The already nasty fight over S-CHIP isn't over -- and it won’t be any time soon
Thank goodness for Pete Stark!
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Democrats | Healthcare | Policy — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The fight in Congress over the State Children's Health Insurance Program (or “SCHIP”) continued this week, with Congressional Democrats hastily forcing another vote on their once-vetoed proposal to expand government-funded healthcare. Democrats have been fighting for weeks to pass this SCHIP expansion. First, an initial bill was passed, and was vetoed by President Bush for being fiscally irresponsible. This was followed up by an unsuccessful attempt to override that veto; then, on Thursday, when several of the bill’s opponents were at home in their scorched California districts, looking after their constituents during a time of emergency, Democrats attempted to execute a ‘power play’ against their shorthanded opponents by bringing a barely changed SCHIP-expansion bill back to the House floor, after allowing Republicans barely 24 hours to read its contents and prepare for debate.
Read on . . .
However, despite their use of underhanded tactics, their attempts to pull Republicans to the Democrat side by threatening to otherwise paint them as being evilly against children, their refusal to compromise, and their shutting the minority party out of the writing of the legislation, Congressional Democrats have been both surprised and dismayed to see support for their position decline, rather than increase, over the course of the debate. The vote on the second-try SCHIP bill saw only one Representative, Vern Ehlers (R-MI), defect from the position taken on the first SCHIP vote – and he crossed over to the nays, rejoining his party on the side of realism and fiscal restraint.
The fight will continue past this week. Federal funding for SCHIP in its current form ends on November 15, so at the very least an extension of the current program will have to be agreed upon and passed. However, the Democrats have made the massive expansion of government-controlled healthcare too large a priority in their 2007 legislative agenda, and have spent too much money and political capital on it, to let it go at that. The issue will almost certainly come up again in the not-too-distant future, though likely not as a stand-alone. According to a source on Capitol Hill, the Democrats’ most likely course of action would be to bury SCHIP into a bill that Republicans would ordinarily overwhelmingly support, like a military quality-of-life bill or another piece of legislation that addresses a GOP staple issue, thereby forcing Republicans to appear to be voting against – and President Bush to be vetoing (if he maintains a firm commitment) – both the military and children, an apparent lose-lose situation.
That, though, is a bridge that must be crossed when it is reached. For now, the GOP has once again scored a legislative victory, as Minority Whip Roy Blunt and Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor again produced the necessary number of Republican voters to limit this latest attempt at government health care expansion to a total well-short of a veto-proof majority. This gives the President the flexibility to continue doing the right thing on this matter, as well. The war on this issue is far from over, but as long as each battle is won, the GOP remains far closer to overall victory than to defeat.
« Louisiana Dems: Jindal has lost all credibility! — Comments (8) | The Dems want better propagandists — Comments (37) »
The already nasty fight over S-CHIP isn't over -- and it won’t be any time soon 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 1 hidden) Post a comment »
about the proposed SCHIP legislation are known and brought into the public discourse, the Democrats dig the hole a little deeper for themselves.
Should they continue at this pace, the Democrats may not be able to see the light of day by Nov. 2009.
Keep digging Speaker Pelosi.
***
“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
Its not that they are not learning, they are simply trying to make things difficult for any Republicans who vote against it and will be goinf up for re-election. They don't really care if Bush vetos it, they just want to run ads against Republicans saying "so and so voted 3 times against healthcare for children" it will be an effective ad.
This is politics, its always politics.
Didn't you guys get the memo? People stopped fearing "socialized medicine" decades ago. They like Medicare,Medicaid, VA medical care, and SCHIP. All the dems are proposing something called universal care, though only Kucinich has a truly government-run plan like Canada's. Even major corporations and the US Chamber of Commerce are getting on board. You're still flogging a market approach. We spend more on healthcare than any other nation, but the results don't show it. GOP needs to get back to being pragmatic, not dogmatic. Healthcare has been a legit public interest for many decades, and most people see it that way.
That must be why HillaryCare sailed through to easy victory, crushing Newt Gingrich and the hapless Republicans in 1993.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
You mean almost 15 years ago?
The public has a short memory.
Everybody is in favor of Health Care Reform™ until their own health care is about to get reformed. At that point the devil they know suddenly becomes a lot less scary than the devil they don't. That's what happened to HillaryCare, and nothing has changed since.
The polls may say that people want Health Care Reform, but experience tells us that people want your health care reformed. And his, and hers. But not their own.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Interesting. So would that same theory apply to Social Security? Everyone wants it reformed yet when Bush proposed his plan it sank like a stone.
Yeah. It's like how everybody hates "Congress" in the abstract, but the actual CongressCritters are continually getting re-elected because people like their own.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
when proposed legislation threatens to dig deep into the collective wallets of the rich and promises cake and ice cream for everyone else.
Inevitably, the ice cream starts to melt and makes an awful mess.
The problem lies not with the best health care system in the world.
- The underlying problem is actually two-fold:
- The systematic abuse of the health care system by trial lawyers, and an obliging public, seeking a cash cow.
- The federal government's refusal, aided and abetted by sanctuary cities, to strictly enforce current immigration law.
