Mattloch.

According to today’s Bakersfield  Californian,  You are totally WRONG! I quote, “In an

 interview with the Associated Press, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said Bush would be willing to provide more than the 5  BILLION  increase over five years that he first proposed. He declined to say how much additional money was possible. The President knows bad policy when he sees it. He has said as clearly as possible that “I want to reauthorize this program and I’m prepared to add to the 20% increase I have already proposed.”

After the veto Bush immediately signaled a willingness to compromise on a new bill but Congressional Democrats stand firm.   

FAIL

        & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;         ;      

The pResident knows bad policy when he *ENACTS* it.

.

The bill which was passed *WAS* the compromise.  Bush can stick it where the sun don't shine, and the Republicans can pony up the extra votes or lose the votes next November. 

Actually, I'm glad that McCarthy voted no.

I -- and I believe much of middle America -- is getting sick and tired of the kind of liberalism that caters to this little group and that little group while leaving large segments of the working and middle class wondering, "what's being done for me?"

Insuring "the children" is important, but excuse me, the rest of us have pressing problems too.

Such as this:  http://articles.moneycentra...

It's an article about early retirees, but the heart of the article addresses the sort of health care injustices and scruwings-over that need to be addressed first, in my opinion.  These pressing issues afflict the unemployed and those employed without employer insurance as well.

What's being done for these people?

Nothing, as usual.  It's no wonder that so many people view liberalism as "taking from me and giving to someone else."

And like virtually all proposed health care "solutions," it does nothing to unmask, address, and beat down the spiraling costs.  It merely comes up with ways and programs to pay the costs.

In personal budgeting, coming up with ways to pay exorbitant costs without addressing the root cause of the costs is foolish.  Yet that's what both conservative and liberal health care proposals do.

This is another health care idea done wrong, and I'm happy that McCarthy voted against it.

Let's do something right for once.  (Unfortunately, McCarthy probably wouldn't vote for that, either.)

I for one would like to thank the conservatives and Republicans for giving the Democrats a campaign issue in 2008 that can be used effectively against the GOP.

Kudos!

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows what many of us already know—Bush and his allies in Congress are “on the wrong side of public opinion on upcoming foreign and domestic policy battles.”

Specifically, the poll finds Bush and other opponents of covering 10 million children through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) flying squarely in the face of public opinion.

More than seven in 10 in the poll support the planned $35 billion spending increase, and 25 percent are opposed. About half of all Americans “strongly” support the increased spending; 17 percent are firmly against the additional funds. Eighty-one percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents and 61 percent of Republicans are in favor.

---------

A new poll released today by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which provides states with federal funds to design health insurance programs for vulnerable children.

Nearly nine in 10 voters (86%) say they support reauthorizing SCHIP, with a clear majority (63%) saying they support expanding SCHIP's budget by an additional $35 billion over five years.

Matt. Please go back and read my post.  Gad! don't facts register with you. What don't you understand about a 20% increase?  where would additional money come from.  I have already provided  medical insurance for the two I raised.  I should not have to pay for Middle class kids whose parents would rather have a new car every other year than buy insurance for their kids.

Fail again!

On February 23, the Congressional Budget Office issued estimates of the federal funding shortfalls states will face if annual funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is frozen at the current funding level of $5 billion a year, as is assumed under the budget “baseline.”   (A federal funding shortfall occurs when a state has less federal SCHIP funding then it needs to sustain its current SCHIP program, without any cutbacks.)[1]

The shortfalls reflect the fact that the budget baseline makes no adjustment for projected increases in health care costs or in the number of children in the country.  Nor does the baseline reflect the effect of continued erosion in employer-based coverage, which CBO expects will occur.  The CBO findings show:

• States would face total federal funding shortfalls of $13.4 billion over the next five years (2008-2012) if SCHIP is reauthorized and annual SCHIP funding is set at the baseline funding level of $5 billion per year.[2]

• In fiscal year 2008, some 20 states would face an overall shortfall of $1.5 billion.  By fiscal year 2012, 35 states would face a combined shortfall of $3.8 billion.

• The number of children and pregnant women covered through SCHIP at some point during the year would decline from 7.6 million in 2007 — assuming that Congress closes the current fiscal year 2007 shortfalls — to 5.3 million by 2012, a reduction of 2.3 million.[3]  (Total SCHIP enrollment would fall by 2.7 million.[4])

• The net federal cost to fully address these shortfalls would be $7.9 billion over five years.  The net cost is less than the total federal funding shortfall of $13.4 billion because CBO assumes that some states facing shortfalls would shift some SCHIP children into their Medicaid programs, thereby increasing Medicaid costs.  If the shortfalls are closed, states will not have to make this shift and Medicaid expenditures will be lower.  Accordingly, CBO assumes that the net cost to the federal government of closing the shortfalls is $7.9 billion.  (Under pay-as-you-go rules, $7.9 billion is the amount that would need to be offset.)

• CBO estimates that over ten years, SCHIP funding increases of $47.1 billion are needed to sustain state SCHIP programs and close the shortfalls.  CBO estimates that this would result in a net cost to the federal government of $28 billion.

Last word! just another redistribution of wealth Welfare program....

Roy and Dril..this must mean you hate the poor and the children.  I'm shocked. 

heh..spam code XB FED

Once again, your U.S. Congressman voted no to  Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 McCarthy, Kevin [R] (source: http://www.govtrack.us/cong...