Jon Stewart on SCHIP

Tonight's funny is a really good examination of the SCHIP debate. It is from The Daily Show. Way to go Jon Stewart.



There is a bonus video featuring John Oliver after the flip. It was just too good to pass up.

There's more: "Jon Stewart on SCHIP" >>

Eight Republican SCHIP Nays, Including Sam Graves, Are Being Called Out By The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

The Democratic Campaign Committee has decided to target 8 Republicans with an SCHIP ad. Guess what, Sam Graves of Missouri's 6th District is one of them.

Steven Thomma and Tony Pugh of McClatchy Newspapers are reporting tonight that the

Democrats are airing radio ads to pressure eight Republicans in the House of Representatives to support expanded spending for children's health insurance: Reps. Steve Chabot of Ohio, Thelma Drake of Virginia, Tom Feeney of Florida, Sam Graves of Missouri, Joe Knollenberg of Michigan, John "Randy" Kuhl of New York, James Saxton of New Jersey and Tim Walberg of Michigan.

The ad can be heard at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee website.

More after the break.

McClatchy reports that Bush's SCHIP veto could prove to be a big loser for Republicans.

Two new polls — one nonpartisan and one sponsored by a labor union — showed that solid U.S. majorities want to cut the financing for the war and increase spending on children's health insurance.

Democrats and allied interest groups know it. They're launching ad campaigns to increase pressure on Republican lawmakers in vulnerable seats to support the increased spending — or face great risk in next year's elections.

"This is a fight that Democrats ought to welcome, that Republicans ought to fear," Democratic pollster Geoff Garin said.

"The battle over spending priorities is the most important fight since the showdown over privatizing Social Security," said Gerald McEntee, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "I don't think we need to remind Bush who won that battle."

Apparently, nobody ever told President Bush that "you've got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em." I wonder if Sam Graves learned that lesson.

Blue Girl if you want to know all there is to know about SCHIP at the policy level you should start with the McClatchy story and then move to FactCheck.Org's analysis.

There's more: "Eight Republican SCHIP Nays, Including Sam Graves, Are Being Called Out By The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee" >>

Your Tax Dollars at Work

So President Bush says we can't afford to spend an extra $30 billion over five years to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. But, he wants to spend another $42 billion more just next year for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(side note -- this would raise the total spending on the Iraq war alone to more than $600 billion -- or TWELVE TIMES the $50 billion cost the Pentagon estimated in 2002)

I wonder if the president's request includes money to fix this:


That's an aerial view of a U.S. Navy barracks in Coronado, Calif. It's been that way since 1967.

Since it was not visible from the ground, officials decided not to make any changes.

But aerial photos made available on Google Earth in recent years revealed the buildings' shape to a wide audience of computer users.

Glad we have our priorities straight.

There's more: "Your Tax Dollars at Work" >>

Medicare Advantage Reform Puts SCHIP Reform At Risk

This is the kind of inside the beltway story I find fascinating. Before the August recess the House passed a SCHIP reauthorization bill. The Senate passed its own bill. The bills were assigned to a conference committee for harmonization before final passage. The House bill is more expansive than the Senate bill. Both are several times more expansive than the President wants and he has threatened to veto anything that doesn't track what he wants.

The Senate's version passed with a veto proof majority. The House bill's passage was closer to a party line vote. Harmonizing the two bills would seem to be a no brainer. The conference should agree on a version of the bill that looks a lot like the veto proof Senate bill. Veto threat thwarted. We can all spend our time worrying about other things.

House conference committee members are saying "not so fast." They want their bill. Democrats in the House are serious about PAYGO. They claim that, in part because their bill cuts wasteful spending in the Medicare program, their bill is really less expensive than the Senate bill. They refuse to budge. According to OpenCongress Blog

At the center of the debate in Congress is a controversial Medicare reform provision that Democrats in the House are insisting must remain intact.

House Democrats don't believe we should waste any more tax money on a very expensive but failed conservative experiment--the Medicare Advantage program. Conservative Republicans would rather waste money than face reality.