***
“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
3. We are already operating under a semi-socialistic system, only instead of a single government making the decisions, its the bean counters in accounting for medium and large businesses (the same people hantworth notes support passing it to government). This is because of the unequal tax treatment health care benefit get as a result of FDR's wage and price control regime back in WWII.
I think this point is definitely more important than 2, and possibly more important than 1. I agree that we need to fix all of them before we have a truly functional health care system again.
Is already making decisions for a very large share of the health care market. We already got Medicare, Medicaid, and VA. Then there are all the state governments deciding what must be covered in private coverage. In this state an HMO can't even be a for-profit business. It must be a not-for-profit and the state AG will seed your board of directors with his cronies. I think it goes beyond semi-socialist at this point.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"We spend more on healthcare than any other nation, but the results don't show it."
And I thought I was pretty healthy...darn.
Breast cancer mortality rate
United States: 25%
Australia: 28%
Canada: 28%
Germany: 31%
France: 35%
UK: 45%
Prostate cancer mortality rate
United States: 19%
Australia: 25%
Canada: 30%
Germany: 35%
France: 44%
UK: 49%
Those waiting more than four months for non-emergency surgery
United States: 5%
Australia: 22%
Canada: 27%
UK: 36%
(data for France and Germany not available)
Patients who spend more than 20 minutes with their doctor:
United States: 47%
Canada: 47%
Australia: 30%
UK: 28%
(data for France and Germany not available)
These kids need to stop whining, get jobs, and pay for their own damn health care! Amirite?
And "Censor" is spelled with an "S."
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
while running up huge deficits and asking for almost 200 billion more for the Iraq black hole IS fiscally responsible? Give me a break.
Was that the reaction that you wanted, or should I go put on the Wolfman mask and scare you again?
Grow up, Sparky. Your beef is with your legislators who won't do their jobs; not with ours, who do.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Besides, what's more important for our government to do? Defend our country or provide "health care insurance" to families that don't want it and illegal aliens...
I can tell you that in the mid 1990's I was one of those that went without health insurance. I have 6 children too. It was cheaper for me just to pay cash. I got a great discount and samples for most prescriptions. Did I take a chance? Yeah, looking back I should've purchased catastrophic insurance just in case. That's actually quite affordable. I also found that when I paid for doctor visits myself I didn't go in for every little sniffle.
-imwithfred-
==== 13 ====
Please stop telling us it's "35 billion over 5 years is fiscally irresponsible while running up huge deficits for . . . . Iraq". You want this nonsense implemented, then argue for it on it's merits. We already have billions going to Social Security, Medicare A, B, D, various state health care programs, not to mention the billions in subsidies going to farmers. We can come up with more reasons to waste money than any civilizatio on the planet. Regardless, that's our way, so if you think this SCHIP programs is such a hot idea, take your argument to the decision makers on it's merits. If you can't do that, then suck it up, and wait for Hillary.
Democrats and Republicans need to COMPROMISE and quit acting like spoiled children!
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.
They want to play chicken. A lot of Republicans are fine with ending programs.
Everybody wins.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Show me the grand list of programs the republicans eliminated while in control of both houses and the presidency.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I think most Republicans would be happy to have a serious discussion of ways to reach the Democrats goal without doing it the Democrats way. Democrats have insisted on their way or the highway.
Why exactly would it be worse for "the children" to extend SCHIP as is (which I suspect a majority of Republicans in Congress would favor) and then give tax credits and/or deductions to individuals between 200% and 300% of the poverty level for purchasing private insurance for their children? Why can't we at least try that and see if it gets coverage to all these kids that are "slipping through the cracks."
Maybe the Democrats should actually involve their colleagues so that there could be compromise. How can Republicans compromise when the only say they get is when they vote on what the Democrats unilaterally draft? Or by "compromise" do you mean that Republicans should just suck up a massive expansion of the program?
Mind you, most of these people already have insurance - the Democrat version of SCHIP wouldn't cover that many more kids - it would only move them from private insurance to taxpayer-funding. Also note, that while Democrats love to talk about "the uninsured" - they don't like to tell you how many of those "uninsured" are either a) temporarily uninsured because they are between jobs or eligibilities; or more important b) voluntarily uninsured - meaning they could very well afford to buy a "luxury" policy, but, given their general good health, don't see insurance as a net benefit - they'd rather have the money.
Heritage released some info back in August on the Census Bureau's "uninsured" estimate. The facts make the issue probably much less "dire" than the Democrats would like you to believe.
It creates donor states.
Heritage estimates my home state of NH could lose over 200 million a year on the costs/benefits ratio of S-CHIP. Lost revenue gets replaced from somewhere and that's the taxpayers pocket. I get to pay at the state and Federal level--Yippee!
What's next, Hillary-Car?
"Just 73 hours and 15 minutes could cost you a small fortune on car-insurance."
The mascot could be Hillary with a pig-nose. Is that redundant?
If they aren't making complete idiots of themselves, they're failing once again to get the votes they need.
They really didn't think the whole "lame duck" presidency thing through. They thought since GWB had nothing to gain he'd just fold and submit to their will. They failed to see that he also has nothing to lose and can simply continue to wait them out.
Kudos to the GOP congressional leadership for doing whatever it takes to keep them from acheiving anything disastrous.
-imwithfred-
==== 13 ====