Bush vetoes child health insurance plan

[Janett_Reno]

President, Congress battle over $30 billion coverage increase


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21111931/

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But this was not the case in the House, where despite sizable Republican support, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override.


In the case of the health insurance program, the veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you see this playing out dude?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

President, Congress battle over $30 billion coverage increase


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21111931/

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections.

.....

How do you see this playing out dude?

The way I see it playing out involves Hillary morphing into a giant lizard queen, feasting on the entrails of young children, and then having sex with a crucifix on the desk in the Oval Office.

maybe it won't go down exactly like that, but the notion that Bush has imperiled his party's chances by breaking out the veto pen for only the fourth time in 7 years is 180 degrees ass-hat backwards....Bush has imperiled his party's chances next year by vetoing way too few spending bills, not because he has vetoed this one.

Cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

The way I see it playing out involves Hillary morphing into a giant lizard queen, feasting on the entrails of young children, and then having sex with a crucifix on the desk in the Oval Office.

there are some images in our minds that should stay there and not be let out....for instance, the one above.

yikes....

maybe it won't go down exactly like that, but the notion that Bush has imperiled his party's chances by breaking out the veto pen for only the fourth time in 7 years is 180 degrees ass-hat backwards....Bush has imperiled his party's chances next year by vetoing way too few spending bills, not because he has vetoed this one.

Cheers

odd that he would whip out his veto stamp for this one, a bill to extend benefits to children,,,CHILDREN!...when he failed to veto those prok filled spending bills that he signed over the last 6 years.

spend money on research into the mating habits of the snapping turtle? yep!
spend money on a four lane road that will carry on average 25 vehicles a month? yep!
spend money to insure health services for lowest income children in america? no!

what a crazy decision. and yes, this will be gold for the democrats.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

....spend money on research into the mating habits of the snapping turtle? yep!
spend money on a four lane road that will carry on average 25 vehicles a month? yep!
spend money to insure health services for lowest income children in america? no!

yeah -- had he vetoed snapping turtle mating habits and not-to-be-used four lane highways, at least he would have some appeal to fiscal conservatives....as it stands he's managed to alienate all factions.

[FishForLunch]

If democrats really wanted Universal Healthcare introduced, it would be best to start small like covering children under the age of 18 first and if it works then expand it further to include all Americans.

Like we get insurance from companies we work for, instead the Feds would pay 3/4 of the insurance premiums and we would have to pay the remaining 1/4 + the co-pay or High deductible whichever we choose. That way insurance is not tied to the jobs and no one can ever be rejected. We would still have the CHIP program for parents who cannot afford to pay premiums. For the people you don't trust the Feds they can buy their own insurance, win win for all.

Now this will deal a death blow to the GOP's chance to win the Presidential sweepstakes. Dont ask how they will pay for it, the democrats they are the ones that said they have a plan. So start small and say it is for the children, surely no one will object after all it is for the Children.

[dude1394]

I don't quite think that this one will has as long legs as the left thinks, as usual.

The policies of the government ought to be help poor children and to focus on poor children. And the policies of the government ought to be help people find private insurance, not federal coverage. … So I want to share with you why I vetoed the bill this morning. Poor kids, first. Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system. I do want Republicans and Democrats to come together to support a bill that focuses on the poor children. I'm more than willing to work with members of both parties from both houses, and if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children, I'm more than willing to sit down with the leaders and find a way to do so.

[rabbitproof]

This was a way?

Shame..

[dude1394]

I"m having Deja Vu...I seem to have heard this before.

Reid: No compromise on health plan
WASHINGTON (AP) — Calling President Bush insulting and detached from reality, top congressional Democrats said Thursday they will not compromise with him on a children's health program that Bush vetoed.

[jacktruth]

instead the Feds would pay 3/4 of the insurance premiums

Let's not lose site of where the Feds get their money. . .from us! WE pay 3/4 of everybody's premiums, and 1/4 of our own.

