SCHIP Veto Override Highlights GOP Vulnerabilities On Health Care

Another SCHIP veto override attempt is expected today, and is again expected to fail. This time, the economy as backdrop will be highlighted.

"The struggling economy gives Democratic lawmakers another weapon in their effort to expand a popular children's health insurance program. In the end, however, they appear to have made little headway in overcoming a presidential veto...

The bottom line is these kids need coverage," said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who is chairman of a House health subcommittee. "SCHIP is the best way to handle it."

Both sides say they're willing to sit down after the vote in an effort to reach a compromise.

You can expect SCHIP to be prominently featured in the fall campaigns, particularly if the GOP
continues to peddle scare stories about the popular program. Steve King, (R) IA-05:

Gov. Chet Culver and his liberal allies in Congress, such as Democrats Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Harry Reid of Las Vegas, lost their effort to lay the cornerstone of socialized medicine for America. President Bush signed his name to an 18-month extension of the SCHIP program - legislation that I sponsored and signed my name to last summer.

Pelosi and Culver tried to push SCHIP bills through Congress that reflected her San Francisco agenda and values, not Iowa Midwestern common sense. Their bills would have given taxpayer-funded health insurance to Iowa families of four with annual incomes from $77,437 to $103,250, and would have given $6.5 million in Medicaid mostly to illegal immigrants. That's not a proposal for poor kids. That's the cornerstone of socialized medicine.

That was pretty good for two paragraphs, fitting in immigration (a big loser for the GOP in every primary and caucus so far, even as SCHIP blocks illegal immigrants from funding), socialized medicine (polls show Americans aren't scared of that moniker, recognize government-run Medicare as a boon, and want SCHIP passed by overwhelming numbers) and San Francisco values (midwesterners care about children's health even if midwestern Republican congressmen don't).

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said the SCHIP vote Wednesday will be the first of many this year that will pit competing philosophies about the role of the government in providing health insurance. The year, he predicted, "will be replete with the kind of conflict this town is famous for."

Competing philosophies?

The Los Angeles Times on Monday examined how Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) "have been sniping at each other for months over health care," although they each have proposed that all U.S. residents "have the choice of buying a government-run plan modeled on Medicare." The candidates acknowledge that their proposals are "broad brush strokes for now," but the "consensus among the three means that, if a Democrat is elected, a new government insurance plan for the middle class could well be part of the strategy for tackling one of the nation's most worrisome problems," according to the Times

Bring it on.

•  cool health care chart of the candidates

  http://www.healthcentral.com/...

  by DemFromCT on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:32:36 AM PDT

  •  You know well our weaknesses

    for linky goodness with charts.

    by Nulwee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:17:46 AM PDT

    •  it's whats in the charts that counts

      and the fact that it is nicely represented. huzzzah.

      by middleroad on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:39:41 AM PDT

•  Thank you Bush

  I mean, really, if anyone needed to be pissed on it's the little kids.

  "Won't somebody @#$% over the children?!" -- ancient Christian conservative proverb.

  by Nulwee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:15:59 AM PDT

  •  But KBR

    needs that money to operate its rape camps.

    by MadRuth on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:26:19 AM PDT

  •  It's not just Bush, it's also the Congress!!!

    Worst of all it's people like Kucinich sometimes who think the bill isn't good enough for them. We need to "re-shape" the heads of the individual congressworms who back Bush's veto - or cave in to his mere threats of veto. Hefty, blunt objects help but even better is opposition candidates and funding and activism for those candidates.

    We need to completely churn Congress in as few cycles as possible. It's time to take out the garbage!

    by RUKind on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:22:58 AM PDT

•  One of my biggest complaints

  One of my biggest complaints about the Democratic Congress is that we don't bend Bush and the GOP over the health care barrel nearly enough.   We know that we have popular proposals for helping out the poor and the middle class.  But, I'll be damned if many get into or out of congress to face that unpopular presidential veto.

  Even if it will eventualy get voted down, there is benefit from pushing our issues in the chambers.   We show what we stand for and we nail down the Republicans on what they stand against.  

  Hey every now and then we might get one thru, like the new CAFE standards that made it into the flawed energy bill earlier this year.

  by kamosa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:16:18 AM PDT

  •  Bush Poll number

    With recession hitting full force, Bush poll number will hit Cheney territory soon.

    By summer driving season, if the price of oil stays at $90's, unemployment will climb miles high.

