"Every Child Deserves Health"
Credit: Lyn Lomasi | ©Lyn Lomasi
Bush's Veto of Funding for Children's Health Insurance Disappoints Mayors
President Bush has vetoed a bill for $35 million in funding that would have gone toward SCHIP, a children's health insurance program geared toward low to moderate-income families. This veto has left the United States Conference of Mayors greatly disappointed.
In a meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors on October 3, led by Mayor Douglas H. Palmer (President of the mayoral conference, as well as mayor of Trenton, NJ), the mayors expressed their concern over Bush's veto. This veto means that 10 million American children, as well as their families will not receive medical insurance.
Mayor Palmer feels that this is merely a "political move that ultimately hurts the children, the future of America. No child in our nation should be without insurance. While the government is laying out billions of dollars to fund the war in Iraq, it is imperative that the Administration recognizes the need to also take care of its people at home."
In the conference, Bush's portrayal of the bill being a philosophical divide between Democrats and Republicans was also criticized.
Palmer went on to say "The SCHIP bill is a bipartisan effort of both the House and the Senate that is critical to children who don't have health insurance. There should be no room for politics when it comes to the health of our children who are the future of our country. Given what we know about the connections between good health and an individual's success in school, in the workforce, and as a parent, it makes no economic sense to deprive low-income children of medical care when they need it or to consign them to the emergency room for illnesses that could have been prevented. As a matter of policy and morality this veto is an embarrassment to our nation."
In a meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors on October 3, led by Mayor Douglas H. Palmer (President of the mayoral conference, as well as mayor of Trenton, NJ), the mayors expressed their concern over Bush's veto. This veto means that 10 million American children, as well as their families will not receive medical insurance.
Mayor Palmer feels that this is merely a "political move that ultimately hurts the children, the future of America. No child in our nation should be without insurance. While the government is laying out billions of dollars to fund the war in Iraq, it is imperative that the Administration recognizes the need to also take care of its people at home."
In the conference, Bush's portrayal of the bill being a philosophical divide between Democrats and Republicans was also criticized.
Palmer went on to say "The SCHIP bill is a bipartisan effort of both the House and the Senate that is critical to children who don't have health insurance. There should be no room for politics when it comes to the health of our children who are the future of our country. Given what we know about the connections between good health and an individual's success in school, in the workforce, and as a parent, it makes no economic sense to deprive low-income children of medical care when they need it or to consign them to the emergency room for illnesses that could have been prevented. As a matter of policy and morality this veto is an embarrassment to our nation."
Comments
interesting perspective chronicler.
Thanks Kelly. E Weiss, I haven't seen that in any of the information I've seen on the bill. Now that it's official that it is not going to pass, I hope further negotiation will lead to a fair resolution for everyone.
E Weiss
(Guest)
(Guest)
10/11/2007
For once, I agree with him, frist time ever, not for the reasons he mentioned, which is being afraid of socalized medical, universial health care is coming.
No I agree for the one reason NO ONE seems to be talking about.The funding for this is unstable, not enough, and over all unfair. To cut payment to doctors under medicare, and tax smokers AGAIN. Does no one see something wrong here ?
One, the funds proposed will not be enough, so the entire program will be underfunded, which means they will dip into some other funds to pay for it, or it will be yet another sounds good on paper, but dont work worth a fig in reality program, to apease the public.
And does NO ONE care that taxeing a tiny segment of the population, an increaseing smaller and smaller segment I might add, is supossed to pay for all this ? Right, rip off the doctors who server our Eldery and poor, and oh by the way, lets punish the smokers.. again ! since no one cares that they have rights too.
The whole idea
You make some good points, M2L...you have done your homework! I just want everyone to read whole articles and not headlines when they see about the veto, because I know some people don't, you know?
M2L
(Guest)
(Guest)
10/10/2007
btw, that was me (Mommy2Lots) in that last comment. I'm just not logged in. :-)
M2L
(Guest)
(Guest)
10/10/2007
Although $82,000 is a large amount to make, how many kids would be in that family and where would they be living? Both of those have to be asked. I know that with programs like this, the income level is based upon the number of people in the household, as well as what area you reside in. For a household that has four or more children, especially if any of those children have any medical conditions, medical bills can be very high. So can the cost of living. With each child comes an extra expense. The SCHIP is also not given away completely free either. It has to be paid for. That's what makes it different than medicaid. It is lower than the cost of normal health coverage, but affordable enough that families who can't get medicaid (don't qualify) or cannot afford normal coverage still have an option. I still think the funding should be given. Besides that, SCHIP already exists. This bill would just give it some extra funding that is greatly needed.
We're just outside of DC when we're in the states, and we would have qualified based on what the amount was in our area. I do agree that it's relative, Heather, but still don't agree that incomes well higher than the national average should qualify for govt. healthcare. In addition, this program would have cost billions of dollars, not millions as another comment said. I just think the whole issue deserved more detailed press than it's gotten, as many people don't realize what actually happened with this bill. They just hear, "Bush vetoes health care for kids" and assume the worst. There's more at play here...
"bill Bush vetoed considered low income families to be those earning less than, in some states such as NY, $82,000 a year. My husband, our two children, and I live a wonderful and needs-met life on SUBSTANTIALLY less than this!" Uh, do you know what the cost of living in NY is? Probably a LOT higher than wherever you're living. Hell, it's a LOT higher than where I'm living. Poverty is relative.
His veto disappointed me, too. I don't see how expanding healthcare insurance for children would come too close to government-run healthcare. I mean, wouldn't that mean Medicaid, Medicare, WIC, state-run progrms, etc. come too close to it, too? I just don't see why giving more kids more benefits could be a bad thing. I can't stand that man.
This has been mentioned, but I think it's important to mention that the bill Bush vetoed considered low income families to be those earning less than, in some states such as NY, $82,000 a year. My husband, our two children, and I live a wonderful and needs-met life on SUBSTANTIALLY less than this! I would have been offended by a bill such as this, which constitutes government run health care, which I do not think is yet in a form that the US can handle. I think that you did a nice job reporting the quotes individuals gave, however, I feel that the press that this veto has gotten in general has been unfair and ill reported.
Comments 1 - 10 (of 27)
Next >>
|
|