Idle thoughts: Ryan Zinke and CHIP

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:07:50 PM MST

...yet Ryan Zinke won SD2 by 1,000 votes, despite not only opposing I-155, but oposing the concept of CHIP altogether, while running against a candidate who had real health-care bonafides, Brittany MacLean. While I've heard a buzz that Zinke's ideology is a lot further right than he let on during the election, on most other issues, especially on conservationism, Zinke and MacLean's rhetoric was similar.

Question: was Zinke's win a failure in getting the message out about his stance on health care? Or did voters not care about the issue as much in a race for state legislature?

Today's Congressional potpourri

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:54:16 PM MST

*  *  *

I just saw this bit of news, that Sens. Baucus and Tester helped appropriate more than $1 million for the Montana Comprehensive Health Association "to operate its high-risk pool." What's the high-risk pool? I'm glad you asked:

The high-risk pool helps sick or recovering Montanans pay for health insurance they couldn't otherwise afford because they have pre-existing diseases or conditions. Patients with cancer, diabetes or other debilitating diseases can be excluded from health insurance plans or charged exorbitant fees because they are expensive to insure.

More than 3,000 Montanans are enrolled in the high-risk pool. Within the pool, members living near the poverty level also qualify for additional insurance premium assistance.

Okay, great appropriation that actually helps people get medical care without getting bankrupt. Thanks to the Senators, etc & co.

But this is just a band-aid for a serious and broken system. Everybody should have the right to receive quality medical care without fear of bankruptcy.

*  *  *

In search of extremism

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 21:09:48 PM MST

The funny thing is, I've been writing about that quote since August, as have other bloggers. I wonder why it's only getting picked up now? Funny that the sh*tstorm came just a few days after Erik Iverson made the same charges against Rehberg's Democratic opponent, Jim Hunt. It's like...oh, I dunno...Iverson's co-ordinating with a bunch of bloggers!

Okay. Let's pretend for a moment I am a liar, and it's all true what our state's Representative says: the House bill had some problems Rehberg wanted to fix. The Senate compromise bill was acceptable.

A quick question. What exactly was so "extreme" about the House bill?

Let's revisit the bill Rehberg did vote for, and see what exactly was different.

The House bill would have expanded CHIP by $50 billion over five years, and be paid by boosting cigarette tax by 45 cents a pack, and "cutting extra payments to private Medicare Advantage plans." The bill Rehberg voted for would have expanded CHIP by $35 billion, increases the cigarette tax to 61 cents a pack, and drops the cuts to Medicare Advantage.

So. Fifteen billion over five years? Is "extremist? That's about what we spend in about nine days in Iraq, and Dennis is an avid and outspoken cheerleader for the war. Certainly he's not averse to spending your money on his pet projects. So it can't be that. (Unless of course he doesn't support CHIP. But bear with me.)

The House bill's increase in the cigarette tax was too low by sixteen cents? Is that what was "extremist" about the House bill? Is Rehberg really a tax-raisin' advocate? Could be. He's certainly keen on spending your money. (See the point about the Iraq War, above.) Maybe he knows carrying an insane national deficit is an economic disaster waiting to happen, especially during slow growth periods. (Tangles up those investment $$ in gov't debt.) Like now. But then he wants the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to be permanent. So maybe he's against tax hikes. (Unless of course he's against tax hikes for himself and his family, but for them when they affect your family.)

So that leaves us with the cuts to Medicare Advantage. "Pitting seniors against kids," to paraphrase Rehberg.

You may have heard of Medicare Advantage recently. It's been in the news. Basically the GAO found that it was a boondoggle for private insurers. Touted as a program that offers seniors more flexibility and better coverage, for most it provides neither and costs the taxpayers an extra 15 percent or so.

Was the "extremism" about the House bill the fact that it threatened insurers' Medicare Advantage goodie bag? Expanding government-provided health insurance certainly isn't. (Heck, two-thirds of Americans actually favor universal health insurance, not just for kids.) For the life of me, I just can't find anything else of substance different between the two bills...

