The House failed to override Bush's veto of the bill passed to renew and expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (" S-CHIP") which was intended to make health care available to the millions of uninsured children in the country. See David Stout, House Fails to Override Veto, NY Times, Oct. 18, 2007. The motion to override fell 13 votes short.
Congress wanted to spend an additional $35 billion over 5 years, to reach all 9 million uninsured children. Bush wants only $5 billion more, clearly insufficient to address the pressing needs. Bush had originally criticized the expansion attempt because it is the government doing what the market has been unable to do. Bush seemed to view it as a step towards full government provision of health care. Let's face it--this is a need, the market is failing millions of children, and it is time for the government to act. The fact that government can do this, and do it well, is not a negative, as Mr. Bush seems to view it, but a plus, because it means we can address a problem that is disgraceful in a wealthy country such as ours.
Other Republicans like Steve King from Iowa were more crass, casting aspersions on the desperately needed government program as "Socialized, Clinton-style Hillarycare for illegals and their parents." Jonathan Weisman and Christopher Lee, House Fails to Overturn Bush Veto on Children's Health Insurance, Washington Post, Oct. 18, 2007. That snide remark includes put-downs of a number of real people, using labels that are intended to bring prejudice and not rational policy thinking to the surface. Consider Mr. King's apparent targets: those who can't afford health care at all if it isn't through our social system that provides safety nets ; those who have followed a progressive approach to addressing the problems of the underprivileged among us; those who support comprehensive health care, as urged by Senator Clinton; those who think women should not be treated with disrespect, as the term "Hillarycare" clearly does; and those who think that children deserve compassionate care, even if their parents have entered this country illegally. As a linguist by training, I particularly find the use of the term "illegals" gauling--it is intended to objectify all of the children that S-CHIP is intended to help, to encourage us to view them as undeserving, a second-class of people that we need not be concerned about. Shame on you, Mr. King, for your willingness to stoop to that level in this debate.
The Republicans also say the program should not address anyone other than poor kids. But the middle class is struggling with health care costs, and a CBS News Poll found "overwhelming" support for some expansion of this program to middle-class children. House Fails to Override Veto.
According to the Post article, it looks like the House leadership is amenable to treating children of illegal immigrants as undeserving of this protection, as the reports of the discussions post failure to override indicate that the language will be tightened to make sure that no children of illegal immigrants can be covered. They may also be willing to limit coverage to 300% of the federal poverty level (about $60,000 for a family of four), in spite of the fact that cost of living varies across the country such that some states have thought it appropriate to extend coverage beyond that limit. These possible compromises are mentioned in the Post article. House Fails to Overturn Bush Veto on Children's Health Insurance. But the Post also notes that "House Democrats had given up plenty already, scaling back their far more ambitious bill to meet the demands of Senate Republicans, such as Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), who virtually dictated the final bill's parameters." Id.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged House members to vote "as though their children's lives depend on their votes." House Fails to Overturn Bush Veto on Children's Health Insurance. Apparently, too few of the House members heeded that call. The good news is that 44 Republicans voted with all but two of the Democrats to override, representing a larger majority than first passed the bill. There is a fairly strong likelihood that more naysayers will see the light when the bill next comes before the House and as elections near.
Recent Comments