    Companies are already announcing job cuts everywhere. (at least there is nobody to outsource anymore, unlike in 91-97)

    So, it is up to democrats to stick it to Bush. If not people just going to vote everybody out and replace it with people who are willing to fight.

    by Gwen12 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:23:09 AM PDT

  •  They and US

    Congressional Democrats need to bring those issues to a vote more often.
    Readers of dKos need to get those votes before the public when they do. I don't see the evidence that we have.

    by Frank Palmer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:48:36 AM PDT

•  i had to turn cspan off

  i thought i might throw something at my tv if i heard one more repub say something so critical.  and nasty.  blech.  

  by jlms qkw on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:17:56 AM PDT

  •  I am waiting for someone to spin SCHIP

    so the GOP is being asked to support life for postnatal fetuses. So far it has worked with the local GOP as they don't seem to understand postnatal.

    by entlord1 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:08:59 AM PDT

    •  there were several repubs

      talking about how many adults in their state were covered currently and how many children weren't, and what the income levels for coverage were in new york, and it was all hillary care.

      now, postnatal, that's good.  might have to try that on old bob bennett.  

      by jlms qkw on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:38:15 AM PDT

•  Christ, if Reid could

  just find some balls and make the Republicans filibuster -- verbally -- rather than throw up his hands and commit to the 60 vote benchmark, perhaps more of the voting populace can see what evil bastards some of the Republicans and Bush are on this issue.

  by gchaucer2 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:19:33 AM PDT

  •  I agree about Reid

    in general, but this is a veto override vote, not a filibuster.

    by MadRuth on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:24:59 AM PDT

    •  But the point is,

      SCHIP will come up again -- along with every other bill that is threatened with veto.  His failure to force them to actually filibuster in the past and most likely in the future is infuriating.  Thank God he was unsuccessful shutting down Dodd.

      by gchaucer2 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:27:07 AM PDT

•  I love

  the political dynamics of this issue. From my experience, "think of the children" is one of the most effective lines of political attack in the lobbies and halls of government (along with "veterans" and "farmers" up here in Minnesota).

  HRC, if she was the nominee, has a potential haymaker in this issue, I'll give her that. As do all Democrats...

  by Angry Vet on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:20:23 AM PDT

  •  Oh Yeah! HRC is a....

    Democrat. Committed to health care for EVERY American. Sometimes we forget. Silly us.

    by Rabonista on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:03:07 AM PDT

    •  And she is a candidate

      who will not pledge to work on universal coverage in her first year in office and she is the only candidate who will not pledge to get universal coverage in her first term.

      She said and I quote (from the SC debate on HC), I will get universal coverage
      

      by the end of my second term.

      That would be 2016.  Can't even imagine how much bigger the problem will be by then.  

      People want coverage NOW.

      If you want coverage now, vote for Edwards or Obama.

      Hillary's concern is hollow.  She blew this big time in the 90's and is not about to step into it again any time soon if she is elected.  She has made absolutely no commitment to do this.

      Edwards and Obama have.

      by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM PDT

  •  and the response..

    by the Repubs is:  "Think of the children of parents making $70,000.  Do you think they need welfare?"

    The irony is that the bad economy will cause more kids to become uninsured and need healthcare at the same time people who will have to pay for it will feel their spendable incomes shrinking.

    by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:28:28 AM PDT

•  a modest proposal for SCHIP reform

  http://tshirtinsurgency.com/...    

  by desaparecidokb on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:21:24 AM PDT

•  obligatory apology

  As a resident of IA-05, I feel the need (once again) to apologize to the rest of the country for my batshit-crazy excuse for a congressman.

  Sorry, everybody.

  by section29 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:25:26 AM PDT

  •  I feel your pain

    We only recently rid ourselves of Phil Crane (Dinasaur-IL).  Melissa Bean is kind of a blue dog, but at least she has a pulse.

    by bherner on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:33:33 AM PDT

•  Let Republicans keep digging their hole deeper

  9 months, 1 week, 5 days and counting..

  by phoenixdreamz on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:25:32 AM PDT

  •  If they are digging it deeper

    When the GOP candidates came through here for the primary, they were pushing against SCHIP on the grounds it would provide taxpayer paid healthcare for illegals. Unfortunately no one called them on this notion.

    by entlord1 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:10:18 AM PDT

•  how did Mitch vote this time

  Mitch McConnell voted against the SCHIP bill but he can get pork for thing that want help the children of this state.thirty to thirty-five million dollars for Paducah ky restoration project. Some of that will be federal money and that’s why Heather (a navy vet) with two children says she was fired at the risk of losing those dollars.
  http://www.wpsdtv.com/...

  by vet on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:27:19 AM PDT

•  The Republicans

  do not seem to be concerned about the problem of the uninsured.  All one has to do is to look at the leading Republican and Democratic candidate's proposals to understand that the two parties are not defining the problem the same way, and as a result have come up with very different solutions.

  The democrats want to expand access to insurance and want it to be affordable to individuals.  They want all Americans to have health insurance and they want it to be affordable based on income.  