By the way, I could talk all day about Dennis Rehberg's stance on CHIP. Couldn't you? It's so exciting! There's a little surprise behind every corner!

Protesting Too Much

by: Matt Singer

Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 18:23:02 PM MST

Regardless, the question here is whether it is fair to call out Rehberg's statement regarding CHIP's extremism? Now, near as I can tell, our rich Congressman wrote an op-ed declaring that our health care system is currently "affordable, reliable" (sure and I'm Dane Cook) and that the Dems' version of CHIP was "extremist" because it sought to expand government-provided health care options.

Now, that strikes me as basically what every CHIP bill did, which is why Rehberg ended up pretty high on every orgs' target list for CHIP lobbying.

Of course, in Dennis Rehberg's defense, even after being the target of lobbying up until the last minute because he had opposed one version of the bill and refused to fight for the later version, he did send out a taxpayer-funded piece of literature calling himself a leader on the issue (sure and I'm Dane Cook).

My buddy Jay's decision to call Rehberg an opponent of CHIP is way more honest than Dennis "vote both ways" Rehberg's decision to call himself a leader on the issue.

He has, after all, opposed it. He has not, near as I can tell, ever led on it (except in opposition).

The Billings Gazette supports I-155

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:48:39 AM MST

Yet a comparison with what other states are doing shows Montana still has one of the most restrictive CHIP programs in the nation. Only North Dakota, which limits its CHIP eligibility to children below 140 percent of poverty, has a lower income cutoff than Montana, according to a report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. In fact, Montana is among only six states that limit coverage to children with family incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level, the survey shows.

The editorial is a general expression of support for John Morrison's ballot initiative 155 that would "expand CHIP to cover Montana children up to 250 percent of the poverty level."  It'd cost the state about $20 million, paid by diverting to the program taxes already paid by insurance companies to the state.

It's an excellent cause, and I'm sure the Auditor's office and other groups supporting the initiative can use help gathering signatures. I'll update with names and contact numbers as I find out the information...

MSU poll: CHIP, delegates popular; Iraq, Bush unpopular

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 07:24:04 AM MST

Baucus, a Democrat, received an approval rating of 64 percent, with the rest of those surveyed about equally split between disapproval and undecided. His approval rating in the same poll has swayed from 50 percent in 1994 to 68 percent in 1998.

Schweitzer, also a Democrat, received approval from 63 percent of those surveyed, while 18 percent disapproved and 19 percent were undecided. The governor, elected in 2004, had a 69 percent approval rating in 2005.

Rehberg, a Republican, was supported by 59 percent of respondents, with 17 percent disapproving and 24 percent undecided. His positive job approval rating is up from a low of about 49 percent in 2001 and 2005.

Tester, a Democrat elected last year, received the approval of 57 percent of those surveyed, while 16 percent disapproved. A larger portion, 27 percent, was undecided. It was the first time Montana State University Billings had asked the question about Tester.

There you go. No surprises, really, although I've been curious about Tester's numbers for awhile. This is the first approval poll taken after he's been in office long enough to have an effect on people's views; that 27 percent are undecided indicates there's still room to grow. And Tester's good approval ratings makes him seem a lot less of a vulnerable target, as people have claimed. I suspect his popularity will only increase as people get to know him.

And why not? He's a savvy, competent, genial, and honest representative. The likelihood of Jon getting wrapped up in a scandal - like, say, getting hinky with Abramoff boys - is practically nil.

On the flip side is Rehberg's 59 percent approval. I'm not going to lie: that's a big hurdle for Bill Kennedy to climb. Make no mistake, Bill's a great candidate, and if anyone can oust Dennis, it's Mr. K. But I think Kennedy's going to have to pin down Rehberg on some issues, get him to state where he actually stands. You have to admit, like with CHIP, Rehberg's good at taking multiple and opposing views on a number of issues. But, like Shane, I think Rehberg's record, especially on Iraq, is his weakpoint:

In support of number 3 above, consider the states support for the Iraq war:

The poll found that only 35 percent of Montanans surveyed now support the decision to go to war in Iraq. About 58 percent oppose that decision, up from 48 percent in both 2005 and 2006 in the same poll.

