According to the media's parade of children who need government assistance for insurance, President Bush must really just hate children. After all, he vetoed a bill today that would have expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Leading up to the October 3 veto, the media couldn’t resist scripting it as a vote against children.
The Christian Science Monitor called it “a vote against health care for poor children” on October 1. CBS's Thalia Assuras worried about the "kids caught in the middle" on August 1 "Evening News."
What’s at stake, though, included a proposed $35-billion expansion of taxpayer-funded insurance made possible by a huge tax increase on tobacco users many of whom are poor -- burdening the same families the program is designed to help.
Business & Media Institute today examined media coverage of the legislation and pointed out Bush's own expansion plan, his objections to the bill passed by Congress and the liberal talking points that the media used to back the expansion. You can find our complete analysis here and sign up for our weekly newsletter The Balance Sheet to learn more.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Here it comes!
October 3, 2007 - 14:47 ET by motherbeltDemocrats want a $35 billion (140%) increase in the program. Excuse me, but on what planet is that considered responsible???
And what is the program costing now, that the extra $35 billion is going to get tacked onto? (I'm too angry to do the math.)
President Bush would agree to a $5 billion (20%) increase. Since when is a 20% increase in ANY program considered to be chump change?
Want to bet the Democrats try to portray this as a "cut"?
(this post edited at 1540, for additions.)
Excuse me, but isnt
October 3, 2007 - 14:49 ET by JimboExcuse me, but isnt this wealth distribution at its finest?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Already there.
October 3, 2007 - 14:57 ET by dervishIt's been said for months now that Bush's proposed $5 billion increase won't be enough to maintain the plan for children already covered by it. Whether that's true I don't know, but I'm skeptical.
Another hidden tidbit is that a fair chunk of the money the Democrats want would be used to restore a planned cut in physician payments under Medicare. I think you have to be a liberal to understand how exactly that translates into caring about poor children.
I'm not sure I'm
October 3, 2007 - 16:30 ET by motherbeltI'm not sure I'm understanding you... are you saying they plan to finance this by taking money that would have gone to restore higher payments to doctors under Medicare?
No, part of the $35 billion
October 3, 2007 - 16:52 ET by dervishNo, part of the $35 billion they're demanding would go to restoring those payments. I would suspect that might be a reasonable goal, since Medicare isn't known for being a lucrative source of income for physicians. But physician income doesn't play as well in the political theater as poor kids without access to health care.
OK, gotcha. But you're
October 3, 2007 - 17:02 ET by motherbeltOK, gotcha. But you're right, the doctors wouldn't draw much sympathy; that's why they're not highlighting that part of the plan very much.
The doctor/medicare thing is another situation where liberals are in fantasyland. They really think to save money, they can just cut payments to doctors. And they think all doctors will continue to treat Medicare patients.
mb--
October 3, 2007 - 21:53 ET by dervishDon't quote me on that Medicare provision. I tried to sort through the summary of the bill posted on the senate.gov website and didn't see this particular part. I know it was in one of the preliminary bills, but it might have been taken out before it passed the Senate. Or it might be buried in the mumbojumbo someplace. I'll look some more and report back...
d
Here You Go Dervish
October 3, 2007 - 23:31 ET by stratmanThe following link is to a recent post of mine on this subject that relies in part on the AMA's own reporting of the SCHIP debacle. Of course, the AMA supports a $50 Billion increase as originally proposed by Democrats and are just jim-dandy fine with eligibility beginning at 400% of federal poverty levels for a family of four ( 400% X $20,650 = $82,600) but not the 14.9% decrease in reimbursements from CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) over the next two years (2008-2009). The AMA political arm are fence-sitting, action paralyzed fools who are so afraid of having the change in their pockets stolen that they don't realize their wallets are being picked.
For more details, see here.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Time to take the gloves off..............
October 3, 2007 - 14:44 ET by BrillianceI would like to see a flood of public service announcements depicting the cutest, cuddliest children possible holding up signs that read "Thank you for not aborting me" or "I'll need to make it out of the womb before I'll need health care" or maybe one with a little girl "Mrs.Clinton, please don't kill me, I want to be President one day too!"
Brilliant !!!!! Of course
October 3, 2007 - 15:12 ET by MassConservativeBrilliant !!!!!
Of course anyone who put these commercials would be accused of "Swiftboating" poor Hillary.
The fact that they are facts (based on her pro-abortion stance) would, of course, be irrelevant.
"There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them." - Tom Delay
This was a Trojan Horse
October 3, 2007 - 14:49 ET by mattmThis was a Trojan Horse attached to a program renewal bill. The trick was designed to get Government-Run healthcare intrenched.
I hope the President's veto actually eliminates the whole program, which is nothing but a waste of money sicne any service covered is still available to poor people through other programs.
It's just more trickery from the DemonRATS.
S-CHIP is fine. Im for it.
October 3, 2007 - 14:52 ET by bassndudeS-CHIP is fine. Im for it. It can replace medicade, and we can dump that program. Think the dems will go for that?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
We're doing it for the Children!
October 3, 2007 - 14:55 ET by Free StinkerOur motto can be:
"We're doing it for the Children!"
. . . and no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force. --P.J. O'Rourke
Political human shields
October 3, 2007 - 14:55 ET by nkviking75Democrats are shameless. They're willing to use children as political human shields to get their way.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Rep Stillson from NH
October 3, 2007 - 21:28 ET by UnsaneGreg Stillson is surely their hero.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
This is no different
October 3, 2007 - 14:55 ET by JimboThis is no different than school education budgets in my district that continue to get passed that allow teachers to have health benefits that they PAY NOTHING FOR. That's right folks! They don't kick in a dime for their helath insurance. But every time a vote comes up, it's always the same old argument. "How can you vote no when your kid's education is at stake?"
No different I tell ya!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Jimbo, I heard something
October 3, 2007 - 16:58 ET by motherbeltJimbo, I heard something on a local radio show that illustrates that fact perfectly. A man called in to protest the newest teachers' contract, under which teachers would no longer contribute to their medical insurance plan; the district (i.e. the taxpayers) would cover it all. He said that he owned his own business, and he really resented the fact that he had no choice and was having his taxes increased to pay for medical insurance for teachers, which left him with too little to buy insurance for his own family.
Liberals love to trot out teachers, police, children, seniors, whoever they can use (and I mean use) to pitch their plan. Maybe it's time to trot out some of the people who have to foot the bill for this gravy train.
I'll Sum it up even better
October 4, 2007 - 08:39 ET by JimboI work for a major north east health insurance company that insures almost 6 million lives. There is one group and ONE GROUP ONLY that pays nothing for their helath insurance benefits. You guessed it - THE TEACHER'S UNION. As a result, the cost for the coverage the school boards pay is ASTRONOMICAL. Every penny is then passed to the local taxpayers.
Even we, who work for the company, pay a considerable percentage of our own coverage. It is an outrage, pure and simple that my children are being used by a union to strongarm their benefits. They are no better than the teamsters, longshormemen, etc. Problem is, half the public doesnt even recognize that it IS a union!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
for days on the radio they
October 3, 2007 - 17:09 ET by pepsiman127for days on the radio they pounded away on this upcoming Bush veto at the top and bottom of every hour relentlessly. No matter what the affiliate, it was the exact same drum beat..boom boom bush hates kids... boom boom.. bush is evil..boom boom..here's dingy harry to tell us why...boom boom..its official bush hates poor children...it seemed very coordinated like it had to come out of the special fax machine in the corner
Tip of the iceberg
October 3, 2007 - 17:15 ET by SlicksterSCHIP,Hillary's $5000 children's bond scam,proposed carbon tax, just wait till the primaries get underway then we will really see the tax increases for imaginary benefits.
Many pages of the old Dem
October 3, 2007 - 19:34 ET by Conservative_in_mass.Many pages of the old Dem playbook in this bill. Ahh yes, the children, we need to do more for them. So we are looking at boosting the program by over 100% for exactly what reason? Every state has a program to provide health care to minors if they pass a needs test. Here in Mass, it's the ability to fog a mirror placed in front of your mouth.
I can't help but think this will be expanded to ensure coverage for another wing of Democratic support...children of illegal aliens. It will also make for a nice precurser to socializing medicine for all: classic Dem incrimentalism.
Dramatic increase in size and funding.
expansion of eligibility.
precurser to a much larger program (Hillary care)
another benefit for criminal illegal aliens.
Aren't we taxpayers lucky...
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Of course I want to pay higher taxes...
October 3, 2007 - 20:35 ET by Dave R...so that families making $82,000/yr won't have to burden themselves paying for their own childrens healthcare.
I just wish the dims would make up there minds as to who the "rich" really are in this country. One day, its anyone who actually has a job. The next day, it is people making 82 grand that need government assistance.
Confoosed, I am.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
}}---> Julia, get ruthless
October 4, 2007 - 04:12 ET by Cool ArrowWhen you report on the tobacco tax "huge tax increase on tobacco users many of whom are poor" I think you minimize the extent to which existing smokers are poor. The rich have already quit smoking.
What say we continue to laud the Dems for their focus on taxing the poor?
It's nice the Dems are so concerned that the poor have too much money. And please mention it's not really the rich who play the lottery religiously. I don't buy a ticket until it reaches $70 million or more (not rich, just aware of the odds). Scratchoffs? Forget it.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
The gov't shouldn't be in
October 4, 2007 - 11:24 ET by rbosqueThe gov't shouldn't be in the business to pay for medicine. Especially for 25 year-old "children".