  The republicans want to reduce the cost of health care to the government and to employers and have the "consumer" take on more responsibility for the cost of paying for their own care.  They will make high deductible health plans available with low premiums, and offer health savings accounts to put pretax dollars to pay for your out of pocket costs.  But for people without any discretionary income, this policy is a disaster. The vast majority of the uninsured have total household incomes under $40,000 per year.  

  And never the twain shall meet.

  by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:28:28 AM PDT

  •  recc'd in part for the sig line

    Really thats what I tell people who oppose single payer all the time. Health care is not a privilege its a human right. Also only in the US is single payer health care a progressive Idea everywhere else its common sense.

    by ryan81 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:43:05 AM PDT

    •  A Human Right

      I know that at least Barack Obama has stated publicly that he believes health care is a human right.  I am not sure about the other candidates.

      But if this is the premise of our policy, then it is government's responsibility to make sure that people's right are met.  The responsibility of government is to make sure that there is comprehensive, affordable health care available to all American.

      And while none of the democratic candidate's plans are universal (they all leave out the 12 million undocumented and all three will leave out 10-15 million who won't sign up for one reason or the other), they will extend coverage to 95% of Americans.  

      The argument about the mandate is bogus.  Neither Clinton or Edwards have a way to either monitor coverage or enforce the mandate in their plans.

      And Obama does not believe in mandates (let's see if we need it, first;  evidence suggests they don't work anyway).  And Obama believes that the governments role is to enable people to get their rights met, not to punish them if they are not.

      by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:48:10 AM PDT

      •  The mandate is bogus!!?

        If health care is a human right (I believe it is), then......

        t is government's responsibility to make sure that people's right are met.

        not to shrug off

        10-15 million who won't sign up for one reason or the other

        Another example of Obama's truly dangerous middle of the road approach, as well as a needless parroting of republican talking points.

        by Rabonista on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:14:55 AM PDT

        •  For goodness sake

          Mandates don't ever get 100% compliance.  They don't reach about 15-20% of the people they intend to reach.  When you try to force people to buy something they don't want, it does not work.

          And it can only work if you have a forceful monitoring and enforcement mechanism.  But good luck finding all the homeless and mentally ill and drug addicts and unemployed and people who are paid in cash.  Not to mention that none of the plans even cover the 12 million undocumented.

          I also said that the government should "not punish people when they rights are not met."  That is what a mandate will do.

          Clinton/Edwards will leave out an estimated 22 million and Obama 27 million. NONE of these plans are universal.

          A mandate is not the solution to this problem.  It will cost a fortune in administrative costs to enforce and without enforcement it is meaningless.

          Why would you want to spend health care dollars that could go to pay for health care on a bureaucracy that tries to force people to buy something they may not be able to afford and then punishes them because they are uninsured?

          This is the most wrong headed idea to ever cross my path.  And I don't care what Paul Krugman says, he is wrong.

          I would urge you to go to Robert Reich's blog and see what he had to say.  He was a member of Bill Clinton's Cabinet and he has concluded that Obama's plan actually will end up covering the most people.

          http://robertreich.blogspot.com/...

          Obama promises coverage to every single American who wants it.  That is about 95% of the population.  The pool that is created with 95% of the population will be so big that risk and cost can be spread to make care affordable for everyone who wants it.

          As a public policy scholar and professor, it is usually a good idea to design the policy for the the vast majority of the people, and then amend it for those whom is does not work. Surely we can come up with better policy options than to fine the uninsured for not having insurance.

          by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:31:57 AM PDT

          •  Five million people.

            Clinton/Edwards will leave out an estimated 22 million and Obama 27 million.

            That's FIVE MILLION people. I rest my case. You are the one who said "universal" not me. I'm glad we clarified this I felt your post was misleading.

            by Rabonista on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:41:01 AM PDT

            •  Yes it may be

              These estimates are seat of the pants.  Jonathan Gruber who did the estimate of 15 million wont release his methods for calculating this.  So I have just accepted it.

              And the 10 million estimate is based on experience with other insurance mandates, and  no one knows how it would play out.

              So the real figure is anybody's guess.

              I think the bottom line is what do we do about these 10-15 million people.  Try to hunt them down and force them to pay a monthly premium?  Or find out first who they are and see if we can't come up with something that might work better for them - like what San Francisco has done.  Give the medically indegent access to public health care services and don't even bother with insurance for a homeless and unemployed population.  There is little to no income to tax and no wages to garner,.  What are you going to do if they can't pay?  Put them in Jail??

              Obama wants to enable ALL Americans to have access to health care and all those who want it to have health insurance.  He will not turn our health insurance system into a police state that roots out and punishes the uninsured.