Bush was right to veto. No government run healthcare. Look how well it's done for the economies of Europe.

[dude1394]

Pretty even handed accounting of schip it seems. The last line sort of wraps it up.

I, too, believe in providing health care for needy children, but in this country, we've forgotten how to draw a line.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/pri...he_childr.html

Almost Free - And 'For the Children'
By Debra Saunders

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 7 in 10 Americans support the new bill to increase the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $35 billion, which President Bush vetoed Wednesday.

Of course most Americans support the bill. It's for the children, and the way supporters push it, it's practically free.

If Bush seems so clearly out of touch with the voters (as well as moderate and conservative elected Republicans) on the politics, then on a policy level he had reason to veto the bill. The Senate and House have found the worst mechanism to fund the SCHIP expansion - a 61-cents per pack increase in cigarette taxes.

It is as if Washington Dems and Repubs have reached a cynical pact - an agreement to pass bills which expand the size and scope of government, without ever coming up with an honest way to pay for them.

The cigarette tax is regressive and inadequate. But that matters little. In this Washington, no program is so important that average taxpayers should have to pay to expand it.

For Bush's part, like many Repubs, he opposes any tax hike, including a tax increase to fund SCHIP. Democrats want bigger government, without cutting other domestic programs. So both parties have fallen into a default agreement - more spending without even a modest, broad-based tax to fund it.

Supporters talk about providing more health care for poor children. Yet in six states, the Bush administration points out, SCHIP spends more on adults than children. Urban Institute health policy expert Genevieve M. Kenney explained that some 10 states, which had expanded health care for kids, were granted federal waivers to use SCHIP money for adults. She added that the new congressional bill would sharply limit SCHIP funding for adults.

The Bushies also argue that the congressional bill isn't about providing health care for poor kids - as it would expand SCHIP for children of the middle class, with family incomes as high as $62,000 per year - many of whom already receive employer-funded health care. In short, the vetoed bill does not put the neediest kids first.

Actually, the Bushies have argued the bill could cover children with families earning as much as $83,000 annually - but that dishonest figure, as the Washington Post pointed out, represents a request by New York to cover families earning four times the poverty level, which the administration nixed.

"With the stroke of a pen, President Bush has robbed nearly 4 million uninsured children of the chance for a healthy start in life and the health coverage they need but can't afford," Sen. Hillary Clinton, R-N.Y., announced in a statement issued by her campaign. That statement also is off. Clinton should know that a third of the children who would sign up with SCHIP if Congress overrides the Bush veto already have coverage through their parents' employers.

Democrats also have bashed Bush for (a) exercising fiscal restraint on SCHIP after bankrolling the Iraq war and (b) for using his veto power on SCHIP after under-utilizing in the first term.

Essentially they are arguing that (a) since the country has gone to war, Bush should abandon all fiscal restraint on domestic spending and (b) that he should continue to stick to hyper-spending, which voters rejected in 2006 - just to be consistent.

Nuts on both counts.

Although I do think Kenney had a point when she told me, "The funding increase that's being requested to support this program is small, relative to the size of the federal budget and certainly relative to the size of other programs." Kenney doesn't think SCHIP should be "held hostage to the quagmire."

Already, the Bush administration is making noises about a compromise. Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt told the Washington Post that President Clinton vetoed welfare reform legislation twice before cutting a deal with Republicans in 1996 and signing a bill.

The next question is: Do Democrats want a new bill, or do they want a Bush veto to help them win in 2008?

This much we know: If Washington does pass a bill, both parties will cut a deal that only pretends to fund the expansion. And while Bush says he wants to put "poor kids first," he'll be in a corner that may force him to accommodate the Democratic leadership's plan to expand SCHIP to the middle class.

I, too, believe in providing health care for needy children, but in this country, we've forgotten how to draw a line.

