« It's the Tubes, Stupid | Main | Pirate Broadband for Burma? »

September 28, 2007

Comments

The President will veto this bill because it directs scarce funding to higher incomes

Wha? That's never stopped them before. See: Cuts, Tax.

This fight isn't over yet. I can't believe even Bush would be willing to let 10 million children go uninsured. I'm counting on a veto but I'm working with Families USA to get an override.

This program has been too successful for too long to just let it go the wayside. Our kids and states need this assistance. We're getting ready to launch a 30 sec ad to send Bush a message and convince Congress to override the veto. Stay tuned!

Pardon my political ignorance, but: once a bill is vetoed, does the veto need to be overridden by the senate, the house, or both bodies?

Modesto,

Both bodies, by 2/3 majority in each.

Related to this topic:

My wife works for the federal government and the scuttlebutt filtering down through the ranks is that the government will not have a FY2008 budget. It will operate on continuing resolution at last year's levels..... all year.

I assume that would include the SCHIP program.

Meanwhile, Balloon Juice comments on the utter lack of FDA oversight over drug approvals, at the behest of Republican operatives placed in the agency.

TPM muses on the Blackwater controversy, which is going to blow up into a conflagration very soon, and wonders if Blackwater private sector cost-cutting to undermine a competitor killed some people in Iraq.

The government is hollowed out. Good managers are quitting and retiring in droves, to be either not replaced or replaced by callow ideologues. Worms.

The Republican Party is the one and true dangerous enemy of the U.S. Government. The FBI should place it on a domestic watch list.

John T - not to mention this.

creates a new entitlement program for higher income households. In fact, the bill specifically eliminates the requirement that states enroll 95% of children in households under 200% of the federal poverty level.

Waiting for someone to refute this… Based on what I’ve read this has very little to do with “poor children” even though that’s how it is being spun. It’s a new middle class entitlement initially funded by a regressive tax on the poor.

Even now 600,000 adults are covered by the program and 3 states cover more adults than children. The children would have been covered – this has nothing at all to do with children other than using them to backdoor another step towards national healthcare.

At the same time the nanny state wants to force us all to quit smoking they need 22 million new smokers to pay for this expansion. This is a future tax increase in the making as the inevitable shortfall is built into it.

Bush won’t veto BTW. He knows that there are too many vulnerable Republicans who can’t afford not to vote to override with everyone wailing about the children.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with national healthcare but put that on the table and fund it properly rather than playing this game. You know - for the children.

The government is hollowed out. Good managers are quitting and retiring in droves, to be either not replaced or replaced by callow ideologues. Worms.

Everything is proceeding according to plan, then. Seriously, people think the Republicans are incompetent, but the reality is they don't care about governing and have no use for any non-militarized government services. That may scan as "incompetence", but it's something far more basic: if you don't care about government, if you think it should be destroyed, why not corrupt and stripmine it to transfer tax dollars and political advantage to contributors, and then let it collapse?

Interesting OCSteve.

Even now 600,000 adults are covered by the program and 3 states cover more adults than children.

Which three states are you referring to? As I understand it only 11 states offer SCHIP coverage to parents of covered children and most of those have restrictions. Congress prohibited the Secretary of Health and Human Services from granting new waivers that allowed states to use SCHIP funds to cover childless adults in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

The government is hollowed out. Good managers are quitting and retiring in droves, to be either not replaced or replaced by callow ideologues.

that just makes it easier to fit into Grover's Bathtub*.

* - good band name

Even now 600,000 adults are covered by the program

how many of them are pregnant mothers ?

OCSteve is basically quoting from this article:

http://www.highlighthealth.com/healthcare/schip-funding-and-fiscal-irresponsibility/

The author quotes extensively from the Heritage Foundation, and OCSteve is repeating their spin on it.

It's a low down dirty shame that the Republicans' "for the children" schtick when it comes to their pet projects like abstinence-only sex ed and gay-bashing can be appropriated to, y'know, actually do something for children.

Davebo: Which three states are you referring to?

March 2007 GAO Report

More than 10% in the program are adults.

As of fiscal year 2005, the latest year for which data are available, SCHIP covered approximately 6 million enrollees, including about 639,000 adults


14/15 states include adults.

