- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Senate Republicans Want to Cover Kids Too
Email
ShareSeptember 26, 2007 3:25 PM
ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf Reports: Conservative Senators and the White House have taken a PR beating on the Children's Health Insurance Program that Congress is set to renew and expand. Who wouldn't want to give poor kids health insurance? The bill is slowly marching toward its veto. Final votes in the Senate will occur either Thursday or Friday.
Wednesday, Republicans who will oppose the SCHIP bill in the Senate gave a press conference to voice their side of the story. They want to cover the poor kids, they argued, but this bill doesn't cover poor kids. It covers illegal aliens and middle class kids and adults. (Supporters have an argument to refute each of these claims).
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the bill "goes beyond the mission" of giving health insurance to poor kids.
Senator John Ensign, who as the head of the Republican Senate campaign effort could feel the brunt of politically unpopular positions like opposing the SCHIP in the coming general election, said "We are trying to take this issue out of politics and put it back where it belongs, which is to cover children."
"Somebody in New Jersey making 70 or 80 thousand dollars a year… why should my tax dollars be going to pay for them?" Ensign asked. Supporters dispute the assertion that people making that much money would benefit from the program. The Bush administration recently denied a request by New York to extend benefits to families at those levels.
To that end, the number two Senate Republican, Trent Lott, is asking for Democrats to pass an 18 month extension of the program instead of moving now to expand it.
"This is a program for children. And yet its been expanded massively," Lott said. "Lets don't put the benefits going to these children at risk," he added later, implying that the veto and temporary extension Democrats plan could jeopardize the program in the long run.
He pointed out that the SCHIP program began when Republicans controlled Congress in the mid-90s and they, as much as Democrats, want to see it continued.
"We started this program. We want it to work for low-income children."
Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said the extension offered by Democrats and moderate Republicans doesn't focus on covering poor kids at all.
"Its not focused on children," Chambliss said. "This bill allows adults to be covered and that's wrong."
There are some states where the parents of low-income children and some single adults are covered under the program, but supporters argue that under the expansion, those adults would be moved to Medicaid.
Arizona Republican Jon Kyl said the sponsors of the bill don't really want to sponsor the poor kids, but to expand nationalized health care.
"So you can see what is the intent of the sponsors of this bill," Kyl said. "Its to expand the public system."
September 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (4)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
If we want to reinforce an existing safety net to insure low income children, then let's do just that.
Why expand the program to add YET ANOTHER middle class entitlement, cover people who can (or already do) buy private coverage, and therefore encourage people to bail out of private insurance?
Why create an incentive to reduce competition among private insurance companies? That will only jack up rates.
Sounds like one big step down the road to HillaryCare. Less choices, longer waits, more bureaucracy, higher taxes.
Posted by: carl | Sep 26, 2007 4:21:11 PM
Think of all the money to be saved on Health Care, if we just used the Canadian System. No insurance from our employers, more into our own pockets, one section of car insurance disappears, we could retire on less funds if we had universal health care, the taxes would be higher, but, definately would be offset by the savings. Just think of it as Blue Cross-Blue shield, e x p a n d e d.
Posted by: art | Sep 27, 2007 2:06:31 AM
Subprime healthcare
Healthcare dollars don't just fall out of the sky. No matter what, somebody has to pay--us, as either consumers or taxpayers. When the Fed becomes the only entity to control how healthcare is doled out, the costs--and cost incentives--are shifted away from the consumer and onto the government. Federal government has shown ABYSMAL ability to control costs under both parties; it will just raise taxes and reduce choices. (Discretionary spending already rises much faster than inflation!) There will be a shortage of doctors (because they won't be paid as much), and long delays in medical procedures,--like in Canada, Britain, and Europe.
Bottom line: Name one federal agency that you trust enough to run your healthcare??
Posted by: carl | Sep 27, 2007 3:36:38 PM
heres a idea, why doesnt pelosi spend her own money on health care for the illegals she employees on her vineyards out in calif?
why doesnt she pay them a livable wage so that they can afford healthcare?
Posted by: darknessesedge | Sep 28, 2007 5:49:36 PM
Post a comment