              I can't even believe we are having this debate.

              by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:15:21 AM PDT

              •  we are having this debate

                because it is primary season, and normally rational posters somehow act like there's something in the water that makes them rabid.

                I am really looking forward to having a nominee, whoever the hell it is.

                by DemFromCT on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:21:30 AM PDT

                •  Me too

                  One who is committed immediately to work with the Congress on a comprehensive health care reform bill that entitles everyone to affordable coverage.

                  by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:46:39 AM PDT

                  •  I'll take one of them ;-)

                    by DemFromCT on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:18:03 PM PDT

                •  Me too.

                  by Helenann on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:17:42 PM PDT

                  •  i have a health reform post for tomorrow

                    look for it  ;-)

                    by DemFromCT on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:28:58 PM PDT

                    •  Will do.

                      Nice to meet you DemfromCT.  My sister still lives in CT and I went to high school there.  Beautiful state.

                      by Helenann on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:42:25 PM PDT

                      •  esp. spring and fall ;-)

                        tomorrow's post is based on this:

                        http://content.nejm.org/...

                        by DemFromCT on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:44:32 PM PDT

        •  You miss the point

          They BOTH leave out millions and the mandate won't cover them.

          There are millions of people who will not be able to function under an insurance system.

          We won't be able to even find most of these people because they live in the shadows of society.

          If we can't find them, we can't force them to buy coverage,

          We are talking about the people who don't want it, not the people who do.

          I spent the last week in some of the most impoverished neighborhoods in Nevada and I did not meet a single person who did not want health insuraane for themselves or their family.

          Let's design a system that works for 95% of the poplulation and try to figure out how to HELP, not punish, the 5% that is left out.

          by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:19:03 AM PDT

  •  Do they even go that far?

    I haven't even seen Republican candidates acknowledge that there are people who can't buy insurance at any price. I haven't seen them acknowledge that $12,000 + 15% a year is out of reach of a lot of families. I haven't seen them acknowledge that when normal people get sick, they lose their jobs, their income, and their healthcare in a single blow.

    One of the things that shows how crazy-assed our system is is HOW MANY uninsured have household incomes OVER $40,000 - or recently did. Income is not enough to save you from this particular crisis.

    by elfling on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:45:48 AM PDT

    •  And you won't

      Their concerns are the cost for business and the cost to the government.  The people be damned.

      by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:54:25 AM PDT

      •  Heck, I'm a business

        I'm worried about costs to business too. Not just the direct cost, but the hassle of all the time I spend trying to figure out what health insurance company offers what for how much. Still not seeing any help or acknowledgement here. They have probably never had to deal with buying it.

        by elfling on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:01:18 AM PDT

        •  And under the Dem plans

          you could decide to stop trying and let your employees go into the pool giving them the choice of the single payer or FEHBP private plan options.

          by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:06:35 AM PDT

•  Over the bodies of sick children

  the GOP marches on.

  by NogodsnomastersMary on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:29:34 AM PDT

•  Compromise...

  Love that word. It means: "Bend over, Dems, and let Bush and his flacks do whatever they planned to do."

  We all know what happens when you tell the enemy you'd like to compromise: You get poled.

  I'd rather have someone tell them we're going to tear apart their little lifestyle and make them live in a completely new paradigm: One with guaranteed health insurance for everyone.

  by socialist butterfly on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:31:12 AM PDT

•  how about this

  I borrowed this from AS: thanks

  Regarding a proposed economic-stimulus package:

  Let the president and the Congress use the $150 billion to expand Medicare and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and segue into a universal health-care system.

  If health contingencies would be covered, I'd be delighted to go out and replace my aging laptop and aging car

  by pollwatch on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:36:39 AM PDT

  •  EXACTLY! n/t

    by elfling on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:46:53 AM PDT

•  Single payer

  I just want to highlight what the diary said about the Dem plans.  Edwards, Clinton and Obama all offer the option of a "public plan like Medicare" as a choice in their reform.  This means that the US could actually voluntarily transition to a single payer plan under any of these proposals.  No one would be forced to go into it.  Everyone can keep the coverage they have now.  But if you are uninsured, work for a small business, buy insurance in the private individual market or are not happy with your coverage through your employer, you will be given the option of going into the single payer plan.

  This is probably the only way the US will get to anything close to single payer.  It is very American.  Let those who want single payer, enroll in it, and let others keep what they have or pick a managed care plan from an FEHBP option.

  The analysis I did of this model in California and that Jacob Hacker has done with the option of Medicare for everyone, suggests that within one year 60-70% of the population would choose the single payer plan.  This would be a HUGE risk pool where risks and costs are spread broadly keeping the costs down for everyone and giving Americans the right to get care from any doctor or hospital they choose.