As of February 2007, GAO identified 14 states that had waivers in place to cover adults in their programs; these included parents and caretaker relatives of eligible Medicaid and SCHIP children, pregnant women, and childless adults.

For example, we identified 15 states that have authority to cover adults with their federal SCHIP funds, with several states covering more adults than children.

We also reported that HHS approved state proposals for section 1115 waivers to use SCHIP funds to cover childless adults, which in our view was inconsistent with federal SCHIP law and allowed SCHIP funds to be
diverted from the needs of low-income children.

Under the DRA, Congress prohibited the Secretary of Health and Human Services from approving any new section 1115 waivers to cover nonpregnant childless adults after October 1, 2005, but allowed waivers approved prior to that date to continue.


Search for “Shortfall states[C]”:


State[A]: Arizona;
Total enrollment: Total: 201,626;
Total enrollment: Children: 88,005;
Total enrollment: Adults: 113,621;
Total enrollment: Adults as a percentage of total[B]: 56.

State[A]: Minnesota;
Total enrollment: Total: 40,087;
Total enrollment: Children: 5,076;
Total enrollment: Adults: 35,011;
Total enrollment: Adults as a percentage of total[B]: 87.

State[A]: Wisconsin;
Total enrollment: Total: 165,973;
Total enrollment: Children: 57,165;
Total enrollment: Adults: 108,808;
Total enrollment: Adults as a percentage of total[B]: 66.


Also under summary:

State[A]: Shortfall states (6);
Total enrollment: Total: 1,112,843;
Total enrollment: Children: 588,413;
Total enrollment: Adults: 524,430;
Total enrollment: Adults as a percentage of total[B]: 55.

State[A]: Nonshortfall states (3);
Total enrollment: Total: 315,733;
Total enrollment: Children: 201,509;
Total enrollment: Adults: 114,224;
Total enrollment: Adults as a percentage of total[B]: 24.

State[A]: All states (9);
Total enrollment: Total: 1,428,576;
Total enrollment: Children: 789,922;
Total enrollment: Adults: 638,654;
Total enrollment: Adults as a percentage of total[B]: 45.

Cleek: how many of them are pregnant mothers

The three categories are parents or caretaker relatives of eligible children, pregnant women, and childless adults. I don’t see a breakdown of numbers by category.

i think the complaint that too many adults (ie. >0) are getting SCHIP money is a pretty widespread one - here's Hatch and Grassley complaining about it. and it's one i basically agree with: why exactly do adults get money if the program is for children ? sure, i can see an exception for pre-natal care. but otherwise? nah.

let's get a program that covers poor adults, and not use money that's really intended for children.

paperwight: OCSteve is basically quoting from this article.

The author quotes extensively from the Heritage Foundation, and OCSteve is repeating their spin on it.

Quoting from an article without linking it and representing the words as my own would be bad bloggy etiquette. I don’t care for the unwarranted accusation. For the record, the first I saw of that particular article is via the link you posted.

“a new middle class entitlement initially funded by a regressive tax on the poor”
This is my summation of various things I’ve read in the last month. You won’t find the phrases “middle class entitlement” or “middle class” or “regressive tax” in the article you noted.

“Even now 600,000 adults are covered by the program and 3 states cover more adults than children.”
This came from the GAO report I linked above.

“they need 22 million new smokers to pay for this expansion”
This is in the article you noted, however it’s the number I’ve seen for the last month or so in many many articles. It looks like the Heritage Foundation is the original source for the number but I didn’t get it from them or your article.

But yeah – as long as I’m a shill for Republicans and the Heritage Foundation please feel free to just ignore me.

Using accrual accounting, our debt is ~$70 trillion, growing by about $3 trillion per year and accelerating. Cash accounting gives us the $9 trillion number, which is bogus. Every newborn now has $400,000 of government debt around his neck. This debt will not be paid; Greenspan has stated that taxes cannot fix our budget problem. Gold just closed over $740/oz.

The smart money is preparing to move south: Gates-Belize; Bloomberg-Bahamas; Clinton-Dominican Republic; Bush (using the term ‘smart’ figuratively)-Paraguay. When the top 5% are targeted to pay for these compassionate government programs, they will just flip the switch and be welcomed as Citizens of their new countries.