[dude1394]

Here is the working poor child that gave the democrat rebuttal to Dubya's veto. So this is who we are supposed to now foot the bill for health insurance? Why argue facts when you can pander this well.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...lhOGU3NjNlZDA=

Brother, can you spare a CHIP? [Mark Steyn]

This would seem to be a fairly typical media trajectory. The Democrats sign up a sick kid to read their Saturday morning radio address. As Paul Krugman has observed, Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of us heartless bastards on the right were no doubt too busy laughing to pay attention. But the respectable media were very taken by it:

President Bush, are you smarter than a seventh-grader?

Apparently not. Graeme Frost of Baltimore is 12 years old, a seventh-grader at the Park School, and he understands why children need health care and their parents need help paying for it. He explained it during a rebuttal to the president's Saturday radio address. Yes, we know, Senate staffers wrote the speech for Graeme. That doesn't take away from the message. Does anyone really think President Bush writes his own material?

Of course not. And nor does The Baltimore Sun, which did a nice fluffy soft-focus story typing out the Dems' press release and not querying a word:

Bonnie Frost works for a medical publishing firm; her husband, Halsey, is a woodworker. They are raising their four children on combined income of about $45,000 a year. Neither gets health insurance through work.

If it ever occurred to Matthew Hay Brown, the Sun's "reporter", to look into just what kind of "woodworking" Mr Frost did, he managed to suppress the urge.

"icwhatudo" at Free Republic, however, showed rather more curiosity than the professional reporter paid to investigate the story and did a bit of Googling. Mr Frost, the "woodworker", owns his own design company and the commercial property it operates from, part of which space he also rents out; they have a 3,000-sq-ft home on a street where a 2,000-sq-ft home recently sold for half a million dollars; he was able to afford to send two children simultaneously to a $20,000-a-year private school; his father and grandfather were successful New York designers and architects; etc. This is apparently the new definition of "working families":

Had it not been for a federal health insurance program tailored for working families such as hers - ones lacking the income to purchase private health insurance - Frost is certain that she and her husband would be buried under a mound of unpaid medical bills... She and her husband have priced private health insurance, but they say it would cost them more per month than their mortgage - about $1,200 a month. Neither parent has health insurance through work.

Insureblog, also demonstrating more journalistic initiative than Mr Hay Brown, checked out that last bit:

A check of a quote engine for zip code 21250 (Baltimore) finds a plan for $641 with a $0 deductible and $20 doc copays.

Adding a deductible of $750 (does not apply to doc visits) drops the premium to $452. That's almost a third of the price quoted in the article. Doesn't anyone bother to check the facts?

But who needs facts when you've got the human-interest angle sewn up?

Bonnie Frost still can't drive down the road where the accident occurred...

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.

[Mavdog]

another example of if you can't argue the message, attack the messenger.

so the family sends the two kids to an "exclusive" (btw, what the heck does that mean) private school, tuition of $20,000 a year. so it is stated as a FACT the family pays $40,000 in tuition. the article even goes to the extent of describing the school's facilities in a way to draw a picture of extreme oppulance.

but wait, do we know how much the family pays for their school? absolutely not, I can state as a fact that here in big d one of our best private schools (I wonder if it is also "exclusive"? does needing to apply and pass a test mean "exclusive"?) has over 10% of the students on scholarship. so we actually don't know how much the family spends to educate their kids, do we?

and of course, what difference to the issue of children's insurance does the kids school make anyway?

none.

and then it's the writer discussing the costs of health insurance. just like the writer says they did, I went to a website, ehealthinsurance.com. and asked for a quote for the same zip code. two adults, two kids.

zero deductible? not $641 as it says above, but $1266 per month. a kaiser plan btw.

$829 for a $1000 deductible from kaiser.

$533.05 per month for a plan with united healthcare where you "pay nothing after [$1500] deductible".

$412 per month for the ability to spend a $2500 deductible before the insurance starts paying.

but let's not discuss the need for insuring children when there is some good material in which to attack the messenger.

[chumdawg]

How can they afford to pay $40K a year for school when they make only $45K?

