Skip to main content

In Washington this week, the White House renewed George W. Bush's war against children's health care that dates back to his days as Governor of Texas.  Just two weeks after the House and Senate each approved major expansions of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), the Bush administration announced draconian new eligibility rules that would trim thousands of low income children from the rolls.  But unlike his Texas two-step when he claimed credit for a program he fought tooth and nail, this time George W. Bush isn't running for anything.

As the New York Times described, the White House quietly dispatched a letter at 7:30 PM on Friday evening outlining its new curbs on S-CHIP eligibility.  With Congress out of session, Dennis Smith of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations notified states that they must reach 95% enrollment of families below 200% of the poverty level before they can expand their programs.  Of course, no state currently approach the 95% figure today (nationally, almost 30% of eligible children remain unenrolled in S-CHIP).  Worse still, several states previously received the federal government's OK to extend their coverage to even higher income levels and more are considering further expansion still:

In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature has passed a bill that would raise the limit to 400 percent - $82,600 for a family of four - but the change is subject to federal approval.

California wants to increase its income limit to 300 percent of the poverty level, from 250 percent. Pennsylvania recently raised its limit to 300 percent, from 200 percent. New Jersey has had a limit of 350 percent for more than five years.

It's no wonder incredulous state health care officials are horrified by the Bush administration's new regulations.  Ann Clemency Kohler, deputy commissioner of human services in New Jersey, said "It will cause havoc with our program and could jeopardize coverage for thousands of children."

If this all sounds vaguely familiar, it should.  As I wrote last month ("S-CHIP on Bush's Shoulder"), the unfolding saga over children's health insurance is a repeat of then-Governor George W. Bush's performance in Texas.  There, Bush first opposed the S-CHIP program and then tried to limit its scope with restrictive income eligibility requirements.  Facing certain defeat over the popular program, Governor Bush ultimately caved to public pressure.  Of course, he then took credit for it.

As The New Republic noted, we've been here before.  In the 1990's, then Texas Governor George W. Bush opposed a bi-partisan effort to expand S-CHIP in his state.  Despite Texas' worst-in-the-nation status (then and now) in the percentage of residents without insurance, Bush (then as now) opposed the broadened program on both fiscal and philosophical grounds.  As Salon reported in July 2000, Bush tried to limit eligibility to families with incomes at 133% of the poverty line, compared to the 200% standard adopted in most states (and over Bush's opposition, in Texas).  Bush's hard line would have kept 200,000 kids off the program's rolls.  As it was, the difficult and cumbersome application process limited sign-ups to only 28,000 of the 500,000 children eligible by mid-2000.

None of which stopped George W. Bush taking credit for the program during his 2000 presidential campaign.  As Joshua Micah Marshall reported in Salon:

In Bush's press release it says: "When the CHIPs program was first implemented, Governor Bush embraced it as an opportunity to help deliver health coverage to thousands of uninsured children, and signed legislation providing health insurance for more than 423,000 children."

On July 20, 2000, Al Gore made a trip to San Antonio, Texas. Gore described Governor Bush's opposition to the program and the onerous eligibility process he set up to blunt participation by Texas families.  "As a result," Gore said, "there are 600,000 children in Texas eligible for health insurance who don't have it."  Sadly, Bush never paid a price for stonewalling on S-CHIP and his war against Texas' children.

Fast forward to 2007 and it's deja vu all over again but with one important difference: this time, George W. Bush isn't running for anything.  All of which raises the question:  Will Bush once again yield to public pressure on S-CHIP expansion and then take credit for it?

The emerging dynamic of the 2008 campaign suggests not.  Unlike 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush is not on the ballot and so does not need a children's health care program or Medicare prescription drug coverage to boost his chance.  More importantly, the clear GOP strategy for 2008 calls for obstructionism at all costs.  That is, through Senate filibusters and presidential vetoes, Republicans aim to prevent Democrats from claiming credit for virtually anything and thus position Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as failed leaders of a do-nothing Congress.

That contest remains to be played out.  But in the mean time, President Bush is ensuring that the real losers will be America's children.  Just like he did in Texas.

