Pyrrhic Victory

This afternoon the House passed a revised SCHIP reauthorization bill 265 to 142, or 7 votes short of a veto proof majority. The revised bill limits coverage to children whose parents earn 3 times poverty or less, it deals with the issue of illegal aliens receiving benefits, and it phases single adults out of the program within a year. In short, it addresses nearly all of the Republican talking points. It just doesn't follow the Decider's dictates.

The AP is touting the vote as a victory for the Bush Administration. Given the extraordinary popularity of the SCHIP program before the Republican talking points were addressed, one has to wonder how many more such victories the Republican party can endure.

The yeas and nays are posted by the AP here.

What do you know, Sam Graves hung with the President. Missouri's 6th District lemming is determined to lose the next election. Hooray for Kay Barnes.

There's more: "Pyrrhic Victory" >>

Sam Graves, If You Are Watching, Here Is Why We Want You To Choose Life Tomorrow.

Sam, you might have heard about her, but I don't know if you have ever seen her. Anyway here is Bethany. Some of your supporters say she should never have been born. Others say they don't care if she dies. What about you, Sam. Do you care or is being pro-life just another campaign slogan?



This video was posted to YouTube by IraqSummer.

There's more: "Sam Graves, If You Are Watching, Here Is Why We Want You To Choose Life Tomorrow." >>

Personal Note To Sam Graves: The Latest Poll Numbers Show SCHIP Expansion Popular, Siding With GWB On The Issue Not So Much

There have been any number of demonstrations for SCHIP here in Kansas City all of them aimed straight at Sam Graves. He has announced that he is sticking with the President.

I guess the Republicans think that if people just hear their "best arguments" for opposing SCHIP expansion the people are going to agree with the decider.

Sorry Republicans but according to the very latest NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health poll

Given the basic parameters of the expansion – its cost, the number of new children who would be covered, and how it would be paid for– seven in ten Americans say they back the plan. This asking was followed by a version of the question that provided proponents’ and opponents’ strongest arguments. Even when presented with these pros and cons, support stays at 65 percent.

Though the partisan divide on SCHIP is certainly large, there is a good deal more bipartisanship here than on issues such as Iraq. Democrats overwhelmingly favor the reauthorization: 82 percent before hearing the pro and con arguments, and 80 percent even after hearing them. Tilting the issue toward the bill’s proponents, Independents also weigh in with majority support: 69 percent would back it (dropping only 3 points after hearing the arguments). Instead of being the usual mirrorimage of Democrats, Republicans are very divided on the SCHIP issue: a narrow majority (54 percent) say they support the expansion when asked a straight up or down question, while 41 percent are opposed. This narrow divide deepens a bit – to 47 percent support, 45 percent oppose – after hearing the arguments on both sides.

You will notice that even when most favorably explained the Republican position is a loser even among Republicans. At best the Republican talking points change a very few minds.

I guess the President has shown Sam Graves the SCHIP cliff and he is going to jump off like a good little lemming.

More after the break.


The poll gets worse for the Republicans. Again from the summary.

Note that only half of Americans say they have heard at least some of the news about the ongoing SCHIP debates, with half the country not paying attention. Those who have heard little or nothing about the program are as likely to back its expansion as those who say they have heard at least some news about the issue.

How do concerns about the expansion resonate?

As they attempt to negotiate the rhetoric on both sides of this issue, Americans are more concerned about poor children who need health insurance not getting it than about middle class kids inappropriately getting benefits. Overall, 55 percent say they worry that the law won’t go far enough and some children who need insurance won’t get it, compared to 33 percent who worry the law will go too far and provide benefits to some whose families could otherwise afford it. The results are nearly identical when the former concern is matched against a crowd-out argument: 54
percent are more worried the law won’t go far enough in covering children, while 37 percent worry it will go too far, causing some families to drop their private health insurance.

Read the whole summary. The SCHIP veto isn't just a winner for Democrats, it is a major disaster for Republicans. Sam, you are running against the best funded and most popular opponent of your career, Kay Barnes, who really knows how to run a campaign, your district is filled with social conservatives, not fiscal conservatives, and you have elected to support a deeply unpopular President who has vetoed the wrong bill to make the wrong point, a bill wildly supported by your constituents. Too bad, so sad. Nice career while it lasted.

There's more: "Personal Note To Sam Graves: The Latest Poll Numbers Show SCHIP Expansion Popular, Siding With GWB On The Issue Not So Much" >>

Catholics United Putting Up Pro SCHIP Ads On Talk and Christian Radio

Last evening on the way home from our office, my wife told me about a water cooler encounter she had with one of our co-workers. She told me the discussion drifted to the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty. My wife was surprised to learn that the co-worker didn't believe it when my wife told her the Catholic Church was seriously opposed to the death penalty. The co-worker knew about the Church's stand on abortion and stem cell research, but she hadn't realized it extended to the death penalty.