Let us all take this time to remember that Rehberg has voted in lockstep with Bush on this issue since day one. Also, consider that Bush had an 87% approval rating in 2001 but has slipped to 35% now. Can you say 'sinking ship'? Good. I knew you could.

Oh, one quick thought about the Good Guv: this is the first approval numbers I've seen since the much discussed and vitriolic 2007 legislative session, and Schweitzer's approval numbers seem virtually unchanged. Interesting...

A Blue tomorrow?

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:10:48 AM MST

Wrong.

The bill up for consideration in the Senate had already passed the House with substantial bipartisan support - but not quite enough votes to overcome another veto. As a result, a few prominent senators from both parties had been meeting with House Republicans to work out a compromise that could attract enough moderate Republicans to overcome a veto. Those talks, according to a key participant, were making "really good progress."

That is when Senate Republican leaders stepped in and, under the rules, refused to postpone a scheduled vote to allow more negotiations. The result was predictable. The Senate, which has always been enthusiastic about expanding S-chip, approved the House-passed bill by a thumping 64-to-30 vote. But the bill lacks enough Republican support in the House for an override.

Get it? The Senate Republicans effectively derailed the bill by voting for it, prematurely! Sneaky politics indeed. They get the "aye" vote on their records, yet also enjoy the pleasure of sinking the bill, and letting the President take the fall for it.

No wonder a recent Washington Post/ABC poll shows that "Americans are deeply pessimistic and eager for a change in direction from the agenda and priorities of President Bush.." and they're not blaming Democrats for the current gridlock.

-- A majority of Americans (51%) have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party. For Republicans, that number is 39%.

-- On the issues, Americans trust Dems over the GOP to handle Iraq (50% to 34%), healthcare (54% to 29%), the economy (50% to 35%), taxes (46% to 40%), and immigration (42% to 35%). The parties are about tied on handling terrorism, with Republicans leading 42% to 41%.

Americans want the Democrats to keep their majority in Congress, Hillary Clinton leads all of the Republican Presidential candidates, and apparently there's been a 10-point shift on gay unions, now with 55 percent support.

Go figure.

House fails to sustain SCHIP

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 06:43:48 AM MST

Supporters of a bill to provide health insurance for 10 million children failed this afternoon, as expected, to muster enough support in the House to override President Bush's veto.

The vote to override the veto was 273 to 156, or 13 votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority of those present and voting; the bill was originally approved by a 265 to 159 vote on Sept. 25.

The Democratic leadership managed to net 8 votes more than the first go-round, 9 of them from Democrats. That's no typo. Forty-four Republicans voted for the bill today, as opposed to 45 on September 25th.

Well, I guess we now know how much pull Dennis Rehberg has among House Republicans.

I think it's time to drop another tenner on Bill Kennedy.

A kinder, gentler SCHIP poll

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:13:14 AM MST

Take a look. In it, you'll see that the questions aren't leading, but fair. To give you an idea, check out this question:

Supporters say the expansion would prevent children who are already covered from losing their coverage and provide health insurance for millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured. They also say the program has been shown to be effective over the past ten years. Opponents say the expansion would encourage some families who have private health insurance to drop it in favor of government-funded coverage. They also say the expansion will wind up covering some children in middle-class families.

After hearing these arguments, would you say you support or oppose the increased funding for this program?

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? The respondent is informed - pretty fairly, IMHO - of the two sides of the issue. No numbers blindly bandied about, taken out of context.

The result? Sixty-five percent support the expansion of SCHIP, including a plurality of self-identified Republicans and two-thirds of independents. Go figure.

