Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The result in the MA-05 race will matter to sick kids

By

By large bipartisan margins, the Congress has sent a bill reauthorizing and expanding SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.  The Senate voted 67-29, enough to override President Bush’s promised veto.  But the 265-159 vote in the House, while lopsidedly in favor, is short of the necessary two-thirds margin. 

Bush has said he’ll veto the bill, and an attempt to override will likely fail in the House.  The program is funded at its current level through mid-November, so they have some time to find a few more votes in the House for a second try, possibly by making enough tweaks to switch a few wavering Reps.  By that time, the new occupant of the MA-05 seat will have been chosen and sworn in.

And here’s the thing: in the House, every vote will count.  A lot.  So even if Jon’s right that electing an “obscure backbencher” won’t drastically affect the course of the war in Iraq, or “fix” the “broken” Congress, this election could well affect how many children have health care in this country.  That’s a big deal.

So it’s important that Niki wins this race.  Your child’s health care, or that of a child you know, may well depend on it.  When you’re talking to your friends about this race, remind them that Niki Tsongas favors giving health care to more kids who need it (which is the position not only that of the Democratic leadership, but is also that of crazy moonbat hippies like Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), both of whom have called the administration on its misrepresentations about the bill).  But Jim Ogonowski wants to stay the course with Bush — because of … FEMA …?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. at the debate you are still reproducing Niki Tsongas post debate press releases?  The current bill increases SCHIP aide to those making over $80,000.  It is another big government grab.  The president wants to increase by a modest $5 Billion dollars, not the amount in this bill. Only Democrats like you would paint this as a cut in benefits. 

    <

    p>
    This is a play by your people to make political points on the backs of poor children.  The only thing that matters is ultimate victory, be damned the people left in the wake right?  When will you and Niki Tsongas stop playing politics with children.

    <

    p>

    • The current bill will add families that make from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty level.  The important low income end of these additions to SCHIP program is $41k for a family of four.  I don’t know about you, but that sounds like it might be a family in need. 

      <

      p>
      The number you throw out, “over $80k”, is the top end (%300 of poverty) for a family of six.  Yeah, this numerically wealthier family may be doing alright, but four or five kids can burn through lots of sneakers in a year, so I wouldn’t think that their household budget has a significant fraction of discretionary spending in it.

      <

      p>
      Lastly, you are implying that Ogonokski would vote to override a Bush veto on SCHIP.  From what I’ve heard, he would not, thus leaving our poorer families in need. 

      • First the bill as currently written would go to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level or $82,400 thats not poor that’s upper middle class. 

        <

        p>
        Second, I’m not saying Jim would vote to override teh veto, what I’m saying is jim supports a modest increase.  Not a big government grab, and that Niki and her democrat allies should have passed a bill they knew would be signed and not played politics with poor children.  That is what is happening and it’s disgusting.

        • if poor children go without healthcare they already have. Not George bush or Jim Ogonowski.  to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest. 

        • Lets create a bill that sounds great in its title, but would be excessively expensive.

          <

          p>
          Why do the states need to do anything about health care for children now? Why should employers have to provide coverage for children?

          <

          p>
          They’ll all be covered by the federal government, because “need” now means “all”.

          <

          p>
          This is just a game to try to give them something to throw around during the election next year.

          • Lets create a bill that sounds great in its title, but would be excessively expensive.

            <

            p>
            As opposed to a bill that sounds great in its title, but then does the opposite of its title.

            • A veto-proof majority in the Senate is in favor (GOP & Dem)
            • The majority of the House is in favor, but just shy of a veto-proof majority (GOP & Dems)

            <

            p>
            The President is the one being partisian here.  The measure has  bipartisan support in both chambers.

        • The Bill is not written to cover up to 400%, the state of New York had their process grandfathered in.  It’s not in the bill, so that is a lie.  The bill also includes a percentage decrease in funding if states go over the 200% of poverty threshold.  It reduces funds for those who do so.  So get a clue of what’s going on here.  But what it does do is allow states to better inform parents about the program and get as many children in families of four within the plan who make under 40,000.

        • I don’t know and really don’t much care which.  This is from HR 976, the bill sent to the President yesterday.

          <

          p>

          SEC. 110. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.

            (a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

            `(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-

            `(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.

            `(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.’.

            (b) Conforming Amendment- Section 2105(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(a)(1)) is amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting `or subsection (c)(8)’ after `subparagraph (B)’.

          <

          p>
          That’s a lot of legislative gobbledygook, but what it translates to is that johnk is exactly right: if a state was already covering 400% FPL, they’re grandfathered in.  Otherwise, 300% is the limit.  That’s why Grassley, Roberts, and the other Republicans who support this bill are so angry at Bush — because he’s lying about it.  Talk about Washington being broken.