As we talked about the Catholic positions on a whole range of issues including the death penalty, war and withholding or withdrawing food and water (euphemistically called nutrition and hydration in Health Care Directives) from the permanently comatose, my wife and I agreed that we had to admire their consistency. From before the cradle to the grave the Catholic Church's position is all about the sanctity of life. Uniformly, Catholics come down on the side of life. Whether you disagree, as I do, with the Church on some issues you have to admire that consistency.

We should not surprised to learn that Catholics United have come out strongly in favor of the SCHIP override. The group has gone so far as to generate radio ads targeting 10 allegedly pro life and pro family Republicans saying that their votes against SCHIP are neither pro life nor pro family. You can read the release posted below or follow the above link to find out if your favorite is on the list. If you are from Kansas City you might want to listen to the Sam Graves ad. The ads will be broadcast on Christian and conservative stations starting Monday.

John Cole and Steve Benen wonder if the right wing smear machine is going after the woman reading the ad? Actually, Cole thinks they will. I think Catholics United can take care of themselves. The smear machine should have learned a lesson last week. Stick to the issue. If your ideology informs you that you must deny children health care then say so proudly and honestly. Most people will think you are wicked, but at least you will be ideologically consistent.

More after the break.




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Washington - Catholics United will launch a radio advertising campaign targeting ten members of Congress whose opposition to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) have compromised their pro-life voting records.

The ads, which feature a mother urging her Congressional Representative to support SCHIP, will primarily air on Christian and talk radio stations from Monday Oct. 15 to Wednesday, Oct. 17 as Congress approaches a critical Oct. 18 vote to override President Bush’s veto of bipartisan SCHIP legislation.

“Building a true culture of life requires public policies that promote the welfare of the most vulnerable,” said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United. “At the heart of the Christian faith is a deep and abiding concern for the need of others. Pro-life Christians who serve in Congress should honor this commitment by supporting health care for poor children.”

The following members of Congress have voted against SCHIP, which provides high-quality health coverage to more than six million children whose families would otherwise be unable to afford insurance. Radio ads will air on local radio stations in their congressional districts.

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida (listen)

Rep. Joseph Knollenberg, Michigan (listen)

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Michigan (listen)

Rep. Tim Walberg, Michigan (listen)

Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio (listen)

Rep. Gene Taylor, Mississippi (listen)

Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota (listen)

Rep. Sam Graves, Missouri (listen)

Rep. Thelma Drake, Virginia (listen)

Rep. John Peterson, Peterson (listen)

The script for the radio commercial reads: “I'm the mother of three children, and I'm pro-life. I believe that protecting the lives our children must be our nation’s number one moral priority. That’s why I’m concerned that Congressman X says he’s pro-life but votes against health care for poor children. That’s not pro-life. That’s not pro-family. Tell Congressman X to vote for health care for children. Call him today at XXXX, that’s XXXXX.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA, and the Catholic Health Association have all urged Congress and President Bush to support SCHIP.

There's more: "Catholics United Putting Up Pro SCHIP Ads On Talk and Christian Radio" >>

The Kansas City SCHIP Rally

About 50 people, ranging from babes-on-hips to the very elderly converged on 63rd and Ward Parkway in Kansas City Thursday during the evening rush hour to protest the veto of SCHIP legislation by President Bush earlier in the week.

Getting 50 people to 63rd and Ward Parkway during rush hour is in and of itself an accomplishment. There isn't exactly a handy freeway on/off ramp - it is smack in the middle of the city.

Medical students from KU were in attendance, and social activists from across the spectrum. (There was a news crew there, and if our little gathering makes the local news I will update with a link.)

But the reception we got from motorists was amazing! I only saw one person flip the bird, everyone else was laying on their horns. Even the city busses were honking and waving and showing their support. It was very encouraging, and I am hopeful that rallies like ours throughout the country will put enough pressure on congrsscritters that they will be forced to stand up to the incumbent and stand up for children; and shove his veto back down his craven throat.

And may he choke on it like it was a pretzel.

(Photos below the fold)

Future Democrats

Raising 'em right!

Angry young mothers.

Angry grandmothers.

Looking east - the greenway crowd.

Looking west - the streetcorner crowd.

Damned good advice!

