Home › News › Local News
Bush vetoes child healthcare bill
Advocates of insurance program to seek override
Download this story as a podcast!
WHAT IS SCHIP?
The State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as Healthy Families in California, covers 800,00 children, including 18,000 in the county.
THE LEGISLATION
The bill would have provided $60 billion in funding over the next five years.
WHAT'S NEXT?
Democratic leaders may put off a veto override attempt for as long as two weeks to maximize pressure on Republican House members.
President Bush walks to his helicopter Marine One, Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2007, after vetoing a bill expanding a popular health care program for children by $35 billion. Bush was leaving for a day trip to Lancaster, Pennsylvania. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsWASHINGTON — President Bush made good Wednesday on his threat to veto legislation that would have expanded a popular children's health insurance program, setting up a showdown with Congress and putting at risk a similar effort in California to insure more families.
Bush, in only the fourth veto of his presidency, said he rejected the bipartisan bill because it would "move healthcare in this country in the wrong direction" and would mean that "government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children."
Democrats, however, condemned the president's action as irresponsible and accused him of denying healthcare to millions of low-income children. They warned they would do everything possible to override his veto.
"It is our children who will pay the price for the president's veto," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
"He is putting partisan politics ahead of our children's health," said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara.
Supporters already have the votes needed to override the president's veto in the Senate, which voted 67-29 to approve the legislation. But in the House, where the bill passed on a 265-159 vote, backers will need to find 25 more votes.
Democratic congressional leaders said they may put off the override attempt for as long as two weeks to maximize pressure on Republican House members whose votes will be critical.
"We remain committed to making SCHIP into law — with or without the president's support," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., using the acronym for the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Rep. Elton Gallegly, a Simi Valley Republican who voted against the bill, said the Democrats' decision to delay the override attempt shows their goal is to score political points, not to provide health insurance to children.
"This is a classic case of the ugliest part of our government process, which is taking something as critical as the healthcare of children and turning it into political spin," Gallegly said. "Today is a day that I think is an embarrassment to this institution."
The legislation, a compromise package pieced together by negotiators for the House and the Senate, would expand the health insurance program, which currently covers 6 million children nationwide.
The bill would provide $60 billion in funding for the program over the next five years — a $35 billion increase over the current funding level.
Gallegly agrees with Bush
Bush, who wanted a $5 billion funding increase, argued the plan approved by Congress would be far too expensive. It also would take the program too far from its core mission of providing health coverage for the poor, he said, and would allow people who have purchased their own insurance to cancel that policy and switch to government coverage.
Gallegly said he shares the president's concerns.
"I understand where the president is, and I agree with him on this issue," Gallegly said. "Let's look at the history of SCHIP. It was the Republicans who created SCHIP, and it is the Republicans who clearly want to continue on the original mission."
Bush's veto could have serious repercussions for California, warned Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy group.
In California, the program is known as Healthy Families and covers 800,000 children, including 18,000 in Ventura County. Families with an income of 250 percent of the federal poverty level — or $51,625 for a family of four — qualify for the program.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to enroll families earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $62,000 for a family of four.
But the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put new standards in place in August requiring states that enroll families earning more than 250 percent of the federal poverty level to make sure the child has been uninsured for at least a year.
The Bush administration also imposed a number of other strict new standards that would have impeded California's effort to expand the program.
The legislation that Bush vetoed would have rolled back those regulations and enabled California to move ahead with its plans.
Unless Congress overrides the veto, California will not only be prohibited from expanding the program, but the state will also have to drop as many as 250,000 children who are currently insured under the program, Wright said.
"California has done a good job in recent years of enrolling children and has used some of the money that was saved in early years when we didn't have as many children enrolled," Wright said. "But the current flat funding of the program means hundreds of thousands of children will need to be disenrolled unless a solution is found."
While some conservative Republicans, such as Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Charles Grassley of Iowa, supported the bill and scolded the president for his veto, the only Republican in the California delegation to vote in favor of the legislation was Rep. Mary Bono of Palm Springs.
If the 18 other California Republicans could be persuaded to switch their votes, the House would be close to the margin needed to override the veto, Wright said. He suggested Schwarzenegger and grass-roots groups in favor of the bill target those Republicans.
It's about kids, Capps says
Capps said she planned to thank Bono "for sticking her neck out" and to see if there's a chance some other Republicans might be persuaded to switch sides.
