Once again:  McCarthy NO, Costa YES on the reconsideration.

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

heh..spam code XB FED

 I appreciate the link to the good Congressman's e-mail.  I was happy to let him know how I felt about his vote. (big ol' honkin' kudo's)  Even though I'll soon be getting junk mail from him, it was worth it. 

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

Roy, let me address your logic, my son has worked in the same place for 5 years, he has worked his way up to the top job, he earns 40,000 p/year, takes home 2450 a month, his house payment.insurance is 900, his car payment (5 year old van) and insurance is 200, his food bill is 600, utilities eat up 200 more,  credit card payment is 90, and clothing cost/misc about 200.
That leaves him with about 50 a week.  If SCHIP is not given more than the 5 Billion, California is going to have to make cuts, the program is way underfunded.

He considers himself very lucky, no one else at his worksite make 40K.  He is taking night classes at BC, hoping to improve his lot in life with a county job, but he cannot afford private insurance, what does Kevin McCarthy care about more than helping someone working so hard to make a go of it?  It's underlined above Roy.

Heres some numbers for you and our representative in congress to consider:

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.

Source:Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Roy, the 20% is the $5b. Re-read the article. "I want to reauthorize this program and I'm prepared to add to the 20% that I have already proposed." i.e. he's talking about the $5b. He might want to "add" to it, but that amount is unknown.

"Gad" indeed.

I assume you have proof that families are buying new cars (to replace perfectly good older cars) instead of health care for their children, right? You know what that's called, right? Health care is the primary reason for bankruptcy for middle-income families in this country. Not house loans, not personal businesses going bad, not divorce.

But I guess those children should have known better than to be born to the wrong parents, right?

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!

Sorry Roy.

"Bush has vetoed the bill, but his opposition is ideological and partisan. He insists that expanding SCHIP would be a step toward socialized medicine, shift the focus from the poor and cost too much. He has proposed a miserly $5-billion increase that wouldn't even cover the rising cost of continuing to cover the children currently enrolled."

"Grassley rightly pointed out that Bush's plan to increase the program by only $5 billion over five years wouldn't even cover the number of children already in the program."

 

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.

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.)

And you've gotta stop drinking the koolade.   That's not Equal they're sweetening it with.

Random, The Demos will have to take the blame for this one.  You gotta stop reading those far left "Hate Bush" sites.

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. 

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;         ;      

No, Tom, the goose would be the kid with the cell phone and parents driving the tahoe.  $41,000/year income would still be eligible. As I commented in the previous 3 posts on this subject, The max eligibility would be 25% higher than the median income in Kern county. The whole thing is the worst and lowest form of political theatre the Dems have come up with yet.  They had no intention of passing this, they just wanted something to say Repubs are heartless kiddy killers.  Tom, would say say "goose" to the poor kid who's family makes $45,000/year?  Oh, and what good is their health if they are not eating right.  Let's provide them with 3 hot's and a cot too.  You know, kids from $50,000/year families are going to feal left out  so let's include them too.  And who's paying for this?  Fewer and fewer people are smoking while healthcare costs keep going up.  The money will have to come from somewhere else. 

Roy, it's interesting that this is where we need a compromise.  Why don't we line up the kids that would be eligible under the new program and McCarthy can just walk through and put a tag on the kids that shouldn't get health care?

It could be fun for him, like playing "Duck, Duck, Goose".  Except in this case, the "goose" would be the one who doesn't get to see a doctor when they get sick.

Roy, I've got an idea where they can cut the budget.  3 months of the war pays for 5 years of coverage for 4 million kids. 

BTW, I called him about this as well (at the Washington office).  They took my name and told me who would be calling me back.  I'm still waiting a week later for the phone call.

Has anyone ever gotten any response from the Congressman on any issue?

Roy, Bush didn't even want to fund it at its required levels.

Oh, and the Republicans said they would refuse to sign any bill that increased funding before the bill was even written, which is why the Democrats "refused to even talk about" a deal. But that didn't stop several Republicans from signing on, and even co-sponsoring the bill. But it's all the Democrats' fault for "refusing to even talk" to them. Riiiiiiiight.

Face it. This was about the worst thing Bush could veto, and a disaster to any Republican who backs the veto.

The Dems wanted to "stuff " it with an unrealistic increase in funding.  Bush and the Republicans want to extend the program and increase the funding a bit but the Demos refuse to even talk about compremizing or to promise to cut funding elsewhere to offset it.  A veto of the bill as the Demos passed it should have been upheld.

Thanks Mattloch, I was just told they would pass the message along, and he hasn't replied to my email, I sure hope more people call him, my  3 grandchildren and thousands of other kids need their coverage.

I tried calling last week, but Representative McCarthy's "health care" person was in a meeting, and (so far) hasn't called me back with any answers.

No idea why he voted no, no idea if he can change his mind, or what it would take for him to do so.

(I was told that I wasn't the first person to call and ask these questions, so it sounds like he's received quite a few calls from puzzled constituents.)