There's more: "The Kansas City SCHIP Rally" >>

Dennis Kucinich On SCHIP --" My Way Or The Highway"

Yesterday I asked why Dennis Kucinich voted against the final compromise version of SCHIP. He had voted for the original house bill. Well straight from his website here is his explanation.

“I cannot support legislation which extends health coverage to some children while openly denying it to other children,” Kucinich said. “This legislation is woefully inadequate: and I will not support it."

OK, the version that emerged from committee was a bipartisan compromise of the House and Senate versions of the bill. When I was young, which was before the Newt Gingrich era changed everything, I was taught that compromise is the Congressional stock in trade. One side doesn't get everything it wants, but neither does the other side. Give and take. Give and take.

I guess Kucinich is a completely modern politician who eschews the old fashioned. Kucinich says that he can't support the compromise. As far as children's health is concerned its his way or the highway. Odd, doesn't "the decider" George W. Bush have that same "my way or the highway" approach to Democracy.

Maybe Dennis Kucinich could learn something about Democracy if he listened to Charles Grassley on how the legislative process works. Here is Grassley talking about President Bush's shameful veto of SCHIP and his unwillingness to work with Congress in the days prior to it's passage.

Dennis, if you are listening, do American democracy a favor and announce that you will vote to override.



Like I said Congress and the rest of our government used to be about give and take, not "my way or the highway." Those were happier days. Those were days of American greatness.

There's more: "Dennis Kucinich On SCHIP --" My Way Or The Highway"" >>

SCHIP Veto Pop Quiz

What do the following members* of Congress have in common? Aderholt, Akin, Alexander, Bachmann, Bachus, Baker, Barrett (SC), Bartlett (MD), Barton (TX), Biggert, Bilbray,
Bilirakis, Bishop (UT), Blackburn, Blunt, Boehner, Bonner, Boozman, Boren, Boustany, Brady (TX), Broun (GA), Brown (SC),Brown-Waite Ginny, Burgess, Burton (IN),Buyer, Calvert, Camp (MI), Campbell (CA), Cannon, Cantor, Carter, Castor,Chabot, Coble, Cole (OK), Conaway, Crenshaw, Culberson, Davis (KY),Davis David, Deal (GA),Diaz-Balart, L., Diaz-Balart, M., Doolittle, Drake, Dreier, Duncan, Etheridge, Everett, Fallin, Feeney, Flake, Forbes, Fortenberry, Foxx, Franks (AZ), Frelinghuysen, Gallegly, Garrett (NJ), Gingrey, Gohmert, Goode, Goodlatte, Granger, Graves, Hall (TX), Hastert, Hastings (WA), Hayes, Heller, Hensarling, Hill,Hoekstra, Hulshof, Hunter, Inglis (SC), Issa, Johnson (IL), Johnson Sam, Jones (NC), Jordan, Keller, King (IA),Kingston, Kline (MN), Knollenberg, Kucinich, Kuhl (NY), Lamborn, Lewis (CA), Lewis (KY), Linder, Lucas, Lungren Daniel E., Mack, Manzullo, Marchant, Marshall, McCarthy (CA), McCaul (TX), McCotter, McCrery, McHenry, McIntyre, McKeon, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller Gary, Musgrave, Myrick, Neugebauer, Nunes, Paul, Pearce, Pence, Peterson (PA), Pickering, Pitts, Price (GA), Putnam, Radanovich, Reynolds, Rogers (AL), Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rohrabacher, Ros-Lehtinen, Roskam, Royce, Ryan (WI), Sali, Saxton, Schmidt, Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Shadegg, Shimkus, Shuster, Smith (NE), Smith (TX), Souder, Stearns, Sullivan, Tancredo, Taylor, Terry, Thornberry, Tiahrt, Walberg, Walden (OR),Wamp, Weldon (FL),Weller, Westmoreland, Whitfield, Wicker, Wilson (SC).

A) They All Voted Against SCHIP Reauthorization which would provide medical coverage to ten million uninsured American children;

B) They All Voted Againist Legislation Supported By More Than 7 Out Of 10 Americans, including 61% of Republicans;

C) Many are standing shoulder to shoulder with an unpopular lame duck President who believes his quasi religious belief in his decidedly unChristian political ideology is more important than his responsibility to make sure millions of uninsured American children receive health care;

D) Many are in their last terms as members of Congress; or

E) All Of The Above.

* The original word "embers" was a typo, but on reflection that might be a apt description.




If you answered All of the Above you are correct. Given a choice between nearly all Americans, including 61% of their own party, and an unpopular lame duck President this crowd of cluesless Representatives chose to support the President and the brain dead ideology of Heritage Foundation. If your representative is on the list you might ask him or her why.