  Keep the faith.  If we can elect one of these Democrats as President, we may just get to a predominately single payer system.

  by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:36:44 AM PDT

  •  tha'ts likely true with any of them

    especially if we give them a bigger and better D congress.

    by DemFromCT on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:06:14 AM PDT

    •  Yes

      Any of their plans will move us in this direction.

      The important difference is that Edwards and Obama have pledged to get started in their first year and have it done in their first term.

      Hillary Clinton has made no such pledge to work on this either her first year or first term.  In the SC debate on health care she promised universal coverage by

      the end of my second term.

      by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:20:52 AM PDT

  •  And what will employers do

    I imagine a lot of them, including big businesses, will simply dump their employees into the single payer plan and drop coverage, which would accelerate the transition.

    by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:33:55 AM PDT

    •  Isn't something like 60% of employees of

      Mom and Pops already without any sort of insurance coverage? It is hard to gauge the impact here because the local NG units are deployed and redeployed so their families have access to Tricare which clouds the picture of the true uninsured. (whick I would say is anyone who is uninsured 50% of the year and has healthcare bills in excess of 10% of AGI)

      by entlord1 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:12:55 AM PDT

    •  No quite

      They will let their employees go into the pool but remember there are TWO options in the pool.

      1.  The choice of a private managed care plan similar to what members of Congress get under the Federal Employees Health Benefit System (FEHBP)

      or

      2. The single payer plan.

      So NO ONE is forced to go into the single payer.  There is always a private plan option.  That is the whole point of these proposals: CHOICE>

      by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:22:44 AM PDT

•  Won't somebody please think about the children?

  by ryan81 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:38:11 AM PDT

  •  We are between

    a rock and a hard place.  The President vetoes these bills and the Dems don't have a big enough majority to override them.

    This is the fault of the Republicans - Bush and the Congress.  

    It is hard to understand where they think these kids will get health care.  I can only conclude that they just don't care.

    by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:49:51 AM PDT

  •  Think of the adults!

    It is pretty simple to figure out that if we provide health care for kids they will grow up to be healthy workers, more productive, less sick time.
    Does "An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure" sound familiar? The Republicans don't think past the next election. (Democrats don't think past the next paycheck, but that's another story.) Slash and burn environmental policies, smash and grab economic policies, you know the drill. We need to think seven generations ahead but it would be a good start to consider at least one. In two terms with a Democratic President and Congress we could create the healthiest and smartest workforce on the planet. Think of the children, of course, but think of the adults they will become. Sick and stupid is no way to go through life, and we can change that.

    by upperleftedge on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:05:26 AM PDT

•  LTE season

  Everyone on dKos should pick his nearest Republican who votes to sustain the veto and write at least one LTE attacking him for that vote.
  Don't wait for November. Hang their votes around their necks now.

  by Frank Palmer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:45:01 AM PDT

  •  My House Rep,

    John McHugh, who I disagree with on most everything, supports SCHIP, as far as I can tell.

    If I have to write a LTE thanking him, I throw up a little in my mouth..

    by wrights on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:02:15 AM PDT

    •  Whose the closest anti?

      So, who is close who voted against.
      My rep. is Schakowsky; and I agree with her on most things. She'll vote right on this one, having done so several times in the immediatte past. I'm not going to write praisning her; I'm going to write damning one if the Republicans.

      by Frank Palmer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:24:17 AM PDT

  •  I'm from MA - we don't have any Red Reps!!! n/t

    by RUKind on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:25:24 AM PDT

    •  And damn few in New England

      Congratulations.

      OTOH, you're in the circulation area for the NY Times. Find some upsatate New York weasel, and write to the Times about his vote.

      by Frank Palmer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:26:41 AM PDT

•  Sit down "after" the vote?

  Wow talk about a pro-active Congress seeking to help average Americans. Why haven't they already sat down and talked this over to reach a compromise?

  by Mysteron on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:46:04 AM PDT

  •  Because they shouldn't compromise.

    Anything other than fully government-funded health insurance for everyone is a complete disgrace.

    Incremental steps (like SCHIP) are one thing; compromise is another.

    This kind of pressure is exactly what they do to us, except they do it with bullshit like flag-burning and gay marriage, and this is about something that people actually want and need. Make them vote against something that people want and need. Over and over. Make 'em filibuster!

    by RickMassimo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:57:25 AM PDT

  •  Because the bill Bush keeps vetoing

    is the compromise.

    There isn't any room to do what Bush wants without basically gutting the bill.  They've rightly decided that they're better off with it not being passed.

