The chairs of five key congressional committees have finalized a plan for healthcare reform, and their blueprint includes a critical public option. The chairs' decision to support government-administered health insurance for everyone who wants it is sure to attract ferocious opposition from both the insurance industry and its patrons in the GOP.
On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal editorial page fretted about the likely (hopefully inevitable - see our analysis at TMC.org) extension and expansion of SCHIP by Congress in the coming weeks. As was true of conservative criticism of the children's health program in late 2007 when President Bush twice vetoed the measure, the editorial page yelped that the new bill raises eligibility for the program to 300% of the federal poverty level. This means that a household of four making up to $66,150 is eligible for the program (the WSJ uses the wrong poverty measure to calculate its number). This income is, as the Journal laments, above the U.S. median household income ($50,233), revealing that:
The political purpose behind Schip has always been to capture the middle class.
But the Journal has the purpose - political or not - of SCHIP backwards. Health insurance - and health insurance for one's children - is part of what defines a middle-class standard of living, certainly more so than whether someone makes just above or just below $50,233. As employers drop health insurance coverage, as rising premiums make private insurance unaffordable, and as increasing unemployment swells the ranks of the uninsured, increases in the maximum income threshold for SCHIP coverage make sense to preserve the middle class and, in some cases, to help expand it.
Conservatives, along with the Journal editorial page, emphasize that SCHIP is a program "targeted at low-income families". This is both true and valuable to point out. Indeed, 8% of children from families between 200% and 399% of the federal poverty line are uninsured, while 20% of those below 100% of the poverty line are. But increasing the maximum income threshold beyond the "low-income" level demonstrates that any health care program is as much about a right (to health care) that is an important component of a middle-class standard of living as it is about making an expensive commodity available to the poor. To wit, by May of 2008, 43 states and D.C. had already made children of families at 200% of poverty or higher eligible for SCHIP.
Tom Cole, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, held a press teleconference today in response to the third straight special-election loss this year. Losing Roger Wicker's Mississippi seat stunned the House GOP caucus, which now has three more seats to recover in what looks like a very bad year for Republicans.
"My sense is--we had a leadership meeting this morning--the sense of the group was we need to pull together as a team. The message of a candidate being 'too liberal' or 'too out of sync' is not what voters want to hear...It just didn't work. But what does work, though, is a realization that the paradigm has been shifted. This country is tired of excuses and doesn't want to hear about 'too liberal' or 'too this' or 'too that.' What they want to hear is solutions."
House Republican Conference Chairman Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida agreed with [Deputy Whip] Cantor's analysis.
Holy crap, when was the last time top Republicans questioned the wisdom of using "too liberal" as a campaign tactic? The GOP have been rocked. There's rumours of firing the leadership. 3 more Democratic votes in the House (and 3 less Republicans).
We all know by now that millions of China-produce toys have been recalled by manufacturers due their lead-taint.
We all know that Bush and many Republicans have opposed the SCHIP health bill which would have covered millions of children.
We all know the debacle which No Child Left Behind has been.
The intersection of these three issues constitutes a moral imperative for progressives and Democrats, and exposes an incredible weakness in the Republicans: What happened to family values?
Below are my initial thoughts on this 'story' and how it can be used to a) mobilize an understanding of progressive family values b) expose the Republicans as rhetoricians who fail at every turn to provide and protect our families c) enable us to offer a clear progressive alternative as a coherent package.
Granted the Dems are not perfect in all of these issues, but we can show that we are a hell of a lot better than the RepubliCons.
What he's overlooking is that the Democrats operate according to the Iron Law of Institutions. The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.
This is true for all human institutions, from elementary schools up to the United States of America. If history shows anything, it's that this cannot be changed. What can be done, sometimes, is to force the people running institutions to align their own interests with those of the institution itself and its members.
House Republicans don't care what the public thinks about anything. We have seen in on Iraq, on the minimum wage, on SChip, and on and on and on. For most of them, losing power within Republican congressional and conservative movement institutions is far more of a threat than actually losing their seats in Congress. Even in the worst case electoral scenario for House Republicans, only about 15% of the 185 or so of them who are running for re-election in 2008 will lose. By way of contrast, spurning the movement institutions, bucking the party line, and angering corporate PACs has about a 100% chance of resulting in less power within the congressional caucus and conservative politics in general. Voting in favor of something like SChip means that people can lose committee seats, face primary challenges, draw the ire of conservative media, and generally fall out of favor within the institutions of the conservative movement and Republican Congressional minority. That threat is far, far more real than anything the electorate can offer, including defeat in the general election.
