October 16th, 2007
08:25 PM ET
7 years ago

Dems turn up SCHIP pressure

Watch Jessica Yellin's report about Democratic efforts to override the veto of the SCHIP bill.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - It was a busy day on Capitol Hill in the political and public relations battle over a bill funding kids' health insurance which President Bush recently vetoed.  Congressional Correspondent Jessica Yellin reports.

Click here to see CNN's new political portal: CNNPolitics.com


Filed under: Congress • SCHIP
soundoff (37 Responses)
  1. Dave, NY, NY

    It is just too bad that nobody wants to hit at the fact that the whole idea of singling out one group to be taxed to pay for the healthcare of another group goes against all the priniciples that this nation was founded on

    October 17, 2007 12:11 pm at 12:11 pm |
  2. Ryan, New York, NY

    When are the democrats going to wheel out some of the 25 year old recipients of the SCHIP program. You know, the ones who will dump their private insurance for the taxpayer subsidized brand at the age of 25. I had a wife and two children by the age of 25. What are these welfare men and women been doing?

    Posted By Jake Doniphan Ne : October 16, 2007 10:09 pm

    Jake, good for you with your kids by 25. I thought in this country we encouraged higher education, though, which for our doctors, lawyers, and MBAs, takes until they are at least 25, with no income. Student loans don't cover insurance, at least they didn't when I went to school. If it hadn't been for my father's insurance plan through his union job (darn unions), I wouldn't have had any coverage. I guess we want to penalize these people who would become our medical staff by not giving them insurance while training, though. They can probably fix themselves, right?

    Also, Michael, Clarksville, AR : October 16, 2007 10:35 pm, you're right all of them have been covered. What about the ones who currently break the current 2x maximum at like $59K and have a similar situation? That's the point that you're so conveniently missing. Prior to their accident, the Frosts were expected to pay $1,200/month for private insurance ($14,400 annually), which would only be a measly 25% of someone's $60K income. Yeah, that would be affordable after taxes, rent/mortgage, food, and other necessities.

    Lastly, why does everyone think that people are going to drop their insurance if they can get some coverage from SCHIP? If all of you complain about how poor coverage will be and how people will have to drive 5 hours, don't you think that if people CAN afford it, they'd pay for the better coverage and skip SCHIP.

    October 17, 2007 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  3. Henry Tucker, Ga

    Notice how Democrats trot out children when they fail to pass socialist legislation??

    Ahhhh – reminisent of the good old days of Bill & Hillary crying about Republicans not caring for the chillllldren.

    No to more taxes!
    No to more social entitlement programs!
    No to European Socialism!
    No to Pelosi and Reid's political child pornography
    No to Hillary-care!

    October 17, 2007 01:23 pm at 1:23 pm |
  4. David, Gilbert Arizona

    What I find most digusting about this entire issue is the blatant deceit by the democrats in Congress.

    SCHIP still exists. Indigent children are still covered by the program. What Bush veto'd is families earning up to $52,000 and in some cases $83,000 annually as well as adults up to the age of 25.

    This is nothing but a political ploy by the democrats to push through universal health care. They thought if they started with the children it would open the door for adults. Well they were wrong. Now they are rolling out children in wheel chairs, who by the way already qualify for subsidized health care, and say Bush veto'd them. Thats a pretty blatant lie and the democrats should be ashamed.

    Unfortunately the average voter simply won't, or can't, do the math necessary to make a qualified judgement regarding the issue.

    October 17, 2007 03:03 pm at 3:03 pm |
  5. Tim St. Louis Mo

    Dear Concerned Republicans,

    I agree that we need to stop the use of Government funding to provide healthcare for rich adults. I read something today that disgusted me it was about a 61 year old man who makes 400,000k a year, and uses Government funded health care. His name is George W. Bush. If he believes enough to veto a bill that would provide health care for children why doesn’t he make all the members of his cabinet start paying their own healthcare cost, and then pay his own healthcare cost. Here are some facts that you should know:
    1. 91 percent of the children being covered under the SCHIP are under the poverty line
    2. The Adults (College students, and Pregnant women) covered have been authorized by two Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

    If Bush is so against Government funding for healthcare he needs to stop all of it, starting with the richest people, like say a rich oil mogul who gets kick backs from Halliburton and has never in his life had to worry about money, never in his life had to choose between giving his children the medicine they need and eating, and never in his life worked a day.

    October 17, 2007 07:12 pm at 7:12 pm |
  6. voteno

    poor kids only thats is the way it should be no adults just poor children,who parents are disabled them selves or making 7.oo an hour faitfully both parents..that child is consider poor...83,000 is more farther to the rich geez i thought 25,000 or less is poor

    October 17, 2007 07:45 pm at 7:45 pm |
  7. Tom Dedham, Mass

    Hi Tim, Bush has signed this bill BEFORE as President, it is the Democrats that are changing it to include layabouts sleeping in Mommy and Daddies basement (25 year olders) and people that earn WELL OVER the poverty line. Well over.