Another question asked respondents if they were more worried that the bill doesn't go far enough to insure children, or that it would apply to families who could afford regular insurance. Fifty-five percent of respondents worried the bill doesn't go far enough, thirty-three percent worried that it would reach undeserving families. Another asked if the bill doesn't go far enough to insure children, or that it would encourage families to abandon private insurance. Fifty-four said not far enough, thirty-seven percent worried about the dropping of private insurance.

Another question asked if respondents thought SCHIP would lead to government-run health care. Fifty-two percent said "no," forty percent said "yes." But a plurality of those that said "yes" thought that was a good thing.

How did Bush's veto go over? Forty-nine percent of respondents "strongly disapproved," another eighteen percent "somewhat disapproved." That's two-thirds of the polled respondents.

You get the idea.

CHIP poll measures Republican misdirection

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 13:09:55 PM MST

And now, when the grandstanding is done, we can get down to the points that were always at issue: should the taxpayer be paying for health insurance for those who earn more than $60,000 a year -- and should the government provide incentives for families to drop their private insurance or for employers to stop paying for insurance for their employees?

Democrats say yes to both -- but that's not how they want to frame the debate in Montana, since they probably know how most Montanans will respond.

If they had wanted to know what Montanans thought, Democrats wouldn't have been just repeating the mantra of "children, children," but rather they would have been making the case all along for an insurance program that would encourage employers and families to stop paying for private insurance -- and waited to see if Montanans agreed.

Naturally, I object to the claim that those of us who support CHIP simply flog the "children" line. I think I've done a good job demonstrating why health care costs are now too much for even middle class and professional families to bear, and that these costs are largely due to the insurance industry's high deductibles and administrative inefficiencies and complexity in order to minimize the number of claims and maximize profit. And so most parents - who would feel irresponsible by neglecting to provide insurance for their children - are caught between the industry's need for increasing profit and their children's health.

But then, claiming that your opponent is ducking the issue by attacking a 12-year-old, then pointing to the subsequent outrage that follows as empty rhetoric, is in its own way ducking the issue, isn't it?

Max Baucus Responds to the President on SCHIP

by: Matt Singer

Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 12:34:00 PM MST

So here's a good question: will Max Baucus get as much scrutiny as the 12-year-old kid from a working class family who had the audacity to speak out in favor of a program that had helped him?

Or have the Malkinites put the long knives away for a bit?

Why battle over CHIP, anyway?

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 12:02:20 PM MST

It was back in 1993, as the Clintons prepared to roll out their new universal healthcare plan, that Bill Kristol wrote a memo to fellow conservatives and Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill warning them that their goal must be to "kill," not amend, the Clinton plan. "Healthcare," Kristol wrote, "is not, in fact, just another Democratic initiative....It will revive the reputation of the...Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests."

This is really the issue: from the New Deal through the Great Society, the Democrats dominated American politics by being first and foremost the stewards of social-democratic middle-class entitlements. In the wake of the Civil Rights Act, white southerners in particular and white middle-class voters in general, began to associate the Democrats with pursuing the interests of Others - minorities, homosexuals, welfare queens. Conservative political dominance in the post-Reagan era has rested on two pillars: preserving, at a rhetorical level, the conception of the Democrats as being beholden to "special interests" (who don't look like you) and, at the policy level, making sure Democrats never have an opportunity to pass legislation that would belie that claim.

It's awful easy to get caught up discussing the motivations of issue advocates (or opponents, in this case), as opposed to discussing the actual merits of the issue at hand. It's an easy attack, and has been brought out aplenty in the debate over CHIP. (See "Rehberg, Dennis.")

However, conservative opposition to this bill makes little or no sense. On a political level, it's suicide: CHIP polls well. Scary well. Ideologically, it makes no sense: the kind of hand up offered in this bill represents little substantial difference from, say, school vouchers. It's good legislation, too: insurers, health-care providers, and moderate Republicans all agree the bill is good.