          <

          p>
          For God’s sake, even your boy Mitt Romney signed off (see sec. 26) on expanding SCHIP to 300% FPL.  You’re wrong, Ogo is wrong, you know it, and you’re terrified that this issue is going to kill this campaign.

    • It may not be suprising that Mr. Ogonowski is misunderstood on SCHIP.  Why….

      <

      p>
      Because he first said he opposed the bill because it allowed “illegal aliens” (children) to get coverage.  The bill specifically excludes illegal immigrants.

      <

      p>
      Was it during his 15 community amnesty tour that he forgot to explain his position on health care in general, which at the debate he identified as a states rights type issue.  Down with FEMA, down with health care. Huh?

      <

      p>
      He didn’t explicitly explain his position in the first place and he doesn’t understand how Congress works.  Apparently, Mr. Ogonowski thinks that as a member of Congress, he can vote on any version of the legislaltion he supports and maybe pass it.  The fact is, he has to vote on the bill placed before him, and then if vetoed, to override or not.  I can assure Mr. Ogonowski that the most junior Congressmen will not have amendments accepted to the SCHIP bill and they won’t be on a conference committee either.  As a junior Republican, Mr. Ogonowski might be on Agriculture Committee.

      <

      p>
      So should Tsongas should be ashamed of stating that he’s against coverage for children when he opposes the bill on the floor of the House that would keep the program alive?  Huh?

      <

      p>
      Finally, Jim announced for Congress on April 24, 2007.  That’s five months ago.  He still doesn’t have an issues section on his web page.  Maybe if Niki Tsongas could read your position on health care and SCHIP, she would know better where you stand on these issues. 

      <

      p>
      There are important differences on important issues in this race.  Shame on you for trying to cover them up.

  3. As of this writing, there seven comments on this thread, and five of them are from Ogo supporters.  They’re doing everything they can to paint SCHIP expansion as a partisan issue that’s just part of “Washington as usual.”

    <

    p>
    But they can’t, and they’re going to fail.  Because the bill was passed by large bipartisan majorities — including a veto-proof majority in the Senate.  Because prominent conservative Republicans, who gleefully bash Democrats on other issues, are backing the Democratic leadership on this one, and are trashing the Bush/Ogo position as both heartless and dishonest. 

    <

    p>

    “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,” said Sen.Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a supporter of the plan. “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.”

    … 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.” … 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.

    <

    p>
    And from another article:

    <

    p>

    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.

    <

    p>
    Roberts.  Grassley.  Corker.  Hatch, for God’s sake.

    <

    p>
    So this issue is a big loser for Ogo and his minions, and they’re terrified.  They think they can win this race on Congress being “broken” and on playing the “amnesty” card — both fake issues on which Ogo will have little real influence.  But on this issue, whoever wins the MA-05 race will have real influence, because every vote will matter.  Don’t let them forget that.

    • Republicans are terrified of this issue

      <

      p>
      Democrats should be, too.  I’ve described here over the past few months about how the health care financing in the US is totally bollaxed.  Now, with the settlement of the UAW strike against GM,  described at http://www.nytimes.c… ,  we see the first evidence that a major private US company is realizing that it cannot expect the federal government to change the health care financing system in the US any time soon.

      <

      p>
      Four observations from the NYTimes article, all reading between the lines.

      <

      p>
      First, since GM will essentially be providing the principal for a trust fund to a union (the UAW) it is not immediately obvious that that the proceeds from the trust fund (which are supposed to cover health care costs) will cover salaried (non-unionized) GM workers and retirees.  It will be interesting to see whether that will spur salaried GM workers to unionize.

      <

      p>
      Second, it is presumed that the proceeds from the trust fund will be sufficient to provide for the health care cost demand.  What if they prove not to be sufficient?  Will GM be required to augment the amount?

      <

      p>
      Third, part of the settlement was in GM stock.  That could make the trust fund–that is, the union–one of the largest shareholders in GM  We saw how well that went over when the unionized workers at United Airlines basically took over the company when it went Chapter 11 a number of years ago.  Not well at all.

      <

      p>
      Fourth, I don’t know what GM’s financial reporting cycle is, but it strikes me that this settlement, coming in such a huge amount, will depress GM’s reported (accrual basis) earnings.  Companies don’t usually like to do that unless they expect a particularly bad earnings report from operations.  I wonder how bad things really are over at GM.

  4. and the only candidate to support a single-payer system of health care is independent candidate Patrick Murphy.  It is the only system that can cover all Americans, and he is the only candidate to support it.  Lobbies from HMOs and health insurance agencies have helped stifle the press he receives, but he is the most progressive candidate in the race: http://www.sendmurphytocongress.com

Archives