Unless you have power within the Republican congressional caucus or conservative movement institutions, there just isn't anyway to pressure Republicans to change their minds on anything. No matter what Barack Obama thinks, there is no way to meaningfully "reach out" anymore. The only solutions are to remove as many Republicans from federal office as possible, and to lessen the power of conservative movement institutions themselves. Anything else is either irrelevant, futile, or both. They just don't care what the public thinks, because the public is not who they answer to. And don't expect that to change anytime soon.
Singer Paul Simon called out to Republicans who originally voted against SCHIP to rethink their votes and support overriding Bush's veto of the legislation:
Note: This is only about California, but the message is national. Our measures of economic need are severely out of whack, which is a significant contributing factor in the making of bad social policy
A new report from the California Budget Project, the fifth iteration of "Making Ends Meet: How Much Does It Cost To Raise A Family In California?" [PDF], shows that the basic cost of living a no-frills, no-savings existence in California is substantially above the poverty line, the minimum wage, and even--for most families analyzed--the median hourly wage. Nearly half of California's full-time workers cannot make ends meet in a two-parent, two child family in which both parents work, and thus must pay for childcare-one of four family types analyzed. Things are even worse for single-parent or single-income famities.
Among other things, the report strongly indicates the need for explanding SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program), which President Bush recently vetoed. "It shows the president is wrong. That famiy with inomes of up to and above 300 percent of poverty level do need asisitaint to afford health care if they don't have emloyee-based health care," said long-time CBP executive director Jean Ross.
According Ross, the no-frills budgets, "don't provide any room for saivngs, for retireent or college," nor do they provide services many now take for granted. "No DSL or cable. Just bare-bones utilities," Ross said. Because each iteration of the report involves improvements in methodology, Ross cautioned that the reports could not be strictly compared to one another, but were primarily intended to provide the best possible contemporary analysis at the time of release.
Many already have written about the extremely sickening attacks on a 12yr. old young man, Graeme Frost, and his family.
You can find a reading of others thoughts Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here. And if you just search his name you'll come up with 41 other hits under Diary's.
Many may have caught 'Count Down', last night, and the interview with the parents of Graeme and his little sister.
U.S. Representative Mike McIntyre announced today that he will vote to support the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and not support the presidential veto of this bill.
McIntyre's district has a Republican PVI of +3, which isn't particularly high, and the district's demographics are shifting rapidly. Baron Hill flipped earlier this week in response to pressure, Jim Marshall is facing a primary challenge, Bob Etheridge is undecided, and Gene Taylor is still obstinate (though he's getting criticized by radio ads from pro-life group Catholics United).
It's unbelievable, but in the greatest country in the world there are 9 million children that are without health insurance, and almost 90 percent of them are from working families. Two of them are my own grandchildren.
In response, both the House and Senate passed an expansion with bipartisan support of SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program), the popular bill that provides millions of kids with health care. This expansion will provide coverage to an additional 4 million uninsured children.
In a recent Washington Post poll, 72% of Americans support the SCHIP expansion bill. There is broad and bipartisan support in Congress for reauthorizing S-CHIP. Which makes me wonder, who does not support children's health care?
Hmmm…do any compassionate conservatives come to mind?
President Bush has vetoed the SCHIP expansion bill!!! At the same time that Mr. Bush has requested an additional $200 Billion for Iraq, pushing the price tag for that fiasco to $600 Billion dollars and counting…
The SCHIP expansion would cost 35 Billion over 5 years…think of it this way, every day we spend enough money on the occupation of Iraq to insure 200,000 kids for a year!!
This is wrong in so many ways…
The president and members of his so-called "family values" party would leave children whose parents do not make enough to be able to afford health insurance without access or coverage. An accident or illness could cripple that family with debt from medical bills.
Besides, providing health insurance and preventive treatment is more cost effective for all of us. A recent study (Brigham Young University) put the cost of emergency room treatment at $2,000, much higher than it would cost for regular medical care & visits.
Keeping our children healthy is not just the morally correct thing to do; it's an investment in our future!