So, without any discernable reason for opposition to the bill, it's only fair to speculate. That said, Hayes' guess is as good as any, especially accompanied by Kristol's damning memo. Certainly there are other reasons for opposing CHIP, but they're mostly ideological, from starry-eyed rightie market idealists who would rather see kids die of tooth decay than admit the current health-care system ain't working, and that the reasons for its failure find some, if not most, cause in the market itself.

Krugman, Dionne on the Slimers and Meanies

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 12:48:45 PM MST

All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they're "phony soldiers"; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he's faking his Parkinson's symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he's a fraud.

Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them. And some people in the news media are still willing to be used as patsies.

Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates the true depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country has universal health insurance, but in America , insurance is now out of reach for many hard-working families, even if they have incomes some might call middle-class.

That about sums it up.

EJ Dionne tackles the incoherence from the right on the issue:

The left is accused of all manner of sins related to covetousness and envy whenever it raises questions about who benefits from Bush's tax cuts and mentions the yachts such folks might buy or the mansions they might own. But here is a family with modest possessions doing everything conservatives tell people they should do, and the right trashes them for getting help to buy health insurance for their children.

Most conservatives favor government-supported vouchers that would help Graeme attend his private school, but here they turn around and criticize him for...attending a private school. Federal money for private schools but not for health insurance? What's the logic here?

Conservatives endlessly praise risk-taking by entrepreneurs and would give big tax cuts to those who are most successful. But if a small-business person is struggling, he shouldn't even think about applying for SCHIP.

Conservatives who want to repeal the estate tax on large fortunes have cited stories -- most of them don't check out -- about farmers having to sell their farms to pay inheritance taxes. But the implication of these attacks on the Frosts is that they are expected to sell their investment property to pay for health care. Why?

That's right, not only is CHIP a stupid political fight to get in  -- polling in at about 80%, according to one GOP strategist -- it doesn't make sense ideologically.

Max battles for CHIP

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 12:36:30 PM MST

Baucus, a lead sponsor of the bill that would expand funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, said Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt called him last week seeking to avoid a vote to override the president's veto.

"He said, 'Max, you probably don't want to talk about this,' and I said, 'You're right, I don't want to talk about it now,' " Baucus said, recounting his conversation with Leavitt. "We want to prevail."

Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said he remains committed to fighting the president's veto.

(In the same article, Rep. Rehberg vowed to vote to override the veto and lobby his conservative colleagues to do the same. So?and I've really given Rehberg guff over the years?thanks go to Dennis, too.)

This is exactly the kind of fightin' spirit I've urged on Democrats since the get go. They've got to fight for things that are popular and necessary to the country. Let's hope that the veto is quashed, Bush humiliated, and Congress victorious in expressing the will of the electorate over this issue. Maybe it'll encourage Congress to do this a little more often?

Anti-CHIP rhetoric hurts conservatives' cause

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 12:33:24 PM MST

Check out the coverage of the Baltimore Sun:

When Halsey and Bonnie Frost agreed to go public with how the State Children's Health Insurance Program helped them after a car crash left two of their children comatose, the Baltimore couple expected to hear from critics of government-funded health care.

But while the Frosts were helping a bipartisan majority in Congress sell a plan to expand the program, they were not prepared for comments such as this one, posted over the weekend on the conservative Web site Redstate:

"If federal funds were required [they] could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. ... I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I'd do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info."

The rush of fools

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 19:06:29 PM MST

Well, if it's all about kids, kids are pretty cheap to insure (being in the business I know something about that.) The subjects, the Frost kids, could get pretty good insurance for about $400/mo for all four of them. But I guess the trade-off for private schools and a house 1.5 times the size of mine makes them needy. So, inasmuh as the Freeper's reaction wasn't about either the merits of SCHIP nor did it demean every recipient as "undeserving n'eer-do-wells sucking off the teat of government" I have to point to the more hyperbolic hyperbole belonging to TheftInTheWest's mini-me.

First, if you know of a comprehensive insurance plan that covers a family of four, at least two of which with ongoing and expensive medical bills, for $400, send me the policy!

