Questions about the SCHIP bill and Bush's veto?

Question

There is a basic thing I don't understand about the bill. It currently costs about $5 billion to insure 6 million kids through the same mechanism. This bill Bush just vetoed would have covered another 4 million people at a cost of $35 billion.

Now I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but doesn't increasing the cost 700% while increasing the coverage 67% seem like a not so great proposition? Does that give one pause to think that Bush might just be right about vetoing that particular bill as written?

Answer 1

Well, that was the whole reason, Bush wasn't opposed to SCHIP, he even wanted an increase in funding, but the Dems just decided to attempt to make a HUGE increase up to 35B and either get it or hope it would make Bush look bad for not supporting kids health care. They really want to incrementally expand government paid health care. Taking care of kids who need some support is fine, we all agree, moving in the direction of helping those who can afford their own in not the American way (at this time.)

Answer 2

by way of sources taxes, you already pay for another human beings's baby to flow to college, whether you do not have babies of your individual. And why now? Why is Bush, 7 years into his Presidency, swiftly appearing like a financial conservative? He in simple terms asked for $70 billion extra (above and previous what we paid final 3 hundred and sixty 5 days) to combat the conflict in Iraq. $35 billion unfolded over 5 years for SCHIP is a drop in the bucket while in comparison with the taxpayer funds being flushed down the lavatory prevalent as Iraq.

Answer 3

I am not a Bush fan at all, but I think Bush was right to veto the bill the way it was written. I think it was one of his few sound fiscal decisions. I know people are say that Bush is against children, but I think the bill was poorly written and would pile on too much cost for the benefit achieved.

Answer 4

You are assuming that health insurance is health insurance, which isn't the case. There are different levels of coverage. Also, the numbers you cite are perhaps just the federal share of the costs. States have to pay the balance.

Answer 5

Your numbers are a little off, but you are ABSOLUTELY correct. The bureaucracy it would have created is insane.

The $35 billion would cover an additional 9 million, including illegals and upper middle class.

Bush's plan of $10 Billion would cover the 4 million. I do understand numbers. That means that $25 million is to cover those who can afford and illegal aliens.

Oh, why are dems against the health of 4 million children? (that is based on the same logic they try to use)

Answer 6

You bring up a good point, but I think the biggest reason he vetoed it, was the fact that they were raising the income limit to qualify to around $80,000. That might cause people with private coverage to drop their health insurance and drain the government system.
SCHIP is supposed to help the poor...I don't consider and income of $80,000.00 to be poor.

Answer 7

That's just by caclucating on pure numbers. The services provided would be expanded as well. So the plan would cover a wider variety of hospitals, doctors, and specialists that it hadn't before. So it would both grow in size and depth. People using the plan would have more options of where to get the medical treatment they need.

Answer 8

Oh, you are just a hate-mongering, neo-con!!

Remember, it's all about the children, all the way up to age 25, and their poor parents, who only make 600% of the poverty level.

How dare you question this fine peice of legislation!!

/sarc!!

Answer 9

well your numbers are absolutely correct....

but for those who keep repeating Bush's 83k per year family coverage claim....that is just dead wrong... read the bill for yourself. The only state pushing for the 83k, is New York...go figure !

The increased cost is for increased services as well as increased enrollement.....which the expanded bill would include mental health coverage, dental, and organ transplants.

Also, for those who keep stating that this is a liberal Democrat brainchild....it is not....it is a bi-partisan bill.

Answer 10

Yes, people have to start taking responsibility for their own actions. If you wanted 4 kids, then support them and don't expect tax payers and the federal government to be putting up the bucks for your lack of thinking. Maybe this will get people to go to college and support their own families, like the way it ought to be.