LBJ.
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.
William F. Buckley, Jr.










Yup, GWB's spending habits put him on my personal s#!t list years ago when he had the gall to propose the enactment of a totally new entitlement program i.e. prescription drug benefits for seniors. This unprecedented action immediately made it clear to most Libertarians / Conservatives that GWB is a 'Rockefeller Republican' in regard to fiscal policy.My problem with GWB and his veto power is that he's barely used it; a bit more use of the bully pulpit for fiscal discipline would have done a lot to keep him from becoming the modern-day LBJ.
However, where the SCHIP veto is concerned, the proposed law was so full of underestimates in regard to costs and overestimates in regard to tobacco tax revenues, that it has 'national health care phase one' written all over it. Bush and the republicans are no strangers to SCHIP - after all republicans originally enacted it. But any politician with half a brain and a calculator could see that this latest SCHIP bill was designed to provide a marginal benefit but create a financial / political dilemma a year down the road ... when the tobacco revenue shortfall and the benefit cost overruns would have either forced politicians to vote to REDUCE insurance coverage for children due to lack of funding ( = political suicide) or vote to allocate general revenues and increase income taxes in order to pay for the actual costs ( = birth of national health care).
Once general tax revenues are allocated to pay the cost of health insurance for 'some' Americans, instead of a specific limited program with a specific revenue source, it is then a simple matter for some federal judge to rule that the gov' t only providing subsidized health insurance to 'some' Americans constitutes 'age discrimination' ... which in turn would force legislators to either terminate the SCHIP program (and with it the children's health insurance) or expand the program to include Americans of ALL ages = full blown national health care.
This is exactly what happened in regard to gov't subsidized HUD mortgage loans which were originally targeted only for urban minorities ... but federal judge's rulings quickly forced the expansion of the program to also include non-creditworthy subprime mortgage borrowers of all races, creeds and colors ! Look where that is now taking our economy (and the world's economy).
Last edited by Melonie; 10-03-2007 at 07:28 PM.





Yeah, why bother with a veto when you can just issue a record number of signing statemants that say you have the executive power to just, well, ignore legislation? I also like how the right suggested that people who already had health insurance would find Medicare so enticing they'd start using it instead. hah.
Hey, I don't have health insurance and he doesn't give a shit. Guess he figures everyone of every age should be equally screwed.
No, he's more after children. Why? Because he's also saying he's going to ban the Veto on Mercury in Children's Vaccines. Why? Because the pharm companies say that it costs too much money to find/use an alternative.
So, shoot the kiddies up with something that is more poisonous than anything else on this earth. Why do they care? They make the drugs to counteract all of the side effects of the vaccinations they're "demanding" people put in their kids.
I hate GWB and I still don't know why that rat bastard was not impeached for his financial theivery, outright lies to Congress, and his total ineptitude to be in office to begin with...
But I digress...
It's 13 months till the election and 16 months till he's out of office, making "who are you going to vote for" a little premature.
Whenever a President gets into office, even against my own vote, which happens a lot, I wish the best for them. Just because I don't like them means I want them to fail. Just the contrary. Please prove me wrong, because I want the country to be better for having you in office. If Gore or Kerry had won, I would've felt the same way about them.
President Bush has been a nearly complete disappointment.
He doesn't care about the budget. He's so bullheaded that his obviously wrong practices are beaten into the ground before he gives them up, without regard for who gets hurt. He's horrible at appointing his managers. His goals are backwards, his execution poor. And his Administration turns away hard knowledge in favor of political adherence.
And, well, he's just not too bright. I'm sure he can be personally charming, as when he makes jokes about English being his second language, but it's ceased being a joke, and his lack of Presidential presence is far more of an embarrassment worldwide.
We live in not only a changing world but a world that is struggling to cope with the rate of change. And in that, he steadfastly holds to a course that resists change. He's not only slowing us down in doing so, but severely retarding us in the face of competition with other nations who look to adapt, or even drive, that change.
Sorry for the threadjack. I'm just really disturbed with this guy, far more than I have been with any other President in the last 40 years.