Second, Budge has a tendency to not read the posts or articles at the end of links and even sometimes the full content of posts he attacks (Montana bloggers take note). In this case, he apparently missed the dire warning from Mark Steyn, using the Frost family as evidence that CHIP will lead us to a place where "there are no free-born citizens, just a nation where everyone is a ward of the state," which I quoted in the post. If that's not demeaning recipients of CHIP as "undeserving n'eer-do-wells sucking off the teat of government," I don't know what is...

Third, what I meant about "knowing f*ck all" about the family happened to be exactly spot on in this case. What may appear at first glance to the ideologues already dismissing CHIP out of hand a wealthy family gaming the system, is in reality quite a bit different:

1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.

2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.

3) They bought their "lavish house" sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.

4) Last year, the Frost's made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.

5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.

(In Montana, of course, where poverty levels are lower than Maryland, the Frosts would not be eligible for CHIP.)

If the vaunted investigative powers of freeperdom actually included real investigative work, they would have discovered these facts and let the Frosts avoid the indignity of random, harassing phone calls from right-wing bloggers. Or Michelle Malking stalking their neighborhood. Ugh.

The Frosts, not a wealthy family - but apparently a hard-working, accomplished, and innovative bunch - suffered a terrible accident and associated expensive medical bills. Without CHIP, they would have been destroyed financially. This is what CHIP is designed to do, help preserve families from our health care crisis. Period. If you prefer that CHIP fail because of your fantasies about markets and systems of government, a pox on your house. And I hope you have CHIP to cover your *sses when it hits.

Digby:

This is so loathesome I am literally sick to my stomach. These kids were hurt in a car accident. Their parents could not afford health insurance --- and sure as hell couldn't get it now with a severely handicapped daughter. And these shrieking wingnut jackasses are harassing their family for publicly supporting the program that allowed the kids to get health care. A program, by the way, which a large number of these Republicans support as well.

They went after Michael J. Fox. They went after a wounded Iraq war veteran. Now they are going after handicapped kids. There is obviously no limit to how low these people will go.

They'd better pray that they stay rich and healthy and live forever because if there is a hell these people are going to be on the express train to the 9th circle the minute they shuffle off their useless mortal coils.

As always...Digby nails it.

Freepers attack CHIP!

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 06:20:29 AM MST

Enter the "Free Republic" -- which reveals that one recipient of CHIP in Maryland, a grade schooler seriously injured in a car accident - actually goes to a private school!

Cue the hyperbole from The Corner:

Bad things happen to good people, and they cause financial problems and tough choices. But, if this is the face of the "needy" in America, then no-one is not needy. And, if everyone needs assistance from the federal government, so be it. But I don't think I want to drive down the road where Bonnie Frost wants to take us - because at the end of it there are no free-born citizens, just a nation where everyone is a ward of the state.

First, this particular family has nothing to do with whether CHIP is a good program. We don't know 'nuthin' about the family. Anecdotal evidence proves f*ck-all.

Second, what the Kool Aid drinkers fail to realize is that health insurance costs are getting so high, that increasing numbers of middle-class families can't afford health insurance. You can pull this rhetorical bullsh*t, slime the folks getting CHIP as undeserving n'eer-do-wells sucking off the teat of government, but a lot of folks are suffering from high costs of health insurance, and want their kids to be covered, period, and think their kids' health is more important than a preserving a bunch of ideologues' pet theories.

That is, these freepers are just making themselves look like jerks.

GOP presidential candidates back Bush's "blind partisanship" on CHIP

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:48:56 AM MST

Washington Post's Eugene Robinson goes even further, and calls Bush's excuses "lies":

To say that George W. Bush spends money like a drunken sailor is to insult every gin-soaked patron of every dockside dive in every dubious port of call. If Bush gets his way, the cost of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon reach a mind-blowing $600 billion. Despite turning a budget surplus into a huge deficit, the man still hasn't met a tax cut he doesn't like. And when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, Bush might as well have signed their pork-stuffed spending bills with a one-word rubber stamp: "Whatever."