    At the age of 25 I was out of the house and in the service, not looking for a handout from the Democrats, but defending the losers rights to play politics with the poor children, the same poor children that Bush pledges to take care of FIRST, but the Democrats are getting all they can out of this "game" in compliance with CNN and the MSM who reports when Larry Craig farts, but can't REPORT all facets of this story.

    I challenge you to provide me a link or some data that links George Bush with Halliburton, you said it, now prove it.

    Just to give you some backround on Halliburton, the first President to offer them a no bid contract was Bill Clinton, did he have any motives for doing so??

    October 17, 2007 07:59 pm at 7:59 pm |
  8. Keith, MI

    "It's just a way to move towards a total government take over of the health care system."

    And that is bad because... Think about it. There are are basic medical procedures that cost more that the median income for the American household. Private insurance companies make money by avoiding payments. The average pregnancy costs more than the federal poverty level for a family of four. It's not just affecting the poor anymore. The problem permiates into the middle ans sometimes even the upper class. Every single civilized industrial country in the "first world" has universal healthcare but us, and guess what. They like it.

    October 17, 2007 09:38 pm at 9:38 pm |
  9. josh

    This family qualifies for SCHIP as it stands now!!! Why change it? Look how the media is trying to mislead you you sheep! No one is trying to take away this girls health care. What is wrong with you people?

    October 18, 2007 09:51 am at 9:51 am |
  10. John, Abilene, Tx

    The dems are really stretching it low by bringing some dumb kid in to do their bidding. She already quailfies for the program in place. Free health care for families that make $80,000????? you got to be kidding!

    October 18, 2007 06:10 pm at 6:10 pm |
  11. mike, Lubbock TX

    Unless you personally deal with or are covered by government sponsored medical programs, you probably will never understand what they are really like. Many of you are unhappy with the way FEMA handled Katrina. Maybe you are upset that you might not see any retirement money from Social Security in the future. The same problems with management occur in government funded medical programs. As for Truebob in FL, you probably do not work in the healthcare industry. Doctors for the most part are capitalists. Yes, they hire someone to manage their claims. Its called overhead which is a business expense. If the insurance pays at the same rate or less than your expenses, you lose money. This is where Medicaid, SCHIP, and like programs enter. If I'm in the private practice world of your anesthesiology friend, then I probably do NOT take on these patients. I tell these patients to go the medical school where they see the poor patients. This creates a bottleneck at the medical schools. These schools rely more and more on patient service billings than state revenue because states are also pinching pennnies. The schools need to have a mix of payer sources that can cover expenses and keep them from running a deficit (unlike the government that doesn't have to balance its checkbook). So if almost all of these government funded program patients are funnelled into the medical schools and the numbers of patients in these programs increase, then that will increase wait times for these patients to get into see a physician (kind of like the waits heard about in Canada). Its simple economics. If you have a business and one customer routinely pays less and hassels you more, you go to other customers. Medical care is similar. It is already happening to some with Medicare. Because of the proposed cuts in Medicare (up to 40 something % in a decade or less), some private doctors are not taking on new patients with Medicare. I wonder if your anesthesiology friend is doing the same to make his million dollars a year.

    October 19, 2007 11:55 pm at 11:55 pm |
  12. Mike, Lubbock TX

    When you talk about Universal Health Care as the other countries in the 'first world', it appears you are talking about government ran healthcare systems like in Canada and Europe. Hopefully, you are not taking Michael Moore's latest film 'Sicko' as total fact. It has been long documented that these government-ran healthcare models produce long delays in treatment including in Canada and Europe. Recent data suggests these models produce longer lives and less problems with pregnancy and child mortality. You need to remember there also other variables in play here. Healthy habits in societies such as Japan probably contribute much to this improvement of health statistics. The unhealthy practices in the US doesn't help our statistics. When it comes to cutting edge care, the US healthcare system has some of the highest if not the highest rates of success (one in particular is CANCER). This was not accomplished by having a government sponsored or controlled system. Certainly we need to find ways to get healthcare to those who either can't afford it or don't get it because they are worried about the expenses they may incur (people should not be forced to go bankrupt over resonable healthcare). One of the problems with our healthcare model is its successes (the great but expensive advances). If you are among the populus that believes you should have the latest, most expensive medications (Crestor, Plavix, etc), diagnostic tests (yearly whole body MRI's, routine PET scans of the heart), etc than we will need to tax at a much higher rate than what Europe already taxes their citizens and we still may not be able to afford this system.
    On the note of government provided healthcare for all, what do you think about government provided housing, food and drink, and transportation for all? I've heard one individual recently on CNN suggest we should just go to work and the government should provide everything else for us. I believe Karl Marx had this same idea of utopia.

    October 20, 2007 12:24 am at 12:24 am |
1 2