[dude1394]

I have no problem with discussing the need for giving help to folks who need it. It appears that many folk ARE arguing the message. The message being expanding a guvment program that will crowd out people who should pay for their own health care. If we had a lot MORE people paying for their own health care I expect said health care would be a whole lot cheaper.

But come on mavie, if you are going to trot someone's child out as an example of how evil your political opponent is, don't you think it kosher to make sure said example is actually trustworthy and is actually experiencing the issue they are promoting?

Is this one of those cases like 9/11 widows, sheehan etc. that get carte blanche to say anything without being questioned?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

another example of if you can't argue the message, attack the messenger.

so the family sends the two kids to an "exclusive" (btw, what the heck does that mean) private school, tuition of $20,000 a year. so it is stated as a FACT the family pays $40,000 in tuition. the article even goes to the extent of describing the school's facilities in a way to draw a picture of extreme oppulance.

but wait, do we know how much the family pays for their school? absolutely not, I can state as a fact that here in big d one of our best private schools (I wonder if it is also "exclusive"? does needing to apply and pass a test mean "exclusive"?) has over 10% of the students on scholarship. so we actually don't know how much the family spends to educate their kids, do we?

and of course, what difference to the issue of children's insurance does the kids school make anyway?

none.

and then it's the writer discussing the costs of health insurance. just like the writer says they did, I went to a website, ehealthinsurance.com. and asked for a quote for the same zip code. two adults, two kids.

zero deductible? not $641 as it says above, but $1266 per month. a kaiser plan btw.

$829 for a $1000 deductible from kaiser.

$533.05 per month for a plan with united healthcare where you "pay nothing after [$1500] deductible".

$412 per month for the ability to spend a $2500 deductible before the insurance starts paying.

but let's not discuss the need for insuring children when there is some good material in which to attack the messenger.

My employer's health deductible is 500/year. My home insurance is > 2000/year, my auto insurance is 1500/year. What exactly is onorous about a 1000 deductible?

You could attack the decuctable ( malpractice suits, mandatory coverage, other regs) and I would I could be in favor of that, but having a deductable does not seem expecially draconian.

[chumdawg]

dude, don't you imagine that the Dems vetted the family before they rolled the kid out there to speak?

Common sense seems to be lacking here.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

dude, don't you imagine that the Dems vetted the family before they rolled the kid out there to speak?

Common sense seems to be lacking here.

I don't know chum? The dems IMO have had a very long cozy relationship with the media having their back on things like this. The media wants this to be true, that the evil republicans hate children. It's not true, but I believe I've seen way too many stories just like that to believe otherwise.

Why didn't the media do this simple reporting in the first place for example?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I have no problem with discussing the need for giving help to folks who need it.

But come on mavie, if you are going to trot someone's child out as an example of how evil your political opponent is, don't you think it kosher to make sure said example is actually trustworthy and is actually experiencing the issue they are promoting?

Is this one of those cases like 9/11 widows, sheehan etc. that get carte blanche to say anything without being questioned?

the kid was in a bad accident, and he was covered by chip. in maryland, the cap on a family of four to be in the program is $60K/yr.

seems to be a valid, experienced person to discuss the chip program. he and his siter were in the hospital for many months, and he still is getting therapy.

the questions is NOT what school he goes to, or what a house down the street of the family sold for.

or do you believe that the family should be forced to sell their home to afford to pay a doctor and the hospital to save the life of their kids?

here's his address:

"Hi, my name is Graeme Frost. I'm 12 years old and I live in Baltimore, Maryland. Most kids my age probably haven't heard of CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program. But I know all about it, because if it weren't for CHIP, I might not be here today.

"CHIP is a law the government made to help families like mine afford healthcare for their kids. Three years ago, my family was in a really bad car accident. My younger sister Gemma and I were both hurt. I was in a coma for a week and couldn't eat or stand up or even talk at first. My sister was even worse. I was in the hospital for five-and-a-half months and I needed a big surgery. For a long time after that, I had to go to physical therapy after school to get stronger. But even though I was hurt badly, I was really lucky. My sister and I both were.

