Many Republicans and most Democrats in Congress seem to agree on at least one thing: President Bush is full of crap. Not about Iraq. Virtually all Republicans disagree with the rest of us on that. No, what they agree on is that the federal government should expand, not deep six, the Children's Health Insurance Program. 7.4 million children were covered at one time or another last year but it will expire on September 30. For 6 months a bipartisan group in the Senate Finance Committee has been crafting a compromise bill to cover the 8 million children in the US with no health insurance at all. For many Democrats it falls short but better than nothing. But "nothing" is what the Bush administration wants:
Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said: "The president?s senior advisers will certainly recommend a veto of this proposal. And there is no question that the president would veto it." (New York Times; hat-tip Tennessee Guerilla Women)
The bipartisan compromise would increase spending over the next five years to total $60 billion, reducing the number of uninsured children by 4.1 million. So what's wrong with it? The current Congress (Democrats) doesn't want to spend money it doesn't have so it will raise the money by increasing cigarette taxes. This will have the salutary effect of reducing smoking, saving even more money. But the Republicans and Democrats on the Finance Committee forgot to read the President's lips:
Mr. Fratto, the White House spokesman, said, Tax increases are neither necessary nor advisable to fund the program appropriately."
[snip]
White House officials said the president had several other reasons to veto the bipartisan Senate plan.
"The proposal would dramatically expand the Children?s Health Insurance Program, adding nonpoor children to the program, and more than doubling the level of spending," Mr. Fratto said. "This will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage, to go on the government-subsidized program."
In addition, Mr. Fratto said, the Senate plan does not include any of Mr. Bush's proposals to change the tax treatment of health insurance, in an effort to make it more affordable for millions of Americans.
So no health insurance for uninsured children, even if paid for by people who are costing the rest of us money by their behavior. No health insurance for uninsured children, because the only people who should get government subsidies are friends of George W. and Dick Cheney. No health insurance for uninsured children, to protect the private health insurance industry.
I get it. I think we all get it.
- Log in to post comments
Seeing as the US infant mortality rate was declining until the year 2000 (I believe SCHIP kicked in around 1999?)
Makes one wonder if there is some kind of negative correlation between the two.
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/ (see Chapter 2 page 58)
Disturbing that Malaysia and the US have equivalent infant mortality rates; and if you're African American (living in Washington) you're better off moving to Uruguay to give birth to your child.
Not that I'm knocking any of these countries, in fact its the opposite. They are able to achieve this without the enormous sums of money being squandered in the US.
Big Tobacco - 1
Children - 0
I understand the use of taxing tobacco products: the tax does not attract much attention compared to an income tax or sales tax. However, isn't there a bit of a problem in relying on cigarette taxes to subsidize a long term program? There are many programs dedicated to reducing the amount of smoking, and rightly so. Will that not reduce the tax revenue that will fund this program?
I'd also like to see how effective / efficient the program is before I start lobbying for it.
This country is indeed lost in the abyss when our president is protecting the health of a handful of insurance companies and tobacco producers over millions of children.
Omega questions using ciggie tax to fund a long term program. Why not a gun tax? Or a car tax (they pollute, cause illnesses, kill..)? Etc., etc. Why should one lot of companies, big tobacco, be penalised (presumably they will sell less and suffer loss of image, etc.) while others are not? It makes no sense and is contrary to the quote free market. It is a piece-meal approach, bound to fail, as it apparently did. One suspects that everyone knew this in advance.
(Better than nothing, of course; and I am all for taxing the hell out of cigs, just in case anyone surmised I work for Philip Morris.)
I am not tremendously familiar with SCHIP, but from what I understand, isn't it a program that offers subsidies to uninsured children so that they can buy private insurance? How would that hurt private insurance companies; wouldn't it give them more business??
Also, Ana--good luck trying to get a gun tax by Bush. I think that, right now, "Big Tobacco" is the most popular bipartisan villain that we have. Even though a lot of your proposed taxes would make sense in the long run, I just don't think America would embrace a hike in car insurance as readily as they would sticking it to the tobacco industry.
If gasoline leaping past $3.00 a gallon has not stopped America's car obsession, it is highly doubtful that a car-tax will curb poisonous emissions by reducing vehicles on the road.