Extra credit if you can tell us why Dennis Kucinich is on the list.

There's more: "SCHIP Veto Pop Quiz" >>

It Is Nice To Know That 7 Out Of 10 Americans Agree With You

It is really nice to know that 7 out of 10 Americans agree with you on any issue. It is sad to realize that the other three call themselves "leaders" and live in gated communities behind the DC beltway.

According to an eye popping new Washington Post-ABC News poll

About a quarter of adults want Congress to fund fully the administration's $190 billion request; seven in 10 want the proposed allocation reduced, with 46 percent wanting it cut sharply or entirely. About seven in 10 independents want Congress to cut back funds allocated for the war effort, as do nearly nine in 10 Democrats; 46 percent of Republicans agree.

Yet recently the supine Senate voted to authorize 150 billion of the 190 billion by an overwhelming 92/3 vote. Apparently the Senate leadership considers the vote a strategic withdrawal. According to the AP

While the Senate policy bill authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers.

Of course, the Senate voted on the bill before the most recent poll. Maybe it will give the Senatorial leadership the courage to stop their long march to surrender. We can dream can't we.

On other matters the same Washington Post ABC News poll showed that as to SCHIP funding

More than seven in 10 in the poll support the planned $35 billion spending increase, and 25 percent are opposed. About half of all Americans "strongly" support the increased spending; 17 percent are firmly against the additional funds. Eighty-one percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents and 61 percent of Republicans are in favor.

Those numbers ought to give Sam Graves and the others standing behind the President something to think about. Have you written your Red State congressman yet? Here is a list of Republican loyalists in need of a not so gentle SCHIP nudge.

There's more: "It Is Nice To Know That 7 Out Of 10 Americans Agree With You" >>

SCHIP Passed By Senate -- Vote 67- 29

CNN reports that sixty seven Senators voted in favor of the final passage of the SCHIP Reauthorization Bill earlier this evening. Twenty nine voted against. Four were absent including Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The bill seems veto proof in the US Senate.

The President has vowed to veto the Bill. It is time to write the President and ask him if he is willing to give up his and his family's government supplied free health insurance? After all he has enough money to pay for it out of his own pay. And what about all those Republicans who work in the White House? Why are they sucking off the government health care teat while they are willing to watch little kids go without?

Don't just sit there folks. Do something. Write the President and ask him how he can continue to accept free medical care while he refuses to make sure America's kids have health care. You might want to do the same with your friendly neighborhood Republican member of the House of Representatives.

I have posted a list of the Representatives who voted against SCHIP after the break. If you see your Representative on the list, give him or her a call. Ask if they are going to give up their free health care, or the free health care enjoyed by their families. Ask about the people on their staff. If he or she says no, ask what makes their kids so special. Be polite, but be firm. Tell them to vote to override if the President vetoes. Tell them that if they don't vote to override they might start thinking about finding new career. Tell them children's health is too damned important to be sacrificed on the alter of Republican ideology.


Representatives who voted against SCHIP.

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castor
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hill
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)

There's more: "SCHIP Passed By Senate -- Vote 67- 29" >>

SCHIP Passed By House -- Final Vote Short Of Veto Proof

Last night the house passed the final version of SCHIP 265 to 159 with 1 Congress member voting present. Although an overwhelming vote it is just short of the number needed to override the President's threatened veto. The Senate vote is scheduled for this Thursday and is expected to muster a veto proof majority. This means that unless things change and the President vetoes the current bill, on October 1, 2007, millions of poor and middle class kids will be without health coverage. While most Presidents would hesitate to veto a bill risking the lives of American children, we all know that George Bush has no problem sacrificing the lives of American children on the alter of his goofy Heritage Foundation driven ideology--especially children who don't belong to his social class.

The house has come up with a plan to save our children from President Bush and the Heritage Foundation. According to the AP they are going to temporarily extend SCHIP to give them time to pull together a veto proof majority. Donny Shaw at the OpenCongress Blog points out that "even a modest improvement in the rate of tobacco-state-republican support could have made all the difference with this bill." This suggests that securing the final few votes for SCHIP might require the House to abandon its efforts to fund the SCHIP reauthorization by raising the tobacco tax. It is a truly crazy world where Democrats are going to have to abandon fiscal discipline to obtain a few additional Republican votes to override the ideological veto of a wildly popular bill.