"My parents work really hard and always make sure my sister and I have everything we need, but the hospital bills were huge. We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program.

"But there are millions of kids out there who don't have CHIP, and they wouldn't get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt. Their parents might have to sell their cars or their houses, or they might not be able to pay for hospital bills at all.

"Now I'm back to school. One of my vocal chords is paralyzed so I don't talk the same way I used to. And I can't walk or run as fast as I did. The doctors say I can't play football any more, but I might still be able to be a coach. I'm just happy to be back with my friends.

"I don't know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. All I know is I have some really good doctors. They took great care of me when I was sick, and I'm glad I could see them because of the Children's Health Program.

"I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me. This is Graeme Frost, and this has been the Weekly Democratic Radio address. Thanks for listening."

let's discuss the soundbite of dubya who says the bill he vetoed is an attempt to introduce "socialized medicine".

(a ruse of course as the program utilizies private health insurers as i understand...)

let's discuss if there is a need to insure children who otherwise don't have access to health insurance.

but let's NOT attack the kid who gets on the radio and speaks to how the insurance program helped him receive medical treatment when he needed, or his family by way of making them out to be charlatans, and then using a sort of class warfare by mentioning the price of a home in their neighborhood or the "exclusive school' that we have no idea how much they pay for.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the kid was in a bad accident, and he was covered by chip. in maryland, the cap on a family of four to be in the program is $60K/yr.

seems to be a valid, experienced person to discuss the chip program. he and his siter were in the hospital for many months, and he still is getting therapy.


the questions is NOT what school he goes to, or what a house down the street of the family sold for.

or do you believe that the family should be forced to sell their home to afford to pay a doctor and the hospital to save the life of their kids?

The question is whether they can afford health insurance but do not have to pay for it because of schip. If they CAN afford to pay 40,000/year for private school (or even private school at all) why can't they afford health care. That is the question.

And that is why their finances and net worth is relevant. As you mention their home would not be counted against them with respect to guvment programs. You ask me whether they should have to sell their home..I would ask you whether they should use public school or homeschool to save the life of their kids.

let's discuss the soundbite of dubya who says the bill he vetoed is an attempt to introduce "socialized medicine".

(a ruse of course as the program utilizies private health insurers as i understand...)

If your definition of socialized medicine is the guvment paying for everyones' premiums then isn't dubya's soundbite correct?

EDIT: I don't know where dubya would get the idea that this would be a plan to usher in universal care:

but let's NOT attack the kid who gets on the radio and speaks to how the insurance program helped him receive medical treatment when he needed, or his family by way of making them out to be charlatans, and then using a sort of class warfare by mentioning the price of a home in their neighborhood or the "exclusive school' that we have no idea how much they pay for.

Again why not? If they are putting themselves out there as examples of a guvment program that needs to be expanded to the tune of 35billion dollars, shouldn't their claim be examined? If not, why not?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The question is whether they can afford health insurance but do not have to pay for it because of schip. If they CAN afford to pay 40,000/year for private school (or even private school at all) why can't they afford health care. That is the question.

we don't know how much they pay for their school, we only know how much the school quotes as its tuiton.

And that is why their finances and net worth is relevant. As you mention their home would not be counted against them with respect to guvment programs. You ask me whether they should have to sell their home..I would ask you whether they should use public school or homeschool to save the life of their kids.

since the kids spent most of the school year in the hospital it is sorta moot.

I'd expect that the school would keep the kids enrolled if this accident took all their money.

I'd also expect that they would do whatever they need to do to save their kids lives. wouldn't you?

If your definition of socialized medicine is the guvment paying for everyones' premiums then isn't dubya's soundbite correct?

that's not my definition of "socialized medicine", as the practioners are not employed by the government, nor does the government run the healthcare industry.

is a government insurance program your definition of "socialized medicine"?