"It's clear and simple what this is about," Capps said of the legislation. "We've heard enough of these arguments that it's big government. It really is talking about children."
But Gallegly, for one, said his mind is made up and that he will not even consider overriding the president's veto.
The program expansion outlined in the bill "goes well beyond the principles and the issue of eligibility for the poor in this country," Gallegly said. "This (bill) is not what my colleagues on the other side would like you to believe it is.''
— The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Posted by whalevideo1 on October 4, 2007 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This insurance is so crucial and has helped many people and keptchildren healthy and taken care of.
I pray that God would find favor with the low income people.
Posted by thorvet on October 4, 2007 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kingsfan did tell the truth-almost. The bill would entitle people making 83K a year to be covered. If people are making 83K a year, chances are THEY HAVE A JOB! Which means THEY HAVE MEDICAL INSURANCE! 87K a year is not poor (we make less than that, thank you) unless you decide you have to live in a $2 Mil house! This is a ploy by the Democrats to make Bush look like he's against the poor. If Bush signed it, then they have their first step to socialized medicine. If he vetos it, then he's "an idiot", "mean", "a cold-hearted frat-boy", and "the worst president we've ever had". The Democrats don't want to work with the President, they want to see him and the GOP completely discredited with their lies.
Posted by Just_wondering on October 4, 2007 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for pointing out the facts to KingsFan jw1000. When it costs $10,000-$12,000 a year to have private coverage for a family of 4 on a $51,000 income, it really doesn't leave much for anything other than the bare necessities like shelter & food. And yes, that is what it costs for comprehensive coverage for a family of four...I know because I pay it, but thank goodness my family is lucky enough to be able to afford it. Investing in health care for children is probably one of the best things we can do for the economy long term. Besides, we are paying for uninsured kids now through emergency room visits that should be doctor's visits. It is just an extremely inefficient way to administer healthcare.
Posted by thorvet on October 4, 2007 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone had money for expensive ringtones and lattes and smooties, but not money to buy insurance for themselves.
Posted by Just_wondering on October 4, 2007 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Where are you people coming up with $83,000 as being the cut off? Right now with the cut off of 250% of the Federal Poverty Level, the amount of money a family of four could make for the kids to be covered under existing programs, which are Healthy Families or MediCal is $51,600. if you have a family of 8, then the amount would be $83K. Thorvet - you are assuming that one person in a household is making 83K a year. You are not taking into consideration that most of the families we are talking about are two income families, so that would be roughly $41,000 a year per adult which in many instances is not a job that would provide health insurance.
Posted by sslocal on October 4, 2007 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is not the Gov. job to make sure you have health insurance. Why would you want to create such a huge bureaucracy anyway? Just another way to increase control over out lives. You make 80K a year you can afford to buy your own.
Kingsfan is right.
Posted by thorvet on October 4, 2007 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/...
Read 11 paragraphs down. $82K a year.
Posted by rjlebeck on October 4, 2007 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's see if i have this straight. President Bush wants $190 BILLION a year to fight a war on principle that results in the deaths of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children in the name of democratic freedom, but refuses to fund $5 BILLION a year to ensure the health and well-being of children in our own country. Apparently, it's good and proper to try and improve the lives of the Iraqis with our instruments of war, but not OK improve the lives of children in our own country through instruments of peace.
Shame on you Mr. President and shame on you Mr. Gallegly for your warped and misplaced priorities.
Posted by thorvet on October 4, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He's not refusing to fund 5 Bil. He's refusing to fund an additional 35 Billion to the already 5 Billion. He has already stated that he wants to fund more. Just not 35 Billion to people who make up to 82K a year.
Posted by Just_wondering on October 4, 2007 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Instead of taking your "facts" from newspapers, maybe you should do some research into the actual contents of the bill.
Posted by thorvet on October 4, 2007 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And where do you get your facts from? CNN? LA Times? They are liberal mouthpieces too!
So did you find a link to the actual contents of the bill? Please post it.
Posted by Just_wondering on October 4, 2007 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I get my facts from the source http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c110query....
Posted by sslocal on October 4, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Read the bill in the link Just_Wondering provided. You may just change your mind.
Not everything the Dems put out is made of gold. Same with the other side. It is up to us to keeep our eye on them to make sure we are not being screwed.
This bill would have screwed us. Same as most of the other bills the Dems put out.
They should devote one whole year to purging bills that are no longer needed. Make the Gov. smaller, not bigger.