There's more: "SCHIP Passed By House -- Final Vote Short Of Veto Proof" >>

The Red State Update Health Care Plan

While all of the Democratic candidates have a health care plan, few of the Republican candidates have much to say on the subject. Why should they? Hell, poor people don't vote for 'Publicans. Neither do blacks, and the way things are going, they will be lucky to get a single Hispanic vote outside of Miami. Given their support for the veto of SCHIP it is unlikely many women will vote for the party that denies health care to their children. No fear the exclusively middle aged, rich white 'Publican candidates plan to ride that fat old white man redneck fraidy cat vote right in to the White House. Well, at least two Republicans have decided their white male base needs a health care plan. Tonight Jackie and Dunlap announce Jackie's Health Care Plan aimed squarely at the redneck vote. Don't forget the free breast exams. Tonight's funny.

There's more: "The Red State Update Health Care Plan" >>

Conference Set To Adopt Senate Version of SCHIP

The Senate passed it's version of SCHIP reauthorization with a veto proof majority. The House version passed on a vote close to party lines. CQ Politics.com is reporting that in the face of a threatened veto the conference committee is poised to approve a bill resembling the Senate version.

CQPolitics reports

Negotiations are continuing as House Democrats, having conceded on spending and Medicare issues, press Senate leaders to accept policy that some Senate Republicans don’t like.

Child advocates, lobbyists and Senate aides said last week that House and Senate Democratic leaders have tentatively agreed to a compromise renewal of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that would expand spending by about $35 billion over the next five years, to $60 billion — matching spending in the Senate version (HR 976).

A tobacco tax increase would pay for the expansion, including a 61-cent increase in the cigarette tax, to $1 per pack — another element of the Senate bill. And the compromise bill would not include a House-passed cut to Medicare Advantage, a program in which insurers provide health benefits to seniors in place of the government, or other Medicare provisions from the House version (HR 3162).

Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y blamed Nancy Pelosi for the compromise. “I’m very unhappy. It’s not even a compromise. It’s their way or the highway.”

Charlie, on this one I have to agree with Nancy. She can count. You need a lot of Republicans to achieve a veto proof majority. The Senate bill does that. The House bill not so much. Wait until a Democrat is in the White House before you tackle the truly needed repeal of the corporate welfare program known as Medicare advantage. Right now we need to make sure 10,000,000 kids have health care.

Here are links to H.R. 976 and H.R. 3162. Don't be fooled either by the name of the Senate bill or the fact that the Senate bill was originally sponsored by Charlie Rangel. Back in early August the orignal bill was hijacked by the Senate to be used as a vehicle for the Senate's version of SCHIP.

There's more: "Conference Set To Adopt Senate Version of SCHIP" >>

The Heritage Foundation Alternative To SCHIP-- Government Funded Subsidies and Tax Credits Benefiting Insurance Companies

I have been on grandpa duty this weekend so I haven't been able to do much real blogging. My five year old granddaughter has gone home, so I have had a chance to catch up on SCHIP.

First, the just the facts part of this post. On July 24, 2007, H.R.3162 a bill
To amend titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the children's health insurance program, to improve beneficiary protections under the Medicare, Medicaid, and the CHIP program, and for other purposes was introduced by John Dingle (D-MI) and referred to both the Ways and Means and the Energy and Commerce Committees.

CQ.com has a great article on the efforts of the two committees to complete their work. Ways and Means stayed up late Thursday and finished the job. Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee were able to delay a vote. They will take it up again Monday.

On July 26, 2007, S.1893 An original bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes was introduced by Sen. Max Baccus, D-Mt. On the 27th it was assigned to the Senate Finance Committee. That bill is scheduled for a cloture vote at 5:30 Monday afternoon.

The game is a foot. Since there is a September 30 deadline and a threatened veto, we can expect a lot of activity. You can stay abreast of the progress of both bills by following the bill number links to OpenCongress.

Now for something that has been bothering me. I just couldn't believe people like Nina Owcharenko and Robert E. Moffit, the Heritage Foundation's experts, are actually demanding adherence to their ideological beliefs even it means jeopardizing the health and safety of millions of American children. Upon further review, it is pretty clear they are actually insisting America sacrifice the health and safety of millions of children upon the alter of their ideology.

Because I have been posting a lot of video lately, I thought you might find this video from the Heritage Foundation interesting.



Notice what Nina doesn't tell us. Mostly she expresses disappointment that more kids than the original 28% are now covered by SCHIP and Medicaid -- up to 45% of all kids as of 2005 and possibly more tomorrow. She doesn't tell us how or why we reached 45% in 2005. It doesn't have anything to do with reauthorization. That hasn't happened yet. Forty five percent means pretty close to 1/2 of all kids are eligible. Any guesses why SCHIP and Medicaid cover 45% of all kids? First, Medicaid covers kids at or below the poverty line. That is a lot of kids, but that still leaves a lot of kids covered by SCHIP. Why has that number grown?