Again why not? If they are putting themselves out there as examples of a guvment program that needs to be expanded to the tune of 35billion dollars, shouldn't their claim be examined? If not, why not?

that number is over 5 years btw.

are there uninsured children in our country due to the costs of insuring them too high for the family to afford?

that's the question.
the other items in the article are deflection from that question.

[FishForLunch]

The insurance quotes you get online is only for healthy people, if by any bad luck you have pre-existing conditions you are screwed.

I have Ins through my company and I have a 3000 dollar deductible and pay around 3500 in Premiums, I think this is a good deal for my Family. So if you want a similar insurance without the company paying most of the premiums you better be prepared to pay around 1500 a month

So if a family who earns 60K (I would assume middle class) has to pay over 10% of their income for medical Ins, thats a big burden. Atleast if your children are covered by CHIP the parent can have peace of mind in case something bad happens. If you are a parent you know how importannt it is to see your children are well taken care off.

How will you pay for it? Dont know thats why we have educated people in goverment to come up with creative ideas. Whoever has the best idea needs to be elected to implement them.


Republicans just saying no it cost too much is not a solution, its like the democracts saying the War on Terror is a failure but no democrat has any idea how to win it.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

another example of if you can't argue the message, attack the messenger.

so the family sends the two kids to an "exclusive" (btw, what the heck does that mean) private school, tuition of $20,000 a year. so it is stated as a FACT the family pays $40,000 in tuition. the article even goes to the extent of describing the school's facilities in a way to draw a picture of extreme oppulance.

but wait, do we know how much the family pays for their school? absolutely not, I can state as a fact that here in big d one of our best private schools (I wonder if it is also "exclusive"? does needing to apply and pass a test mean "exclusive"?) has over 10% of the students on scholarship. so we actually don't know how much the family spends to educate their kids, do we?

and of course, what difference to the issue of children's insurance does the kids school make anyway?

none.

and then it's the writer discussing the costs of health insurance. just like the writer says they did, I went to a website, ehealthinsurance.com. and asked for a quote for the same zip code. two adults, two kids.

zero deductible? not $641 as it says above, but $1266 per month. a kaiser plan btw.

$829 for a $1000 deductible from kaiser.

$533.05 per month for a plan with united healthcare where you "pay nothing after [$1500] deductible".

$412 per month for the ability to spend a $2500 deductible before the insurance starts paying.

but let's not discuss the need for insuring children when there is some good material in which to attack the messenger.

If you are talking about St.Mark private school here in Dallas, then I think it is now well over 10% are on some type of scholarship.

[Jack.Kerr]

Political Memo
Capitol Feud: A 12-Year-Old Is the Fodder
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: October 10, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — There have been moments when the fight between Congressional Democrats and President Bush over the State Children’s Health Insurance Program seemed to devolve into a shouting match about who loves children more.

So when Democrats enlisted 12-year-old Graeme Frost, who along with a younger sister relied on the program for treatment of severe brain injuries suffered in a car crash, to give the response to Mr. Bush’s weekly radio address on Sept. 29, Republican opponents quickly accused them of exploiting the boy to score political points.

Then, they wasted little time in going after him to score their own.

In recent days, Graeme and his family have been attacked by conservative bloggers and other critics of the Democrats’ plan to expand the insurance program, known as S-chip. They scrutinized the family’s income and assets — even alleged the counters in their kitchen to be granite — and declared that the Frosts did not seem needy enough for government benefits.

But what on the surface appears to be yet another partisan feud, all the nastier because a child is at the center of it, actually cuts to the most substantive debate around S-chip. Democrats say it is crucially needed to help the working poor — Medicaid already helps the impoverished — but many Republicans say it now helps too many people with the means to help themselves.

The feud also illustrates what can happen when politicians showcase real people to make a point, a popular but often perilous technique. And in this case, the discourse has been anything but polite.

The critics accused Graeme’s father, Halsey, a self-employed woodworker, of choosing not to provide insurance for his family of six, even though he owned his own business. They pointed out that Graeme attends an expensive private school. And they asserted that the family’s home had undergone extensive remodeling, and that its market value could exceed $400,000.