    Why should Congress cave so Bush gets to claim victory on the backs of US kids?

    by mijita on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:58:34 AM PDT

•  Cynical

  I must be the most cynical person around, but I think Democrats are bringing SCHIP up again to distract us from the fact that everything is going downhill economically. They know they won't get enough votes for a veto override, but they also know it is an issue which their base believes in firmly. I think they bring it up only to make themselves look good. Frankly, given everything from telecom amnesty to "impeachment off the table" to approving a $696 Billion Defense Appropriations Bill, this is the only issue they have left and they're playing it to the hilt. Steny Hoyer just spoke, and he looked as phoney on this issue as he does on every other issue.

  by midwestblue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:56:01 AM PDT

  •  No

    The democrats are bringing SCHIP up because thousands of children are about to lose their health insurance and thousands more will remain uninsured.

    It is a disgrace to this great nation that we can't even find the political will  to ensure that all of the children have access to health care.

    This is a moral failing of the Republican party that will hopefully come home to roost in November when the Democrats not only take over the White House and gain huge majorities in the Congress.

    by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:58:05 AM PDT

    •  I'm Glad...

      you have more faith in the honorable intentions of the Democrats than I do. I'm serious. Good for you. It's a very worthy issue. I just think it's all political.

      by midwestblue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:06:00 AM PDT

      •  It is all political

        And to accomplish anything we need a strong leader with the political will and courage to make this a top priority and to work closely with the Congress from the first day to do what nearly every other nation has done,  provide access to affordable, high quality, comprehensive health care to all the people.

        Only Edwards and Obama have committed to this in their first term, pledging to get started their first year.

        Hillary has said she will enact universal health care by the end of her second term.  LOL

        by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:08:55 AM PDT

        •  Obama has not committed to "universal"

          coverage, period. It's a fact.

          10-15 million who won't sign up for one reason or the other

          Another fairy tale, plain and simple.

          by Rabonista on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:28:24 AM PDT

          •  My, my

            And Clinton's and Edwards plans will not cover about 10 million without a dacronian and expensive enforcement mechanism (which neither of them have) not to mention the 12 million undocumented.

            So get over it.  They ALL leave out 22-27 million people.

            Clinton and Edwards are masquerading as "universal" but it is a lie.  They have no way to monitor or enforce their mandate (leaving out 15-20% of the uninsured) and do not cover the 12 million undocumented.

            Clinton/Edwards claim of universality is the BIGGEST FAIRY TALE of all!!!

            by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:35:43 AM PDT

            •  Helenann.

              You said it yourself. They dont all leave out 22-27 million people. Clinton / Edwards leaves out 22 and Obama leaves out 27. You said it yourself. I have nothing else to say as long as we are clear on that point.

              by Rabonista on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:45:24 AM PDT

              •  correct

                but 5 million people out of 303 million is rounding error.

                No one knows what the number is. And if you put confidence intervals around these estimates they would overlap.

                Plus or minus 5 million, when we are talking about 303 million is a relatively small problem to solve compared to the 47 million uninsured plus 16 million underinsured we have now.

                If we can solve 95% of this problem in the next four years, kudos to us.

                Of course we want everyone covered.  But unless we throw them into jail, where they do have a right to health care, you are just not going to get there,

                We would like everyone to have a job, but 5-6% don't.

                We would like everyone to have a living wage. But 10-12% don't.

                We would like every child to finish high school, but millions don't.

                We would like everyone to have a home, but millions don't.

                No policy works for 100% of the people, and to think it can is foolish.  There is not a single public program in this country that works for 100% of Americans.

                This does not mean that we don't continue to try.  And try to find out why what we are doing isn't working.  Bt I don't believe in forcing adults to do anything that concerns themselves.

                This is a free country.  I believe that as long as we have done everything we can to make resources available to everyone, to make them affordable, and make them desirable, that in the end it is up to each individual to take advantage of the opportunities they are offered.

                Of course there are huge inequities.  And I think we want to be sensitive to them and move toward equality as quickly as we can.

                But I do believe that Government should be there to help people, not to punish them when their needs are not being met.

                by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:54:46 AM PDT

            •  Btw.

              I recc'd your comments. I appreciate the discussion.

              by Rabonista on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:54:48 AM PDT

              •  Thanks.

                This is my life's work at the moment.

                by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:55:17 AM PDT

          •  And neither is Clinton

            It's a fact.   10 million for whom the mandate will not work.  and 12 million undocuments.

            NONE of them get to universal coverage so let's stop this silly argument and try to figure out what to do for the people for whom insurance is not the answer.  

            by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:25:00 AM PDT

      •  not only is it what Helenann said

        but if you check my previous SCHIP diaries, you'll see that after the last Bush veto, Rahm emanuel said it would come up again this summer, in addition to now (which is due to the Bush veto).

        by DemFromCT on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:09:57 AM PDT

        •  As I Said...