How about dependent coverage becoming too expensive for a lot of employers and their employees to afford? More and more employers have been dropping dependent coverage for more and more kids. The parents can't afford to pick up the ever more expensive dependent coverage. Middle class incomes have been flat for years. The states have been forced to step in to provide care.

You will notice the nice announcer and Nina, the free market priestess, suggest we need to examine private coverage alternatives. I wondered what those private coverage alternative might be. Lower health care costs? Caps on health insurance company CEO compensation? I was a twitter with anticipation.

Guess what, the Heritage Foundation "alternatives" come in two flavors. First, Premium Assistance. "Premium Assistance" is code for letting the government pay insurance premiums for poor kids. That is cool, for no particular reason other that a religious belief in the "free market," the Heritage Foundation wants Congress to create and fund a giant government program subsidizing insurance companies. Of course, the very fact that they propose a subsidy is proof that what they are suggesting isn't really a free market solution. It is a giant corporate welfare program.

What services would the insurance companies provide? The same wonderful services they are providing us now. If you have seen SiCKO you know what I mean.

The second "private coverage alternative" is proposed by Richard Moffit, the other Heritage Foundation priest assigned to SCHIP. I would link to his article, but it isn't really an article. It is a powerpoint. Great wisdom is imparted by powerpoint presentations these days but you might not have the right software to view it. If you want to view it google “Market-Based Initiatives for the Uninsured.”

If you haven't already guessed, the Heritage Foundation's Moffit proposes another government give away. Let me summarize it for you in about a sentence. The Heritage Foundation calls for Tax Credits to make premiums more affordable. The Blog Of Mass Destruction nails this one.

Wealthy folks can afford health care and therefore, don't need another tax shelter. If average Americans had enough money to save, they would have enough money to pay for health care. . . .

The logic behind Moffit's article goes like this……'tax dollars should be given directly to big insurance companies and already wealthy citizens instead of to the people who actually need the help'.

Of course, the current program is working, and working well. If it isn't broken why does the Heritage Foundation want to fix it? I guess it is religious. The Free Market god is a jealous god. It is pretty clear that like religious fanatics everywhere the "experts" at the Heritage Foundation are, to paraphrase one of Moffit's slides, unwilling to let practical reality trump ideology. I haven't researched it yet, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn that the Heritage Foundation is funded by insurance companies who stand to benefit from the giant corporate welfare subsidies it suggests in the name of "private" enterprise solutions.

There's more: "The Heritage Foundation Alternative To SCHIP-- Government Funded Subsidies and Tax Credits Benefiting Insurance Companies" >>

The Video Press Release

Earlier today I wrote a post discussing an obvious change that has occurred in political punditry during the past months--the increasing use of video as a compliment to written commentary.

That post was a follow up to two I wrote over the last couple of days about Harry Reid and the missing video. The other day Senator Reid failed to make sure a clear, clean video of the reasons behind his pulling the Defense Authorization Bill was available on YouTube. Apparently he depended on the MSM to provide a suitable clip. They universally elected to provide clips of the Republican response. Unopposed the Republicans must have looked pretty good to the uninformed.

It seems to me that Reid and the others in the Democratic leadership have failed to recognize that the blogosphere has changed. That change presents them with a major new communications opportunity. They can now visually go over the heads of the main stream broadcast media by distributing short videos, along with more traditional press materials. All they need to do is put the video up on YouTube and send emails announcing the video along with written press materials to the hundreds (or is it thousands) of on-line political pundits and activists.

I am still trying to figure out Bmaz's comment, but to the extent he is suggesting formal coordination, I don't see the point. The purpose of any press release is to make information available to people writing stories. The reporter uses the information provided as he deems appropriate. If a story has any currency the press release makes the job of the reporter easier and helps shape the reporter's story.

Right now if a blogger asks nearly every congress member will email him a press package on any topic of importance to the congress member. I know. I have asked and congressmen and senators have responded by giving me the same materials they provide members of the traditional press. One item I have yet to receive from any congress member is a video.

That is not to say that others, apparently more media savvy, haven't provided me with access to video material. The other day, I received an email from the Partnership for Quality Care, a SCHIP reauthorization advocacy group. The email contained a press release, some links, a full set of press materials. One of the links was to a YouTube video. While the video wasn't as good as it could have been, it was still pretty good. I used it in a post on SCHIP authorization. The kids are very attractive. I have read just about everything published on the web touching SCHIP during the last couple of weeks. I can confirm that the PQC video has been used by several bloggers.

