Herewith a roundup of what some prominent conservative and moderate Republicans are saying about President Bush’s position on, and threatened veto of, the SCHIP bill that Congress passed yesterday. Before we get started, let’s be quite clear on one thing: the bill does not authorize across-the-board coverage of families at 400% of the federal poverty level. It grandfathers in states that had already made that expansion, but otherwise, it goes up to 300%, just like we did here in MA with our health care law (see sec. 26). Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.
Now, to the trashing. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.):
“The administration is threatening to veto this bill because of ‘excessive spending’ and their belief that this bill is a step toward federalization of healthcare. I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of healthcare. And if the administration’s concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, bluntly put, they are not.”
Roberts again (same link):
Bush, during a news conference last week, said the congressional bill would take a program meant to help poor children and turn it into one that covered children in households making up to $83,000.
Said Roberts: “I just have to ask the speechwriter, Are you reading the same bill I am? You can twist the facts, but facts are stubborn things.”
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa):
Republican opponents of the bill, like Senators Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and John Cornyn of Texas, said it would be a big step toward socialized medicine, would shift people from private insurance to a public program and would allow coverage for illegal immigrants and children in high-income families.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said it was “intellectually dishonest” to make such “outlandish accusations.”
Mr. Bush has said the bill would move toward “government-run health care for every American.”
Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said those fears were unfounded. “What will move our country toward socialized medicine is not this bill, which focuses on poor children, but the lack of action to allow people in need to have access to private affordable health care,” Mr. Corker said.
Mr. Hatch said that “it pains me” that Mr. Bush has not worked with Congress to renew the program.
“I am very disappointed that before the administration even received the final language, their minds were apparently made up and a line was drawn in the sand opposing this compromise.”
Grassley and Hatch again:
Republican Sens. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah have also complained that the administration is misrepresenting the bill as a middle-class program.
“It’s the White House that needs to give.”
The opponents of this bill are way, way out of the mainstream. Even the health insurers want this bill. The opponents are just wrong, wrong, wrong.
The House passed it 265-159. At that number of voters, they’ll need 18 votes to flip from no to aye if they’re to overcome the veto.
<
p>
They may get some from GOP reps who face tough election battles in moderate areas. They might even get a few GOPs to flip if they represent unusually poor districts.
<
p>
But 18? Where will they find ’em?
“Vote for Ogo: He'll caucus against his party.”
đŸ™‚
Are you saying that Ogo would vote to override Bush’s veto?
where I wish Speaker Pelosi had retained Hastert’s policy of withholding earmarks as punishment for votes. Those Republicans may have firm beliefs and principled opposition to SCHIP, but their beliefs don’t protect kids against diseases the way vaccinations do, and their principles don’t stop parents from going bankrupt when kids suffer from serious illness. If that principle is so valuable, then it’s worth the Congressman giving up a bridge to nowhere or a gazebo for it.
Start there — including with Dennis Kucinich, who presumably voted “no” because it’s not universal single-payer. One hopes he’d have the sense to switch on an override vote. Bring along the Dems who were not present, such as Bill Delahunt, and you’ve got a decent start.
<
p>
As for flipping the GOoPers, like you say, target the ones facing tough challenges in swing districts. Seems doable to me.
It’s not just flipping 18 R’s; it’s also holding those R’s that initially voted yea. You better believe that the Whitehouse will be turning the screws to get a few of the rebellious R’s to “stand with the president” on this one.
Don’t you dare jump from this sinking ship unless you want to win in 2008!
Bush has already lost all his screws.
…when he said “facts are stubborn things” – here’s the full quote:
<
p>
<
p>
He said this in relation to his defense of the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre – certainly a quote for the ages…
The SCHIP authorization bills are windfalls for the states! I’m surprised so many have had the courage to say “NO”.
<
p>
What do I mean by windfall? Over the first 10 years of SCHIP, federal expenditures grew by about 1.5% annually. In the House version of the bill, there is no cap. Could be less. Could be more. See page 14 of the link:
<
p>
H§101. Establishment of new base CHIP allotments. Appropriations for FY2008 onward would be provided
without a national amount specified. The annual appropriation would be determined automatically as the sum
total of the allotments calculated for all the states and territories. No end year would be specified; the program could receive annual appropriations in perpetuity.
<
p>
The Senate version sets a cap. BUT, the annual growth rate is a whopping 16.5% a year! That’s on top of a near doubling of the initial cap in its first year (from $5B to over $9B).
<
p>
As for the FPL limits, for the 15 states that administer SCHIP as a standalone program (as opposed to as a Medicaid expansion):
<
p>
A state is free to establish its own eligibility rules, taking into account age, geography, residency, disability status, and access to other coverage
<
p>
Additionally, by using existing flexibility to define what “counts” as income, any state can raise its effective SCHIP
income eligibility level above 200% FPL through the use of income disregards. The Senate version has a provision that would limit matching rates when income is above 300% without taking into account some of the disregards.
<
p>
SCHIP has already been used to cover adults, to cover children who already had private health insurance, and there have been no quality or eligibility audits. That’s one good thing that I see in the reauthorization proposals — some call for proof that the federal dollars are being used well. The current data is sketchy. For example, estimates of the percentage of SCHIP beneficiaries who were already privately insured ranged from 5-17%. I want to make sure any increase is actually getting to its intended target. It would be better to get the metrics before ramping up such a huge increase.
<
p>
As I said in an earlier comment, it appears that 1/3 of MA’s public health spending is going to something other than providing insurance. Let’s fix that before we before we double the amount of tax dollars going into this program.
<
p>
I’m no fan of Bush, but he’s right on this one.