So for Bush to get religion on fiscal responsibility at this late date is, well, a joke. And for him to make his stand on a measure that would have provided health insurance to needy children is a punch line that hasn't left many Republicans laughing.

Considering the popularity of the bill - and the unpopularity of Bush's veto - it's a head scratcher that all four top-tier Republican presidential candidates - Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain -- support the veto.

I know the candidates have to win a primary before facing the bulk of the American electorate, who rank Bush right up there with wart removal and genital herpes, but CHIP is popular with Republicans. It's not like the health care industry is sending money around to squelch the bill, either. As far as I can tell, the veto is just plain partisan stubbornness.

What gives? Are these guys really this bad? And why do I keep putting McCain in the "top tier" of candidates?

Krugman: "Conservatives Are Such Jokers"

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:55:46 AM MST

In anticipation of the veto, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, had this to say: "First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it's a good idea. I'm happy that the president's willing to do something bad for the kids."

Heh-heh-heh.

Most conservatives are more careful than Mr. Kristol. They try to preserve the appearance that they really do care about those less fortunate than themselves. But the truth is that they aren't bothered by the fact that almost nine million children in America lack health insurance. They don't think it's a problem.

"I mean, people have access to health care in America," said Mr. Bush in July. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

And on the day of the veto, Mr. Bush dismissed the whole issue of uninsured children as a media myth. Referring to Medicaid spending - which fails to reach many children - he declared that "when they say, well, poor children aren't being covered in America, if that's what you're hearing on your TV screens, I'm telling you there's $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe that."

The thing is, with Bush and Republican policies favoring the rich at the cost of the rest of us, more and more folks are feeling the pinch of rising health care and housing costs and stagnant wages, while shouldering a disproportionate share of the taxation burden. So GOP contempt is hitting a pretty broad swath of voters.

I'm with Krugman. I believe this contempt is genuine not feigned. And it would take an exceptional amount of empathy for someone like Bush - a pampered son of privilege and power who was given everything he's had in life - to feel anything but contempt for his economic and social "lessors." He's never had to choose between credit card payments and the mortgage, health insurance or  the heating bill.

Closer to home, it's telling that our state's contribution to the list of richest Congressional representatives, Dennis Rehberg, is dismissive of concerns for health care costs:

CALLER: We've talked a lot tonight about healthcare, and it seems like the government pretty selective about health care. I imagine you get government health care, too? Would you be willing to give up your government health care until the rest of us Americans can at least buy into the health care plan that you're allowed to have as a Congressman? Because I know it would help our business a lot, it would lower our costs.

REHBERG: I gotta tell ya, I've gone many years with minimal health care, and, frankly, while I don't find your question to be offensive, I pay for my health care, it comes out of my salary, I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

I always like it when someone calls and says, "you, Congressman, don't pay any Social Security!" Well, excuse me! Yes, we do. In 1984 they passed a law saying we're on Social Security like everyone else.

And so, I pay for my health care, like anyone else pays for their health care. I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

And you wonder why we're seeing difficulty in reforming our health care system?

Just another reason to elect Bill Kennedy...

Rambling Thoughts on CHIP

by: Matt Singer

Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:09:36 AM MST

Also interesting in that discussion is just the polling data. Nationally, something like 77% oppose the veto, even when told it was done to constrain spending. People just aren't buying that line.

Equally important is the sense here on the ground where, in my experience, this issue has massive cross-over appeal. Calling into legislative districts on the issue and talking to voters of every political persuasion, support for CHIP ranged from 60% to 95%, with much of that fluctuation likely due to caller quality.

That's not to say that spending concerns weren't raised, just that it's a marginal position, held, it seems, by the Bush Administration and roughly 22% of the population locally and nationally (but, somehow, nearly 100% of Republican Presidential candidates and a majority of Republican members of Congress).

And this, of course, is another question -- how will Dennis Rehberg, who has said he supports the veto override, deal with a candidate at the top of the ticket when that candidate has pledged to stymie any serious attempt to reform our health care system.