Conservatives - can you justify the SCHIP veto for me, taking these facts into account?

Question

Many conservatives have said they support the veto because SCHIP is a socialist program. However, so are Medicare and Medicaid. Do you not support them either?

Others claim that people who make $83,000 can afford to pay for their own kids' health care. However, as under current law, a state can ask to go that high ($83,000), typically because it has a high cost of living, but it still needs the administration's permission. The SCHIP goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children, and that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old (over 9% of all children).

The president's alternative is to renew SCHIP by spending an additional $5 billion over the next five years. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says this wouldn't even support coverage of kids already in the program.

Now, justify the veto.

and please, no talking points or Rush Limbaugh rants. Just use the facts to justify refusing to raise taxes on cigarettes to pay for children's health care.

Answer 1

I would veto it because I think if the government is going to use my tax dollars to hand out free healthcare, it should hand it out to ALL Americans.

And no, I do not support Medicare and Medicaid. Can anyone use it? Then it's SOCIALIST.

Answer 2

I am usually a liberal, but if I were going to defend this plan I would point out that if you are making $83,000 a year and do not have health insurance, you do not by choice.

It is a parents responsibility to pay for kids health care needs, if they don't is the state to step in?

People choose not to have health insurance a lot more than they can not afford health insurance. For those living at or near the poverty line this programs was intended to cover, we should still provide that coverage. However as the president is not allowed a line item veto, must either make the choice of expanding government or sending it back to congress to send him bill he can sign.

On a side note, i find it very funny that now that it is a bout a program he doesn't support Bush is all against expanding the government, but he had now problem expanding government spending and creating entities prior to this.

Answer 3

Medicare and medicaid are two of the worst run govt programs out there. The govt never did anything cheaply, efficiently or well. So the answer is no, this Republican does not support them as they are (yes there needs to be some kind of program but these are not them). I think you may need to take a look at the demographics of who this program supports and where it supports them. California and Arizona have high incidences of of individuals using the current program and there are more added every year due to the current influx of illegal immigrants (if the program was limited to only those that are actual citizens in these United States the $5B would be more than ample to sustain the program). However the SCHIP program doesn't do that, it just supports whomever whenever. Not a good program and not what you should want our govt doing.

Answer 4

Well, because it is a cluster of bad ideas that will crash and burn if it works.

Just one case in point - the reason to increase the cigarette tax is to get people to quit smoking, right? So, what happens when that WORKS? Then how is the program going to be funded? Yeah, more taxes for everyone, another defunct system. Has SS not taught us to look ahead???

And if you make 83k a year, have a family of 4, and can't afford health insurance, perhaps you need to order one of Dave Ramsey's products and learn how to budget. That is ridiculous! I make due, and provide insurance for much less. A lot of us do. That was an assine thing to put into this bill.

There were several points of this bill that left the door open for socialized medicine. I'm sorry, but I agree that they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with some more realistic idea's for funding and maintaining these programs, and how to administer them.

I'm not against the concept, I just think this particular bill was a huge error in judgement, and am so tired of hearing "Bush doesn't care about the children"... This veto wasn't about the children. It was about a bad bill with serious flaws and long term ramifications.

Answer 5

You know, a draft of the bill existed that Bush was going to sign. And then this wound up on his desk. How ironic that the Democrats are campaigning on socialist medicine at the same time?

"Others claim that people who make $83,000 can afford to pay for their own kids' health care."

Ummm, if you're making that much money and you can't afford health care for your kids then you need to reprioritize your finances. Maybe move to a more affordable area, drive a cheaper car that uses less gas and turn lights off. Then again, we're talking about a decent salary here. There's no excuses for not being able to manage that money responsibly, other than irresponsibility.

Answer 6

It is not the government's responsibility to provide health insurance in any way shape or form. The role of the FEDERAL government is defined by the Constitution, and the people are protected by the Bill of Rights. Of our Core Democratic Values I don't believe Health Care, or even health for that matters is one of them.

It's time for people to stop heavy reliance on the Federal Government to take care of themselves or their families. The role of the FEDERAL government should be in no way shape or form to provide health insurance for its citizens. I can just see commercials for the new federal government sponsored Health System: "From the company who brought you USPS (a company being run into the ground by private shipping companies), our failing public schools, FEMA, and Segregation Laws comes the new National Heatlh Care System."

Obviously liberals (and conservatives would do the exact same thing if they could) take the issue at hand which is the government's role in health care and form it into an issue of not caring about children. Being a liberatarian and a person who despises Bush, maybe he made the right decision for ONCE. Rather than making the issue about socialized medicine, it is made into an issue of being someone who hates children. It's utter bullshit.

Answer 7

you have have been given to be kidding. you're in actuality justifying discrimination via so stated as Christians based on the reality that Muslims discriminate. this is a bogus argument besides. Did you ever see any information comments throughout the time of the 90s? The professional spokesperson for the PLO grew to become into Leila Shahid. She is now the envoy of Palestine to the european fee in Brussels.

Answer 8

Medicare and Medicaid are socialistic programs, medicare more so than medicare because most of the people that get Medicare have at least paid into it. Medicaid is socialism and is more than it should be, why expand it to those who make up to $83,000 a year and up to the age of 25?

Answer 9

Schip was a purely political act to try to gain a few votes for the desperate liberal democrats. It had nothing to do with children at all. It was a hack job and was correctly vetoed.

Answer 10

"However, as under current law, a state can ask to go that high ($83,000), typically because it has a high cost of living,"

Hi. My state's reckless spending patterns, anti-business legislation, and runaway inflation means that I make more than you but I'm poor. Give me free stuff.

Or.. how do you justify taking money from smokers, who are typically lower income than non-smokers, to pay for middle class 25 year olds?

I'll never support a regressive tax, and I really don't care if you hide behind "the children" in your quest to nickel and dime the poor. Lemme guess, after you tax the poor to death, we'll need to raise taxes again because they can't afford their cigarettes? Get a grip! We've already seen that rental subsidies discourage homeownership and inflate real estate to unsustainable prices. Higher minimum wages lead to lower home ownership and employment rates, and after 40 years of food stamps the number of hungry Americans has risen faster than the general population.

Whoever taught you that government has your best interest at heart worked for the government. I hate to break it to you, but you need to learn that at some point.