One critic, in an e-mail message to Graeme’s mother, Bonnie, warned: “Lie down with dogs, and expect to get fleas.” As it turns out, the Frosts say, Graeme attends the private school on scholarship. The business that the critics said Mr. Frost owned was dissolved in 1999. The family’s home, in the modest Butchers Hill neighborhood of Baltimore, was bought for $55,000 in 1990 and is now worth about $260,000, according to public records. And, for the record, the Frosts say, their kitchen counters are concrete.

Certainly the Frosts are not destitute. They also own a commercial property, valued at about $160,000, that provides rental income. Mr. Frost works intermittently in woodworking and as a welder, while Mrs. Frost has a part-time administrative job at a firm that provides services to publishers of medical journals. Her job does not provide health coverage.

Under the Maryland child health program, a family of six must earn less than $55,220 a year for children to qualify. The program does not require applicants to list their assets, which do not affect eligibility.

In a telephone interview, the Frosts said they had recently been rejected by three private insurance companies because of pre-existing medical conditions. “We stood up in the first place because S-chip really helped our family and we wanted to help other families,” Mrs. Frost said.

“We work hard, we’re honest, we pay our taxes,” Mr. Frost said, adding, “There are hard-working families that really need affordable health insurance.”

Democrats, including the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, have risen to the Frosts’ defense, saying they earn about $45,000 a year and are precisely the type of working-poor Americans that the program was intended to help.

Ms. Pelosi on Tuesday said, “I think it’s really a sad statement about how bankrupt some of these people are in their arguments against S-chip that they would attack a 12-year-old boy.”

The House and Senate approved legislation that would expand the child health program by $35 billion over five years. President Bush, who proposed a lower increase, vetoed the bill last week. Mr. Bush said the Democrats’ plan was fiscally unsound; the Democrats say Mr. Bush is willing to spend billions on the Iraq war but not on health care for American children.

Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance, have backed off, glad to let bloggers take the heat for attacking a family with injured children.

An aide to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, expressed relief that his office had not issued a press release criticizing the Frosts.

But Michelle Malkin, one of the bloggers who have strongly criticized the Frosts, insisted Republicans should hold their ground and not pull punches.

“The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets,” Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. “Maryland’s S-chip program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.”

As for accusations that bloggers were unfairly attacking a 12-year-old, Ms. Malkin wrote on her blog, “If you don’t want questions, don’t foist these children onto the public stage.”

Mr. and Mrs. Frost said they were bothered by the assertion that they lacked health coverage by their own choice.

“That is not true at all,” Mrs. Frost said. “Basically all these naysayers need to lay the facts out on the page, and say, ‘How could a family be able to do this?’ S-chip is a stopgap.”

[Jack.Kerr]

I'm not normally a big fan of Maulkin, but I think the questions raised about the family's finances are fair, and I don't necessarily think it's a matter of "attacking the messenger" to examine and question things about this family's situation that don't add up.

On the one hand, you hate to see a family wiped out financially by a catastrophic situation, even if the parents have chosen jobs that don't provide health insurance; but on the other hand, this family really doesn't exactly sound like they are the type of recipients the program is designed for. You want to see them saved from financial ruin, even if they are being affected by consequences that seem to be somewhat within their control; but it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask why at least one parent hasn't made it a higher priority to get health coverage. It seems like this is the very type of program creep that will suck out the incentive for employers to provide health insurance as a benefit, and precisely the kind of situation that will sap a lot of the incentive for middle-income families (who may be cash poor but have significant assets) to pursue coverage on their own. Factor in the fact that the family has attempted to get private coverage but was denied because of a pre-existing condition, and you have a conundrum.

It's a tough situation the family is in, but there are legitimate (if difficult) questions to ask and have answered.

[Jack.Kerr]

October 18, 2007
House Fails to Override Child Health Bill Veto
By DAVID STOUT and ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 — 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 main suspense before today’s vote was over how many Republicans would side against President Bush. Forty-four House Republicans voted for the bill today, compared with 45 on Sept. 25.