Never forget that conservative wingnuttery is a civil religion as well as a political movement. At the core of the civil religion is belief that "the free market god" is an all powerful god that is always capable of magically delivering goods and services to the public better and cheaper than the public sector. That belief is an article of faith. Anyone who questions that article of faith is a heretic who will burn in DMV hell.

Some years ago the conservative priests decided to use the Medicare program to prove the power of their "free market god." They enacted a program called Medicare Advantage to demonstrate the magic of the market. Essentially, Medicare Advantage pays private insurers to provide free market health care alternatives to traditional Medicare. By law those alternatives must be as good as the traditional Medicare program. The government picks up the bill. If the "free market god" has the power conservatives believe insurance companies should be able to prosper by cutting the out fat of the government program. They should also provide better services than the recipients would otherwise receive. The worshipers of the "free market god" were so sure of the power of their god's magic that initially they agreed the government would pay insurance companies 95% of what they were paying for the same services under traditional Medicare. That didn't work so soon the law was amended to pay insurance companies the same amount per service the government was paying under traditional Medicare. The free market really isn't magic so that didn't work so . . . .

Over time the per service cost of the program has grown. Taxpayers are now paying Medicare Advantage providers 120% of what we are paying for the same services under traditional Medicare. Adding insult to injury, Medicare Advantage isn't all that popular with seniors. Robert A. Berenson of the American Prospect as the full rundown.

The bottom line is that Medicare Advantage has evolved into a kind of corporate welfare program for insurance companies. It is very expensive and except for a few insurance companies sucking at the government teat nobody would miss it.

The Democrats want to partially pay for expanding SCHIP by cutting Medicare Advantage payments for services back to 100% of the payments being paid by regular Medicare for identical services. A lot of money could be saved without adversely affecting anybody except the insurance companies. Ezra Klein has more.

Did I say corporate welfare? Why, yes I did. Who always favors corporate welfare? Republicans always favor corporate welfare. Maggie Mahar of the Health Care Blog asks the essential question, "Who needs the money more - UnitedHealth or the kids?" A lot of Republicans vote for Unitedhealth.

What is ironic about all of this is that while House Democrats are trying hard to cut fat to pay for the needed SCHIP expansion, Republicans are trying just as hard to protect one of their corporate welfare queens.

There's more: "Medicare Advantage Reform Puts SCHIP Reform At Risk" >>

SCHIP Debate Reaches New Heights Of Stupidity and Snark

I was following the SCHIP reauthorization debate when it wasn't cool. I thought I had heard all the really stupid arguments against reauthorization and expansion of the program, including the President's objection that SCHIP reauthorization might lead “down the path to government-run health care for every American,” but as Matthew Ygleseas reports John Boehner goes him one better arguing against SCHIP reauthorization because the the expanded program will

"(Drag) people out of private health insurance to put them into a government-run program. (It) is ‘Hillary care’ come back.”

Of course, the program doesn't mandate anyone join and is denied to children with adequate health insurance.

The shear stupidity of opposing the reauthorization and proper funding of a popular and successful program for children on the basis of conservative ideology and a burning desire to help tobacco companies has lead to some pretty good snarks.

For example, Dick Meyers of CBSNews.com notes

Having already proven its incompetence in foreign and fiscal affairs, and its arrogance toward the Constitution and the other branches of government, the Bush administration is now determined to show skeptics that it can also be absolutely hypocritical.

Meyers quickly follows that up with a second.

A very experienced colleague suggested to me the other day that President Bush is determined not to squander his historic unpopularity.

Steve Benen of the Carpetbagger Report delivers a real zinger.

As part of a reminder of why congressional Republicans lost their majorities, a handful of top GOP leaders have decided to align themselves with Bush and against healthcare for children.

Again Yglesias on Boehner's fear:

But note here that while it's true that there will be some displacement of private health insurance here, nobody would actually be "dragged" out of the private sector. Rather, people would shift out of it if and only if SCHIP was a better overall deal. Which, of course, it almost certainly will be. Which, as Boehner kind of explained, is exactly why Republicans are dead set against expanding it.

The best snark of all comes from Brendan Nyhan who has been relentless in his reporting of this story. Boehner is really pleading

Tie me to the mast! Don't let me be tempted into government coverage!