          I must be the most cynical person around. If they'd planned to bring it up at this point, then I guess they're doing what they said they'd do.
          Helenann, I agree with you about Hillary.

          by midwestblue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:21:38 AM PDT

          •  timing and presentation are always political

            if you intend to get anything passed. ;-)

            But the underlying substance is well suported not just by Dems... this is not only a bipartisan program but it has huge support from the voters.
            Only ideology and politics made Bush veto it, against the advice of Confgressional republicans.

            That Steve King is proud of that is another indication he's an idiot. Better GOP strategists know it's a party disaster.

            by DemFromCT on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:24:55 AM PDT

    •  there is a SCHIP extention on the books

      but new people have trouble getting enrolled, and the rules about eligibility need to be fought over.

      SCHIP helps people get through recessions. See:
      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      by DemFromCT on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:19:02 AM PDT

•  commercials

  The kinds of commercials this will generate... it boggles me the mind.

  by Josh Berthume on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:09:59 AM PDT

•  Harry Reid of Las Vegas?

  Oh yeah. Searchlight, Nevada's a rockin' town!

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:12:19 AM PDT

•  We'll need our kids to grow up healthy

  in order to send them to Meatgrinder Iraq for the next 50 or 100 years as planned by the impending President.

  If the Democratic Party doesn't pull their collective heads out of their collective asses-that is.

  This election is too damn important for "business as usual" backbiting and sniping.

  We need to put away petty differences, show some unity, win the White House, gain a veto-proof majority in both Houses of Congress - and pass SCHIP.

  After that - Single payer, Universal health care.

  by SecondComing on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:12:32 AM PDT

  •  Here, here!

    by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:36:02 AM PDT

    •  Just FYI

      It's "Hear, hear!"

      Something to do with hearing aids, I think, but word to the wise.

      I think it's "Parlimentarian." Or something..

      British.

      Thanx for the rec button snap.

      by SecondComing on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:31:59 PM PDT

•  "Jesus loves the little children.."

  But "He" doesn't "love them" quite enough to get them to a doctor to get vaccinated from dread diseases, or when they fall ill, or when they become injured?

  Hypicritical right-wing "Evangelical Christian" Fuck-sticks should just march lock-step into their Jerry Falwell inspired churches of hate and commit suicide en mass.

  by SecondComing on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:24:38 AM PDT

  •  Wow.

    That's harsh, man. See Kos (and co.), this is what happens when you make a living agitating the base. Unreasonable and angry attitudes proliferate out of control.

    by Rabonista on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:33:09 AM PDT

•  How do they keep a straight face?

  Steve King, (R) IA-05:
  ...Their bills would have given taxpayer-funded health insurance to Iowa families of four with annual incomes from $77,437 to $103,250

  This from the man who is getting taxpayer-funded health insurance for his family with an annual income of $160-$170,000.

  The audacity is stunning.

  by exNYinTX on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:42:17 AM PDT

•  Stupid Name

  OK, this is Politics 101.

  If the Republicans were pushing a bill about children's health care it would be called the "Healthy Children's Act" or the "Save Our Families Initiative" or something like that even if the actual effect was to deprive children of health care.

  Since it's a Democratic bill it's called "S-CHIP".

  Isn't there ONE Democrat in Washington smart enough to understand that it's easier to vote against "S-CHIP" than to vote against the "Healthy Children's Act", and it's a lot easier to demonize a Republican who voted against the "Healthy Children's Act"?

  The Republicans have been doing it to us for years.  It's long past time to throw some simple framing back in their faces.

  by Tod on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:48:54 AM PDT

  •  We are losing

    the rhetoric war.  I am participating on a panel with George Lakoff who wrote "Don't think of an Elephant to try to come up with better language for the Democrats.

    Hillary Clinton by the way is pretty good at this.  She gives full names to her policies that people can relate to while the other candidates just call it health care or energy.

    Words do matter.  And we have not found our voice.

    by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:31:47 AM PDT

•  Have any of you

  taken the time to think about how expanding government health plans might actually provide less health care to kids?

  Doctors are taking less and less medicare/medicaid/schip patients each year.  The government plans to decrease payments to doctors by another 10% this year and more doctors are dropping out.

  If it's that bad now, how bad do you think it would be under a "universal" health care plan?

  by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:50:55 AM PDT

  •  Come on....

    expanding government health plans might actually provide less health care to kids?