Candidates routinely send me links to their latest and greatest ad. I am sure we have all received links to video materials from the DSCC and other party affiliated organizations.

It seems elected officials haven't gotten the memo. Bloggers, confronted with the daily need to grind out two or three posts, would love to consider using Harry Reid produced video instead of something from one of the major networks. Think Progress built an entire post around the McCain and Kyl clips. How do you think that post would have been written if they had relevant video from a couple of Democrats?

Right now the MSM produces most of the video linked to political punditry. Inevitably those MSM produced videos are shaping many of the stories we post. I can think of no reason the major networks should be the exclusive video gatekeeper. Can you?

I would really appreciate some feed back. Bmaz tell me more about coordination. Mostly tell me what I am missing.

There's more: "The Video Press Release" >>

Republican Ideology v. The Children, How Many Poor Kids Have To Die On The Conservative Altar?

Donny Shaw provides good coverage of the current status of the SCHIP fight. After you are reminded of what's at stake by watching the video provided by the Partnership for Quality Care, you might want to read BattleSCHIP: The Senate and President Bush Square Off.



The next time you encounter a conservative Republican ask him why he wants to deny poor children health care.

There's more: "Republican Ideology v. The Children, How Many Poor Kids Have To Die On The Conservative Altar?" >>

Three GOP Senators Tell Bush To Back Off Threatened Veto Of SCHIP

I reported on July 8 and then again on July 11 about the reauthorization of the STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM (SCHIP) currently is working it's way through Congress. In my July 11 post I noted that the belief tankers at the Heritage Foundation oppose the SCHIP program as a gateway to "socialized medicine." Beltway conservatives have gone so far as to suggest that the President will veto any bill that doesn't roll the program back to something they approve. CQ.com reports that members of the Senate Finance Committee confirm that administration officials have also threatened a veto. SCHIP is the darling of any number of conservative Republican governors. Apparently veto talk sent shock waves through their ranks.

According to CQ.com reporter Alex Wayne the veto threat has lead three key Republican Senators Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Pat Roberts of Kansas to push back in a letter sent to the administration on Wednesday

“What the administration needs to understand is that if a bipartisan plan isn’t achieved, then the Democratic-controlled Congress will, at the very least, extend the current program with all the terrible policy provisions that have evolved, such as waivers for childless adults and coverage for higher-income kids.”

Fox News says Bush's people now deny that they have ever said the President will veto the reauthorization bill although he reserves the right to veto in the event the program is greatly expanded.

In a battle between ideology and political reality, political reality wins again.

There's more: "Three GOP Senators Tell Bush To Back Off Threatened Veto Of SCHIP" >>

Conservatives Threaten To Play Ideological Politics With SCHIP Program

The other day I reported that reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program was behind schedule. This morning Donny Shaw at Congress Gossip Blog reports that reauthorization is slowly lurching forward. Quoting a CongressDaily (subscription required) article Shaw reports:

The Senate Finance Committee has agreed to a roughly $35 billion package to reauthorize and expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program funded almost exclusively by a cigarette tax increase, committee members said today. The bill, which will be released Friday in advance of a markup next Tuesday, also includes language that will phase out adult enrollment in the program to make room for more children. The $35 billion that comes from a 61-cents per pack cigarette tax is short of the $50 billion allotted for SCHIP under the budget resolution, but Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said the phase-out of adult coverage would allow about 2 million children who are currently eligible but not enrolled in SCHIP to receive benefits. "The compromise that was struck has savings in it because adults are moved off of it so that kids can be moved on to it," said Smith, who proposed an increase earlier this year from the 39-cent tax on a pack of cigarettes.

It is hard to know if Shaw's blog post reflects any real reporting or where that real reporting ends because he concludes his post by citing some typical "divorced from reality" crap found in an ideologically driven Heritage Foundation article. Shaw then repeats the slippery slope argument popular among belief tank Conservatives and concludes

What is certain, however, is that while George W. Bush is President, any real increase in SCHIP --even this modest compromise that is $15 billion below what the Democrats wanted -- will be impossible. The same CongressDaily article explains that Bush is likely to veto the bill and that he will back a Republican alternative that better reflects their policy preference.

Following this story will probably require some real reporting. Sorry Donny, we need somebody who actually reports. Belief tank propaganda doesn't count. The folks who write those things rarely visit the outside world. For example, while SCHIP might be unpopular among the ideologues at the Heritage Foundation, it is very popular with Republican governors, many of whom are running for reelection next year. They are going to be pushing like hell for full funding. Bush, in desperate need of a legislative success, will be hard pressed not to sign the bill. It could happen, but don't count on a veto.