Posted by sslocal on October 4, 2007 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe the claim was "up to 80K" JW.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on October 4, 2007 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That the SCHIP issue is mostly about politics is no secret. Both sides have agendas, and both sides try to maximize their supporting data.
Our system of Health care is soooo dysfunctional, but irrational chatter about "Socialized Medicine" is so bogus. Like ol' "Uncle Joe Stalin" is going to be your next doctor!
For all intents and purposes Health care already is "Federalized" by a variety of Federal policies and mandates as well as by ostensibly "voluntary" self accreditation organizations such as the Joint Commission and the College of American Pathologists. I deal with both frequently.
They rule the roost, impose standards and requirements often promulgated by the CMS a federal agency. Often this agenda is not just well meaning, it is in the patients best interests.
A mandated "Time Out" to make sure you are amputating the right appendage is a good thing.
On the other hand, mandatory training of professional clinical staff on how to put on a Latex glove?? Is that necessary? It is if you want to pass Laboratory Accreditation and get paid by the Fed's (and if they don't pay you, you can bet no one else will pretty soon).
But make no mistake where the directives come from....not your local Doctor or Hospital (in the main, many wish these things would go away), but rather from...THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
Gotta tell ya' kids, we is socialized in more ways than you know, in many ways...except for the money trail.
A myriad of private insurance companies with a plethora of forms and rules and Case Managers, and Utilization Review Co-ordinators..... The administrative overhead is astounding...and let's not forget Insurance company CEO compensation and the fact that they justify a "profit margin" over the Health of common citizens.
Its our payment system that is chaotic, there are more "hidden" taxes than you can shake a stick at.
Just check this site for just one glimpse at "how deep the Rabbit Hole goes"..dig deeper, it gets worse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergenc...
Posted by thorvet on October 4, 2007 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Then clearly, more money is just going to fund the bureauacracy. And 35 billion is 7 times more money than they currently get.
There was a time when most employers offered Major Medical. You paid a small premium and kept the rest of the money for the times when the insurance paid 80% and you paid 20%, except in emergencies when the insurance paid 100%. There was a stop-loss every year that, once met kept you from incurring more medical debt. Insurance was affordable, even on my minimum-wage job. We were able to dictate our own healthcare and choose our own doctors without a gatekeeper. Somewhere along the line, people got the idea that they were entitled to see a doctor at any time for any reason, but someone else should foot the bill. Hence the gatekeepers.
I propose that the govt cover catastrophic illnesses for all families, believe it or not I would include those who are ridiculously wealthy too. The percentage of catastrophic illness is small and the very wealthy is a small percentage of society. There would be a formulary of what is considered catastrophic, but can be amended as new diseases come up or medical bills can be proven to be a continuing expense (i.e. heart meds that cost $5000 a month). If anyone has a better idea or additional ideas to this one, let's hear them! But please, don't use Canada as an example. Too many of them complain of their system, including a former co-worker of mine who chose to have her life-saving surgery here instead of in Canada where it would take too long and she would have died.
I read the bill. It would include those who make 300% above the poverty level. In places like NY and NJ, there were exceptions (also vetoed) that could raise the income amount to $82K per family of four.
I have never known a govt program to actually stick with the budget given. They continually go over budget. I don't trust that they will keep to a budget this time either.
The democrats deliberatly set the bar high on the amount in order to portray Bush as heartless, even though he has offered to negotiate.
“If the president signs the bill we present to him, it’s a major accomplishment,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “If he vetoes the bill, it’s a political victory for us. Public opinion polls show strong support for expanding kids’ health coverage.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/hea...
Let's see if we can come up with a better solution instead of calling Bush an idiot for not agreeing with Democrats.
Posted by dpgerman on October 4, 2007 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you do not know that the Democrat controlled congress pushed.... no; rammed this through without any floor debate or input from any other party members for the obvious purpose of having the President veto it YOU are the IDIOT!
This is no different than the letter to Limbaugh from the Senate democrats; Pure grand standing.
Posted by imbetnonit on October 4, 2007 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
blah.....blah......blah........blah......blah (wank, wank)
Posted by shaver_one on October 9, 2007 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bush's idea of compromise: Give me what I want, and nothing more, or I will veto.
Thorvet asked for another idea: Just give me the same plan that our Senators and Congressmen have. If it's good enough for them, I guess it's good enough for me.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.