Democracies are inherently unstable and fail when the electorate learns to vote itself access to the Treasury. In my opinion, it is not ethical to get populations addicted to government programs, which are about to go away.

be welcomed as Citizens of their new countries

Weird, dude. Note that even in this fantasy-world, they would still be responsible for paying US income taxes.

State[A]: Shortfall states (6);
Total enrollment: Total: 1,112,843;
Total enrollment: Children: 588,413;
Total enrollment: Adults: 524,430;
Total enrollment: Adults as a percentage of total[B]: 55.

erm, that math is simply wrong
octave:6> 100*524430/(588413+524430)
ans = 47.125

Bill: Democracies are inherently unstable and fail when the electorate learns to vote itself access to the Treasury. In my opinion, it is not ethical to get populations addicted to government programs, which are about to go away.

I agree. It's really not ethical to get the US population addicted to the government program of killing people at vast expense in Iraq, not even if it wasn't about to go away. (You do know that this is where the vast deficit is coming from, Bill? Just checking...)

Cornelian: that math is simply wrong

Our government at work. ;)

mabye they used Excel

OCSteve, I'll see your smiley face and raise you two additional smiley faces and the keys to the convertible parked at the curb (it's not mine; so let's get this hand done before the owner returns):

The government at work is pretty good at math considering the millions of Social Security checks that go out on time and accurately every month, the precision landing of mooncraft and Mars probes, and the resilience of the concrete in the Hoover Dam.

If you want to include those missiles that flew through the bathroom window of Iraqi windows and hit Baathists in the butt, have at it.

Now, I will grant you that something has happened over the past 20 or 30 years that calls into question the attitude of the folks who have been running the government for most of that time, including cheapskate Clinton and downsizer and contract outer Al Gore.

Methinks the real complaint of some is that government works too well.

;) ;) Sorry, the blonde drove off in the convertible ;)

that would be "Iraqi buildings"

My God, I'm in the private sector and I made a mistake!

My God, I'm in the private sector and I made a mistake!

Obviously, the market wanted you to make that mistake, thus increasing productivity.

Math and Taxes and Fantasy Worlds

* We spend ~$200 million daily in Iraq
* We incur ~$8 billion daily in unfunded entitlement liabilites
* Iraq is cheap (a stupid waste and terrible strategic error, but cheap)

$70 trillion via Tom Coburn, M.D., freshman Senator from Oklahoma, new member on Senate Finance Committee, not yet nativized, link below:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11888

Income taxes in a Belizean Commercial Free Zone are zero for the first ten years, and then jump to the 6% range. What is a Capital Gain?

As we become one big happy hemisphere, taxes and government benefits will have something in common. They will both redistribute people. See migration patterns between California and Nevada for a preview.

Shorter publius: "conservatives don't conform to my cartoon-like caricature of them".

Yawn. Next?

Waiting for someone to refute this… Based on what I’ve read this has very little to do with “poor children” even though that’s how it is being spun. It’s a new middle class entitlement initially funded by a regressive tax on the poor.

If ~10% adult enrollment gets up your nose, exclude them. Fine with me.

If 200% of poverty level seems too middle class to you, means test it. Fine with me.

If a regressive tax on smokers bugs you, fund it from luxury taxes.

100% tax on cigars costing more than $2.00 will probably get you between 1 and 2 billion a year. 10% surtax on any vehicle not exclusively used for commercial purposes that gets less than 20mpg, or that weighs more than 3,000 pounds, or that costs more than $50K, will probably make up the difference.

If that doesn't do it, put a tariff on imported manufactured goods.

Civil War excepted, we ran this damned country for over 100 years on luxury taxes and tariffs. It's the American way.

Bottom line for me is that the terms of the debate are now (1) who are the correct beneficiaries of a program that is plainly in the public interest, and (2) how do we fund it in a fair way. That's miles better than talking about whether we're creating a moral hazard for youngsters who will, no doubt, deliberately stand out in the rain and catch pneumonia now that their basic health care is funded by the nanny state.

Glad to see you playing on our court again.

Shorter publius: "conservatives don't conform to my cartoon-like caricature of them".

Yawn. Next?

Conservatives, as we have them here in the USA these days, are perfectly capable of caricaturing themselves, thank you very much. No assistance is needed.

Thanks -

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad