Last night, ABC “World News” sounded a $50 billion call to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
The June 17 program gave the common media prescription: more money, more government.
“Child advocate believe this problem [uninsured children] could be fixed is the federal government shells out $50 billion over the next five years. But, that is 10 times what the Bush administration wants to spend,” said ABC’s Dan Harris.
“And while the politicians debate, kids and their parents are suffering,” he added.
But viewers didn’t get the whole story, because Harris misled the audience about how much is already being spend on SCHIP and relied on liberal pro-government experts.
Harris’ misleading report left out the fact that the Bush administration is advocating spending $34 billion total over the next five years on the government program. The $50-billion expansion passed in the Senate and by a House subcommittee – which ABC’s Harris made a case for – would increase the program to $79 billion over the next five years.
He also quoted Ron Pollack of Families USA, a long-time advocate of government-run health care.
Casting the issue as a no-brainer, Harris included unfortunate examples of families whose children had health problems. He didn’t include any experts who could have explained the impact on all taxpayers’ families if taxes were raised to pay for it.
He told the tale of one family “cutting out birthday presents and cutting back on groceries.” Adam and Diane Harrison of Dalton, Ga., have a 15-month old son who needs an operation. The family couldn’t afford to buy him insurance, and they made too much money to be covered under Medicaid. Adam is disabled and collects Social Security. So Diane, who works at Wal-Mart, decided to cut her work down from 24 to only 12 hours a week so they can qualify for Medicaid.
This wasn’t the first time Dan Harris has pushed for more taxpayer-funded health mandates. Earlier this month, he filed another story about America’s “crisis of care” that also featured Families USA director Pollack.
Only one opponent of a $50 billion increase was quoted in Harris’ report.
—Julia A. Seymour is an assistant editor for the Business & Media Institute.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Call me crazy... but instead
June 18, 2007 - 18:43 ET by KhyrisCall me crazy... but instead of working less so that you can get a hand-out...
Why not INCREASE her workweek from 24 hours to 40... like EVERYBODY ELSE???
A case study of the flawed "Progressive system"
June 18, 2007 - 19:03 ET by c5thenHere is the exact reason why a "progressive system" of any government program (or tax) is wrong. It treats people differently based on how much they make, instead of the same as demanded by the 14th amendment.
It's the government system that causes the gray areas in the first place. There will always be those who fall just above the cut-off and below the threshold of the ability to pay for it themselves. Here is a family who are paying witholding taxes into the medicade system and are not allowed to utilize it because they make too much money. It's pretty sad that the cut-off is so low that a single income family of 24 hours per week at Wal-Mart doesn't qualify.
The worst part of this program is that it's the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This is obviously a State issue and NOT a Federal issue. Show me where in the US Constitution it allows the federal government to spend funds on the health costs for anybody.
Amendment #10:
The specific powers enumerated in the Constitution are delegated by the States to the federal government. The 10th amendment as shown above specifically says that those not specifically delegated, or prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people if they are not specifically delegated by the people to the States in their own respective Constitutions.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
repost response
June 18, 2007 - 19:10 ET by LionKingLionKing Says:
June 9, 2007 - 11:04
What if Federal funding was provided by the states? Each state and US
Territory would be responsible for collecting taxes to support the
Federal Budget for a given year. Each state's burden could be based on
the number of Representatives they have, US Territories would be
counted as 1.
For example, if the Federal Budget was $435 Billion
for a given year, a state like Wyoming would be responsible for paying
$1 Billion to the Federal government. Each state could use whatever
constitutional means to collect their taxes. Taxation based on
Representation.
The big advantage to this would be, of course , the elimination of the American Gestapo aka the IRS.
That would create 50 smaller IRS's
June 18, 2007 - 19:41 ET by c5thenThe result would be that the States would of course raise their income and or sales taxes to more then compensate resultng in a higher burden for the people. The reality is that the federal Budget is not $435 billion but more like $2.3 trilion or over 5 times your example. Would Wyoming be able to contribute the $5+ billion that would be required under your plan? According to their 2005-2006 budget, they planed on spending $7.3 billion (or $3.6 bilion per year).
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
and your point???
June 18, 2007 - 19:46 ET by LionKingThe people of Wyoming are contributing to the Federal government now. All this plan is advocating who collects the taxes...never said at the state level their may not be an increase. Leave it up the states HOW they collect it. For example, in texas, I would suspect that the Sales Tax would increase since we do not have an Income Tax.
My point seems to have gotten cut off
June 18, 2007 - 20:27 ET by c5thenIt would require a number of amendments to the constitution and would also allow States like CA and NY to have defacto veto power over the federal budget because they would owe such significant % of the total. Perhaps not a bad thing, but it is a completely different structure than was originally setup.
With a drastic reduction in the Federal Government this is an interesting proposal. I'll have to think about it some more!
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
states would be bound
June 18, 2007 - 20:32 ET by LionKingThe idea would be that the states would be bound. I think it would necessarily require that a balanced budget exist. States like NY and Calif have there reps in congress...they determine the budget. That's kind of the beauty of this...taxed according to representation. NY and Calif might start to think about being more fiscally responsible.
It is just a thought...I have not studied all the pro's and con's...certainly welcome input.
On TX taxation
June 19, 2007 - 12:15 ET by UnsaneNot only would the sales tax increase here in TX, but property taxes would also rise. You forget that property taxes are a major source of revenue for not just the state, but for the county, school district, city, and other entities as well.
MAKE WAY FOR THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS!!! THE 1999, 2003, 2005, AND 2007 NBA CHAMPIONS!!!!
wrong, unsane
June 19, 2007 - 12:17 ET by LionKingState of Texas does not derive any of its revenue from property taxes.
Solution to health care *Let Liberals Pay for It
June 18, 2007 - 19:46 ET by Lame CherryI have a simple solution for health care which liberals are always pushing to create the communist state of Amerika.
Have Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo simply create a bill that Disney, ABC, GE, NBC, Redstone, CBS and all the wages except minimum wage of 19,000 grand a year for Hillary, Teddy, Barak and all their employees have their assets converted to this 50 billion and the hundreds of billions more for all health care.
If commie care is so wonderful, let them first prove it by paying for it for everyone for the next 100 years.
How much you want to bet Dan Harris and every liberal drops it when it is their money paying for it instead of someone else's money.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Government Run Health Care
June 18, 2007 - 22:04 ET by River CityThe elephant in the room is that government involvement in health care has created the mess government and socialists are now trying to "fix". A recent study concluded that at least 10% of the added costs to insured and uninsured were caused by government failure to pay at least the cost of the service delivered. How long can anyone survive providing a service at less than cost? The government has the insured and self-pay to pick up its slack. The state and federal mandates add additional costs. It goes on and on and on and on and on . . . . . . . .
These people are using their media friends to convince the American people that they can have the free lunch, something for nothing. The ignorant will believe it because we have given them so many other things without expecting anything in return.
I loved the awestruck gaze
June 19, 2007 - 00:48 ET by daveinbocaI loved the awestruck gaze of Chris Cuomo as Michael Moore started spouting gibberish on the ABC GMA show. Chris should really strap on his cerebral cortex and connect his frontal lobes before interviewing people about subjects more complicated than Texas Hold'em.
Cuomo is a simpleton on the order of Nancy Grace, with a Jersey Soprano vibe to his witless questions and soft-ball follow-ups.