Looking back at the stupid arguments advanced by the President and his cronies it is clear that as long as they are in charge crony profits and conservative theory trump all. We can't have health care for every American child can we?

I will leave you with a comment from Representative Diana DeGette, (D-Co), a leading proponent of the House bill, reported in the New York Times

“For the longest time, I was mystified why Republicans would oppose expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program to kids who are eligible but not enrolled. Now I realize. They are trying to deny us a political victory. They want to be able to say that Democrats can’t get anything done.

“Unfortunately, Republicans are pursuing this strategy on the backs of poor children.”

Maybe the only way we can avoid going insane is to snark at the unrelenting evil of Republicans who would deny medical care to poor American children to deny Democrats a political victory. I guess living in denial is what being a Heritage Foundation Conservative is all about.

There's more: "SCHIP Debate Reaches New Heights Of Stupidity and Snark" >>

Rahm Emanuel Says The President Is Flip-Flopping On SCHIP

If you follow this blog you know I have been writing regularly on the reauthorization of SCHIP which provides health care for children who live in families with annual incomes two or three times the poverty rate. The rates vary from state to state based on state authorizations and exemptions. Early on the Democrats proposed a very ambitious plan that would expand SCHIP coverage to children without health insurance living in families with incomes 4 times poverty and in other ways. That plan would cost an additional 50 billion over 5 years. The house passed a version of that initial proposal. The initial proposal ran into problems in the Senate, which is poised to pass a compromised plan that would cost an additional 35 billion over 5 years to be funded by an increase in the tobacco tax. The President initially threatened a veto, then backed off. After consultation with administration ideologues and conservative belief tankers, the President again threatens to veto the compromise bill saying that he believes it would encourage people to drop health insurance. KaiserNetwork.Org has a pretty good summary of the President's position.

Rep. Rahm Emanual just posted short comment on the Hill's Congress Blog. According to Emanuel

Republicans and Democrats in Congress and Governors throughout our nation agree: no child in our nation should ever go without health care. Now, this Congress has the chance to make a down payment on this goal. But one man is standing in the way. President Bush is the lone obstacle separating 9 million children from the health care they deserve. The President’s political posturing won’t heal a sick child or give comfort to a worried parent. Congress is fighting to give kids the care they need. Now it’s time for the President to make our children his top priority.

It's pretty clear that if the President does veto the compromise bill, given its bipartisan support, it is entirely possible his veto will be overridden and he will be denied a chance to claim SCHIP reauthorization as part of his legacy. If he vetoes the bill and the veto stands, millions of poor kids will be denied health care. That will lead directly to a crisis many Republicans, especially governors, running for reelection will find very difficult to survive.

According to Daniel Shorr the President's motivations are essentially ideological. Apparently, like the Stalinists and Maoists of the last century, the President is more than willing to sacrifice the lives of children on the alter of his ideology. At bottom ideologues, be they members of the Politburo or members of the Heritage Foundation, are always willing to sacrifice somebody else's child if necessary to impose their beliefs on society.

There's more: "Rahm Emanuel Says The President Is Flip-Flopping On SCHIP" >>

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?" >>

Bush Changes Course Again And Threatens To Veto SCHIP Compromise

The New York Times is reporting tonight that George Bush has reversed course yet again and is again threatening to veto the bipartisan Senate SCHIP reauthorization bill. If he does veto the bill, there will not be enough time to pass a second bill before the program expires in September. Just imagine Matt Blunt learning that Missouri will not have enough money to fund its SCHIP program and that 106,000 kids are suddenly going to be without health care. If you are a Republican, or if you care at all about children, that can't be a pretty thought. If the President uses the veto pin on any bill that is remotely similar to the Senate version, he will undoubtedly be delivering a massive blow to the already battered Republican party. Senate Republicans can't be pleased.

I suspect that the President is sending a message to House Democrats to scale back any expectations that their much more ambitious SCHIP reauthorization bill will be adopted by the conference committee.

There's more: "Bush Changes Course Again And Threatens To Veto SCHIP Compromise" >>