True dat, JZ!
If ignorance were its own reward, GWB wouldn't need Iraq...
“Only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough.”
-
“People make suggestions on what to say all the time. I'll give you an example; I don't read what's handed to me. People say, 'Here, here's your speech, or here's an idea for a speech.' They're changed. Trust me.”-
“Stupid is as stupid does."
- Forrest Gump
JZ I feel your pain.... I had a huge paragragh here sympathizing with ya but - Im almost tired of talking about how inadequate GW is....
But concerning the SCHIP.....
Look Melonie - A family of 4 making 62K in some states and localities is not going to have much cash at the end of the month. So I would imagine in places like CA and NY, they mite allow a family of 4 to make 70K... Makes sense. Its up to the state. The bigger picture is should we be doing it... THe anecdotal stories to me are irreelevant. I personally am OK with SCHIP... I just want them to fund it and fund it properly... either by cutting something out of the budget ( a what 1 trillion dollar budget, 30 bill is a drop ) ...or raise income taxes. Taxing tobacco users is just too easy - much like bashing Bush.... Plus from what I have been told, tobacco use will have to increase to fully fund the program. Now that makes sense dont it...???
Also .... The republican senators who voted for the bill are vowing to overturn the veto. This is not over. ( oh and Mel,,, GW is no Rockefellar Republican... He is a douche. And a whole lot of republicans voted for this bill - again the party and liberal labels dont always fit- ... They all want to look good on health care )
ANd GW said in a speech later ,, He wants an SCHIP bill just not the one sent to him already ... Of course u cant always believe what GW says ...





yup, fine, no problem ... as long as the states that are unilaterally deciding to extend the income eligibility thresholds upward also pay the associated costs themselves i.e. increasing state income taxes on their own citizens !!!! But when you have the gov'ts of 9 states (high tax high cost states at that) dictating to the other 41 states that THEIR federal taxpayers must foot the majority of the associated costs of providing 'free' health care to a resident of a high tax high cost state that earns twice as much money as they do, only one word accurately describes that transfer of wealth ... socialism ... or in this case socialized medicine.A family of 4 making 62K in some states and localities is not going to have much cash at the end of the month. So I would imagine in places like CA and NY, they mite allow a family of 4 to make 70K... Makes sense. Its up to the state. The bigger picture is should we be doing it... THe anecdotal stories to me are irreelevant. I personally am OK with SCHIP... I just want them to fund it and fund it properly... either by cutting something out of the budget ( a what 1 trillion dollar budget, 30 bill is a drop ) ...or raise income taxes. Taxing tobacco users is just too easy - much like bashing Bush.... Plus from what I have been told, tobacco use will have to increase to fully fund the program. Now that makes sense dont it...???
The entire discussion of who benefits and who pays is being deliberately obscured by the totally unrealistic estimates for tobacco revenues and expanded SCHIP costs guesstimated in the expanded SCHIP bill. This is what bothers me the most about the whole situation - the fact that once the expanded SCHIP program becomes law the deficit will begin accruing immediately, which in turn obligates every US federal taxpayer to cover that deficit next year. The guesstimated 30 billion cost number in the expanded SCHIP bill is already being re-estimated at numbers like 90-100 billion, and the guesstimated 30 billion tobacco revenue number is already being re-estimated at numbers like 15-20 billion. So in reality you're talking about a new 70-80 billion dollar per year entitlement program - and that is BEFORE the courts rule that the program must be expanded to cover persons of all ages to avoid charges of age discrimination.Plus from what I have been told, tobacco use will have to increase to fully fund the program. Now that makes sense dont it...???
Call it taxation without representation, call it a deferred 'stealth' income tax increase for every US resident who actually has to pay income taxes ( = those earning more than $30k-$35k per year), bottom line it is an end run around actually discussing and voting yea or nay on gov't funded health insurance / socialized medicine in America. I agree with you that some level of socialized medicine in America might not be that bad of an idea (said from the perspective of a person living in a high cost high tax state who would benefit from having federal taxpayers in other states subsidize my existing health insurance bill). However, to be fair about it, all of the 'cards' should be put on the table, reviewed and understood by taxpayers of all states, and then voted on. The SCHIP end-run which Bush just vetoed would have short-circuited that process, and would have saddled the residents of 41 states with a future income tax increase to subsidize the 9 high cost high tax states without even making them aware of what was really happening.
Dear Diary, Today Melonie agreed with me
Dear Diary .... Holy CRap!!!... I agree with Melonie!!!! this is a red letter day!!!
I have been following this bill for some time since its been a hot topic at my little cigar store. But the news of this bill has only been getting major coverage since last week and that hardly allows any voter to form a proper opinion... Like I said earlier, these guys ( I mean Senators, Reps and Presidents ) are lazy... I believe we can fund this program without any new taxes. Open up their spreadsheets and start bashing the numbers!
Bookmarks