Mr. Bush argues that he must issue this veto because this is an attempt to provide health care for all American.
You're darn right it is! That's exactly what we need, access to health care for all Americans. No more bankruptcy, or lost homes, over the inability to pay medical bills, no more ignoring illness or pain because you can't afford care! Most all other developed nations believe that their citizens have a right to health care. I agree, and I plan to make the push for health care for all Americans and make it a priority when I get to Congress.
McIntyre To Vote For SCHIP Bill
Will Not Support Presidential Veto
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Representative Mike McIntyre announced today that he will vote to support the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and not support the presidential veto of this bill.(...)
Congressman McIntyre stated, "As a long-time advocate for children for over 25 years, and as one who has consistently supported family health issues, I will not support President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill, and I will vote to override his veto. My objection to the method of funding for this bill and my support of North Carolina's farmers and the economic well-being of our communities are well-known, but I have always supported the SCHIP program and will do what is necessary to preserve it for the sake of children and families in need. As Chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee that oversees tobacco, I will also continue to do all that I can to support our farmers and our region's economy. That commitment has not changed with this vote for our children."
Along with Baron Hill, that makes two of the ultimate Bush Dogs to flip. Remaining targets: Boren (OK-02), Ethridge (NC-02), Marshall (GA-08), and Taylor (MS-04). Contact information for these Representatives can be found here.
I happen to believe that what you're seeing when you expand eligibility for federal programs is the desire by some in Washington, D.C. to federalize health care. I don't think that's good for the country. I believe in private medicine. I believe in helping poor people-which was the intent of SCHIP, now being expanded beyond its initial intent. I also believe that the federal government should make it easier for people to afford private insurance. I don't want the federal government making decisions for doctors and customers.
Assuming the veto override fails, Bush might offer a deal to substantially increase the amount of money spent on SCHIP, but only if the program is privatized. The odds aren't great he'd do this, but he does like to do crazy stuff, and throwing 10 million kids off SCHIP puts the our backs against the wall. And he knows it.
Regardless, it's now worth thinking about what to do if the veto override fails.
Unaccountable private military contractors
1 Arrogant administration
Generous helpings of "compassionate conservatism"
A fundamentally flawed healthcare system
Served Hot: An unwinnable cauldron of insurgency that costs thousands of American lives; tens of thousands of Iraqi lives; billions of dollars; and your country's international reputation.
Served Cold: An armed forces that struggles to recover from over-extension.
Served Now: Sign a Call for Consequences for renegade contractors and urge Congress to over-ride Bush's SCHIP veto here.
We were going to run this ad, written by Digby and put together by Jason at The Seminal, in Baron Hill's district. Fortunately, we don't have to, since Hill switched his vote on the SCHIP override after our calls into the district, intense pressure from local constituents, and being leaned on by the House leadership.
Pressure, real pressure, works. Hill felt it. And now Jim Marshall, in Georgia's eighth district, is feeling it. The Georgia blogs are aflame; at Tondee's Tavern, they are pointing out that Marshall has earned the primary challenge(s) he's getting.
From the betrayal of Lamont to the FISA capitulation (and upcoming FISA capitulation) to the failure to move net neutrality or end the war, Democratic leaders and Bush Dog Democrats have created a toxic relationship with activists, one full of bad faith, mistrust, and outright dishonest condescension. Now we're saying enough.
(A victory indeed. Pressure against Dems is most definitely not a waste of time - promoted by Chris Bowers)
Have you hugged your representative today?
Baron Hill (IN-09), who originally voted against the SCHIP expansion, has announced his intention to vote to override the President's veto.
Let's congratulate Baron Hill, and give him all the encouragement he can get!
* Jeffersonville Office phone is (812) 288-3999 (toll-free number) is 1-866-440-1321 fax is (812) 288-3873
* Bloomington Office phone is (812) 336-3000 fax is (812) 336-3355
* Washington office phone is (202) 225-5315 fax is (202) 226-6866
This is a tremendous event, regardless of the outcome. There is no doubt that the number of phone calls, emails, faxes, and in-person visits to his offices was a huge factor in this decision. Progressive activists, the Party, and the majority of Americans were working in the same direction toward a common goal. Lobbyist money can't compete with true grassroots activism, especially when it's combined with some institutional support.
STATE BLOGS