    What? Um, no. I hadn,t thought about it that way. Pfft.

    by Rabonista on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:03:30 AM PDT

  •  first, the 10% cut will be rescinded

    second, expanding SCHIP doesn't decrease health care delivery to kids, it increases it. Your premises are faulty. That's why the American Academy of Pediatrics heartily and strongly endorses SCHIP.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics urges Congress to reauthorize SCHIP to strengthen its historic gains

    It's been studied, modeled, etc. More about that here.

    Fewer Uninsured Children

    SCHIP improved health coverage among low-income children. Using data from the Current Population Survey, we found that, between 1997 and 2003, the proportion of children under age 19 who were uninsured decreased from 16 to 13 percent. The uninsured rate among low-income children declined by an even larger amount, from 25 to 20 percent. The number of uninsured, low-income children fell by nearly one-third, from 7.9 to 6.1 million.

    SCHIP also served as a safety net for low-income children during the 2000 recession and beyond, when many families lost employer-sponsored coverage. Although children and nonelderly adults experienced similar losses of private coverage between 2000 and 2003, earlier gains in children’s coverage were sustained through continued growth in public coverage, largely attributable to SCHIP. In contrast, nonelderly adults, including parents and childless adults, lacked access to much of this public coverage, and their uninsured rates increased significantly (Figure 2).

    It will have to paid for... you don't get something for nothing. But the polls are crystal clear that for the kids, the public will pay.

    by DemFromCT on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:03:47 AM PDT

    •  Listen, I'm not arguing against SCHIP.

      It's a good program and poor kids need this safety net.  And the funds to expand it are a drop in the bucket compared to all the pork and wasteful spending (not to mention wars).

      But there are significant drawbacks in the areas of quality of healthcare when moving to a government paid plan.  The fact is, there are less health care professionals taking new SCHIP/Medicare/Medicaid patients.  And that's at the current levels of reimbursement.  If the 10% cuts kick in as scheduled in June, more will leave the system.

      Personally, I think expansion should occur by opening enrollment to families above the current income levels. Families who can afford to pay a modest premium and co-pays.

      by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM PDT

      •  okay

        I predict the 10% will be rescinded... everyone agrees in DC, they're looking for the right vehicle.

        Speaking of medicare, remember also that the very popular medicare IS a government program. And while government programs do have things to watch out for, and are far from perfect, the current lack of coverage for 47 million Americans currently is simply unaccaptable. So, i agree that it is not a panacea, but it deserves a serious look even by skeptical bastards (love that name).  ;-)

        And the eligibility requirements are indeed part of this fight.

        by DemFromCT on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:48:53 AM PDT

      •  PS

        here's the rumor:

        President will address Medicare paycut for physicians in State of Union

        by DemFromCT on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:18:54 AM PDT

  •  None of this will work

    If we don't provide doctors with a fair and reasonable fee for their services.  Cutting doctors fees is the wrong way to try to reduce health care costs for exactly the reason you state.  They make care less available,.  Doctors wont participate in an insurance scheme that does not fairly compensate them.

    It will be important for any of these plan to work with doctors to design a fee schedule that they think is fair and will provide them with the incentive to treat all patients.

    Without their buy in and cooperation, no plan can work.

    by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:33:55 AM PDT

    •  50-60 million new patients

      to bill (even if it is to the government) is a lot of money.

      Doctors/hospitals right now have huge staffs just to deal with paperwork--with getting procedures approved, getting claims paid from all the insurance companies they have to deal with(each with it's own paperwork and requirements).  And most people I know would do anything to cut down on stupid paperwork.

      A simplified system for authorizing/billing would save money in admin costs to doctor's offices.  

      And doctors might just have to take a paycut for the greater good.  Going from $300/hour to $100/hour is still a lot more money then the rest of us make.  

      by faction on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:16:34 PM PDT

•  Romney was touting during time in SC

  the necessity of allowing the markets to work and that there was no need for a large federal program. He proposed using private carriers to provide care for the uninsured similar to the program that he instituted as governor.
  In the meantime I was screaming at the radio that the private carriers are a large part of the present problem.

  by entlord1 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:07:28 AM PDT

  •  Markets don't work in health care

    All of the economic assumptions underlying the market model are violated in health care.

    And markets only work for people who have the money to pay the price.

    And health care is not a consumer good.  It is a human right.

    The market is the wrong sphere to be addressing health care. It belongs in the social sphere, where government does have responsibility to ensure that all people have access to affordable and comprehensive health care when they need.

    This is not the goal of the market.  The goal of the market is to make a profit for shareholders.  Translated to health care this means insurers avoid people who are sick and don't pay for care when people need it.  Because their mission is not to protect and take care of sick people.  It is to make profits for shareholders,

    So I guess what I ma saying is that anyone who understands markets and how they work understands that they will not fill the gap for the 47 million low income Americans who have been shut out of this :"market."

    by Helenann on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:29:26 AM PDT