The White House said President Bush was pleased with today’s result. “As it is clear that this legislation lacks sufficient support to become law, now is the time for Congress to stop playing politics and to join the president in finding common ground to reauthorize this vital program,” said Dana Perino, Mr. Bush’s spokeswoman.

Democrats had anticipated defeat, and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, and Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, immediately offered angry comments.

“Each Republican who voted to uphold President Bush’s heartless veto should be embarrassed that he chose to stand in the way of improving the lives of millions of America’s poorest children,” Mr. Reid said. “While we appreciate those who voted to override his veto, there unfortunately remain too many who are all too willing to rubber-stamp President Bush’s shameful policies and succumb to his misinformation campaign.”

Mr. Emanuel was defiant. “In the coming days, Democrats will not back down and we will insist on providing health care coverage to these 10 million children,” he said.

Most of the Democratic leadership has shown little inclination to negotiate with the White House, beyond offering to make “tweaks” in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program so the president could “save face,” as Mr. Reid put it recently. Democrats in Congress said Wednesday that they would pass a new bill, but were willing to adjust it to address some White House concerns.

Mr. Bush has already named three administration officials to “seek common ground” with Congress on the S-chip program, as it is commonly known.

But Democratic leaders, believing they have public support for expanding the program, said they saw no urgent need to negotiate the central elements of the bill.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats in Congress would not compromise on their goal of providing health insurance for 10 million children — 6.6 million already on the rolls and nearly 4 million who are uninsured.

When he vetoed the bill quietly on Oct. 3, Mr. Bush said he was open to compromising with Congress. The bill approved by both Houses would expand the S-chip program by $35 billion over the next five years. Mr. Bush has proposed to spend $5 billion more over the same period.

Many Republicans argue that the vetoed bill would allow coverage of children from middle- and upper-income families and of adults and some illegal immigrants. Democrats reject such criticism, but say they will consider revising the bill to make its restrictions and prohibitions clearer.

The last-minute debate today followed the same path, as Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic whip, parodied what the president has said about the campaign against terrorism. “You’re either for American children or you’re not,” Mr. Clyburn said. “It’s just that simple.”

No, it is not, said Representative Greg Walden, Republican of Oregon. He said he wonders if the government could pay for the S-chip program as embodied in the bill. “I spent 21 years in small business,” he said. “I never signed a contract I couldn’t keep my word on.”

The bill would increase tobacco taxes, with the levy on cigarettes increasing to $1 a pack from the current 39 cents.

If Mr. Bush vetoes a second version of the bill, Democrats say they will send him a third version just before Election Day 2008.

In the Senate, which passed the bill 67 to 29 on Sept. 27 with the help of 18 Republicans, supporters already have a two-thirds majority.

Representative Judy Biggert, Republican of Illinois, said the next step is “to get back to the drawing board and fix the bill.”

“It won’t take much,” she said. “For example, we need to make sure that poor kids are covered before adults. If Democrats really care about kids, they will have to negotiate.”

Mr. Reid was asked Tuesday whether he would be willing to negotiate with the White House if Congress upheld the president’s veto. “No, no, no,” he replied. “We have negotiated.”

To win support from Republicans, Mr. Reid said, Democrats had “compromised and compromised and compromised.” The secretary of health and human services, Michael O. Leavitt, said Wednesday that the child health program “ought to be focused on poor families.”

But the latest CBS News poll, released on Wednesday, found overwhelming support for expansion of the program to include some middle-class uninsured children.

Eighty-one percent of respondents, including 70 percent of Republicans, supported expanding the program. Three-quarters of those who supported expansion said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to finance it. The poll was conducted nationally by telephone Oct. 12-16 with 1,282 adults, and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

“This legislation will haunt him again and again and again,” Mrs. Pelosi said of the president. “It’s not going away, because the children are not going away.”

Robert Pear contributed reporting.