(For more on the Bush modus operandi on health care of opposing needed and popular health care programs but then claiming ownership of them after they pass despite his efforts, see ("S-CHIP on Bush's Shoulder.")

** Crossposted at Perrspectives **

Originally posted to Jon Perr on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:32 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  This Really His A Head Scratcher. (0+ / 0-)

      Here's a program that increases the profits of Bush's partners, the Medical Insurance Industry, and Bush is against it.  Maybe he really is, Ideological, after all?

      •  Actually, I thought the opposite was true (0+ / 0-)
        That he opposed covering families who were verging on being lower middle class because some of them were already paying for private health care and to give them the opportunity to avoid doing so, so that they might be able to better feed and house their kids or even save for their college, meant that those private insurance companies would be getting one less overpriced premium payment. And that of course is way more important than whether working families can maintain an adequate standard of living.

        Ohio is another state that will be hit. Our Governor Strickland just managed to get our lege to raise the eligibility to 300% of the poverty level.  (And no, he's not going to be Hillary's running mate. Bob Novak just must have dropped some bad acid or something.)

        We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14:

        by anastasia p on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:51:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I really shouldn't tip you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avenging Angel, jimreyn
      because reading this makes me ill -- but that's not your fault. It just completely defies my understanding how a person can be so cruel, amoral and heartless. I look at his face and I see pure evil.

      We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14:

      by anastasia p on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:48:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I guess the problem is... (0+ / 0-)

      children cannot vote

      our most vulnerable  people are left bereft

      it's our collective shame

      If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never has and never will be. Thomas Jefferson

      by JDWolverton on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 08:44:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We need to bang this drum loud and clear (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leonard145b, Chacounne

    until the general public begins to realize the seriousness of moves against S-CHIP.  The children most of all deserve better than this from our nation.

    Never In Our Names "all you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human."

    by possum on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:34:45 AM PDT

  •  I wonder how one Texas... (0+ / 0-)

    ...politician Bush has propped, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), is going to explain his work side-by-side with Bush to cripple this program. And if you think Cornyn isn't highlighting his support for Bush, check out the picture on the bottom of Cornyn's web site. It's quite telling, and I'm really amazed that any Republican would continue to associate and be seen with with this loser of a White House occupant.

  •  Well Done, AA. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Avenging Angel

    A well-written and referenced post. Thank you for this. Being a pediatrician, this issue is so very important to me.

    I remember that it was just last month, our Misdecider-in-chief uttered the incredibly callous and clueless remark that "people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."

    And now our Compassionate Conservative-in-chief has terribly misdecided again by stating his objections, on "philosophical" grounds, to a bipartisan House and Senate proposals to boost the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and instituting the new draconian eligibility rules that you so elegantly detailed.

    By threatening to veto any legislation that comes out of conference, Bush has essentially told the 6.6 million children currently covered by SCHIP, and the 3.3 million presently uninsured American children for whom these additional funds would be used to provide medical care, to "go to the emergency room."

    Mr. Bush apparently has no philosophical objections to the number of children equivalent to the entire population of Oregon going without health care. And why should he? We all know that he also has no philosophical objections to the number of Iraqis he’s killed equivalent to the entire population of Montana.

    After all, it has been made quite clear these past six years that the ability of Mr. Bush and his ilk to care about life is inversely proportional to the number of cells something has. If we were raising taxes to protect, say, one-hundred-celled blastocysts, well, then, that would be different.

    Being aghast is not enough.

    by StrangeAnimals on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:59:37 AM PDT

    •  Inverse Proportionality is Very Well Said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Your point is very aptly put:

      After all, it has been made quite clear these past six years that the ability of Mr. Bush and his ilk to care about life is inversely proportional to the number of cells something has.

      As Al Franken says, for conservatives "life begins at conception and ends at birth."

  •  Bush hates poor children (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I do not think you can come up with another rational conclusion to his actions other than he hates poor children.

    Hammer the Republicans running in 2008 with this. Let's see if they support Bush's stance.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site