Why Is It That In The Media's Story About President Bush's Veto...?

Question

Of the bill to raise the income level of those who can get free health care, they fail to mention WHY he vetoed it. No where in the article does it mention that it raised the income level of eligibility well above $80,000, effectively changing what the bill was intended to do in the first place: help families who make too much to receive medicade but don't make enough to afford quality health care.

Hanoi Reid even went as far as to say that "President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America."

When did making over $80,000 a year equate to "low income"?

Why does that figure seem to be conspicuously absent from news articles?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health

Sorry, here are the figures, for the U.S. Government poverty guidelines.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml

To figure out who will get how much, see Libstickers post and do the math.

And more resources, just for good measure.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/nc09_myrick/8107schip.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/the_creepy_debate_on_schip.html

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1546.cfm

http://www.cclponline.org/pubfiles/SCHIP%20Reauthorization%20Debate.pdf

http://www.aradvocates.org/_images/pdfs/ARadvocates_SCHIP.pdf

And, to answer some peoples questions and to address other's statements. According to the bill, states can amend the bill and change the percentage over the poverty line, to adjust for Cost of Living (New York already allows some families that are 400% over the poverty line) Again, see Libstickers post.

Answer 1

He it is from the bill that supports your conclusion.


SEC. 114. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.

(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-

`(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.

`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'.

(b) Rule of Construction- Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be construed as--

(1) changing any income eligibility level for children under title XXI of the Social Security Act; or

(2) changing the flexibility provided States under such title to establish the income eligibility level for targeted low-income children under a State child health plan and the methodologies used by the State to determine income or assets under such plan.

SEC. 115. STATE AUTHORITY UNDER MEDICAID.

Answer 2

I've read so many different figures in this bill, from various sources, I don't know what to believe. When will media just report the facts without the spin? Where can the truth be found, not on Fox or CNN? I'd really like to know. I allow mail.

Answer 3

Because they rely on the fact that their "progressive" base just laps up whatever is vomited from their mouths and in turn regurgitate it until it becomes truth for them.
......
Congress will vote this week to override the President’s veto of a bill that calls for a massive expansion of government run health care. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was supposed to help insure children in families that just miss qualifying for Medicaid. But, instead, states like New York have used it to cover families that already have private insurance making up to $62,000 per year and states like Wisconsin are covering twice as many adults as children, leaving some poor children uncovered.

For two weeks, congressional leaders have paraded innocent children in front of the TV cameras saying that opponents of the bill want to take health insurance away from them. In fact, this bill is a fraud. They know that this bill will overturn a ruling that states must certify 95% of their uninsured poor children are covered before covering anyone else. They know that right now these states have left 750,000 poor children uncovered while expanding the program to adults and more affluent families because states have used the money to cover other people and then complained because they ran out of money.

The supporters of this bill know that the Congressional Budget Office itself has shown in a study that an overwhelming 77% of children that would be included in this expansion already have personal health insurance. As they start going off the private insurance rolls and on to government run programs, the premiums for those still holding private coverage will rise. This in turn will encourage more people to sign up for the taxpayer-funded programs.

Everyone knows that almost anything government runs is less efficient than the private sector and health care is no exception. The cost per child in private, personal health care coverage is $2,300 while it costs the taxpayer $4,000 per child in SCHIP. Worse is the inability to get needed care. Paul Howard wrote in the National Review Online on July 31st of the case of the Garrett family in Michigan fully covered by Medicaid. When Nicole Garrett’s daughter developed painful joint inflammation and needed to see a specialist, she turned to her Medicaid plan only to find there was but one rheumatologist in her network and the wait to see him was more than three months.

Answer 4

Hmm where did you get the figure then? I agree with you on the numbers. I am opposed to the bill but I think this media conspiracy theory is very tired. We all know that the income limit was going to be raised to $80,000 in some cases and we all heard it from the media. Where is the cover up?

Answer 5

To make a blanket statement to all media outlets demonstrates is silly. Reid, well, when is the last time your heard a politician talk about something offering two opposing arguments fairly and squarely. George Washington maybe...

Answer 6

for various motives than maximum of the human beings of Republicans that antagonistic adjustments. The Dems needed regulation on inner maximum economic institutions additionally. The Republican majority needed no regulations in any respect. Hagel ought to no longer convince the Republican majority, so it never went to a vote. Dems on the time had no potential to end a vote, in straightforward terms Republicans did.

Answer 7

They also fail to mention that 'child' is anyone 25 or under. I thought we became adults when we turn 18? Or maybe 21? 25 is a little old, if I live to be 100 then 1/4 of my life is over.

let's face it, the liberal media finds

"Bush hates children, vetoes bill"

a better headline than

"Bush exercises critical thought, fiscal restraint against socialist endeavors".

Answer 8

So middle class kids with no insurance aren't important enough to go to the doctor?

What about the entrepeneur who's starting his own business- can his kids go to the doctor, or is he required to work for a large corporation to make sure his kids can get medical attention? The free market would benefit from universal healthcare, in every sector except the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Imagine how freed up your boss would be if he didn't have to cover health insurance for your wife and kids!

Answer 9

$80,000?

Where did you come up with that figure?

I heard Trent Lott say 50,000 on Fox yesterday.And that was for a family of four.I have heard 80,,000,but it's never been explained how that number was being applied,or to whom.

Why do you guys have to lie in support of your positions?

Because they can't be honestly defended?

Answer 10

It also defines a "child" as being 24 or younger!! Are you kidding me?? At 24 I was out of college, married, full time job and a house...how is 24 a "child?"