There's more: "Conservatives Threaten To Play Ideological Politics With SCHIP Program" >>

SCHIP Reauthorization Behind Schedule

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was passed by Congress in 1997 as Title XXI of the Social Security Act. The program provides health coverage to millions of children living in families with incomes are too high to qualify for Medicaid but not high enough to purchase other forms of health insurance. SCHIP is jointly financed by the States and Federal Government, but is operated by the States. The program has been very successful.

According to a Families USA report written by Jennifer Sullivan, and Rachel Klein,

SCHIP, together with Medicaid, has served an extremely important role for children: Between 1998 and 2005, the number of uninsured children dropped by more than 2.7 million This decrease is remarkable in light of the growth in child poverty and a significant decline in the number of children whose families had job-based health insurance during that time. Experts agree that expanded coverage for children through SCHIP and Medicaid is responsible for this good news. SCHIP is vital to improving children’s health care. Children enrolled in SCHIP or Medicaid are three times more likely to have a usual source of care than uninsured children. And children enrolled in SCHIP or Medicaid are one-and-a-half times more likely than uninsured children to receive well-child care, see a doctor during the year, and get dental care. SCHIP reduces the percent of children with an unmet health care need.4 Clearly, SCHIP and Medicaid are critical programs that allow otherwise uninsured children to get the health services they need.

Despite these steps forward, there are still 9 million uninsured children in this country. More than 6 million of them are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid but are not enrolled. Although states around the nation are poised to build on the success of SCHIP and Medicaid and cover more uninsured children, many states are stuck with too little SCHIP funding to continue the progress they have made. In 2007 alone, 14 states are experiencing federal SCHIP funding “shortfalls,” and the problem is only expected to get worse with each passing year. Current law assumes that the federal government will provide $25 billion for SCHIP over the next five years. This represents a flat funding rate that does not even provide for any increases to account for inflation or population growth. Without additional funding, more than 1.5 million children could lose SCHIP coverage.

Missouri, my home state, covers children with family incomes up to 300 percent of poverty. In 2007 that means it provides coverage for children in a family of three whose income is less than $51,510. In 2006, the program covered 106,577 Missouri children. Sadly in my state 121,442 children remain uninsured. Most of the uninsured are eligible but their parents don't know how or are unwilling to apply.

SCHIP is a program even conservative governors are proud to crow about. Recently Missouri's Matt Blunt issued a press release describing the budget bill for the remainder of 2007. An increase in SCHIP funding was near the top of his list of accomplishments.

Originally a ten year program, SCHIP is up for renewal. If a bill isn't passed by September 30, millions of kids across the country will lose health coverage. You would think that renewing it would be a no brainer. So did Jay Rockefeller and the other sponsors of S.1224. Unfortunately, S.1224, which was supposed to have been debated and passed by now, has run into a couple of road blocks.

First, in the Alice and Wonderland world of conservative thought SCHIP is considered a gateway to "Socialized Medicine." Late last month Robert Novak wrote a column entitled The end game is socialized medicine for all the 'kids.' Novak begins

There is no need to wait until a new president is elected next year for the great national health care debate. It is under way right now, disguised as a routine extension of an immensely popular, noncontroversial 10-year-old program of providing coverage to poor children. In fact, this proposal is the thin edge of the wedge to achieve the longtime goal of government-supplied universal health insurance and the suffocation of the private system.

Conservative governors, living is the real world, may love the program, but conservative "thinkers," divorced from reality, only see the "slippery slope."

The second roadblock, and probably more of a problem, is H.Res.6 better known as PAYGO. Because the cost of health care is rising rapidly and fewer employers provide health insurance for their low income employers, the government anticipates a significant increase in the cost of the SCHIP program over the next several years. Donny Shaw of Open Congress Blog reports that since

the new Congress established PAYGO budgeting rules for entitlement programs such as SCHIP, they are required to offest the cost of any spending increases for the program. In March, the Senate approved a theoretical plan to increase taxes on cigarette sales for the sole purpose of increasing SCHIP funding. The plan was only theoretical because it was attached as an amendment to the 2008 budget resolution, a bill that sets fiscal goals without any weight of law. . . .

Not surprisingly, the tobacco industry is lobbying hard against the plan. Since they are not the most popular industry, they are publicly taking the position that the tax will hurt the states.

A desire to avoid being seen supporting any tax increase has lead some conservatives to talk about reducing coverage to kids whose family income is 200% of poverty. For a whole lot of children that would be a disaster.

SCHIP is an extremely important program and without doubt it will be reauthorized, but the reauthorization process might be loud and painful.

There's more: "SCHIP Reauthorization Behind Schedule" >>