dubya vetoed SCHIP, is he also lying, again?

[boutons_]

"Are Bush's Points Valid?

President Bush claims that the bipartisan bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program "would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes up to $83,000 a year."

That's not true.

The bill maintains current law. It limits the program to children from families with incomes up to twice the federal poverty level — now $20,650 for a family of four, for a program limit of $41,300 — or to 50 percentage points above a state's Medicaid eligibility threshold, which varies state to state.

States that want to increase eligibility beyond those limits would require approval from Bush's Health and Human Services Department, just as they must win waivers now. The HHS recently denied a request by New York to increase its income threshold to four times the poverty level — the $82,600 figure that Republican opponents of the bill are using."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/20169.html


Very confusing. So dubya is lying when he says $82.600-income families would qualify?

[clambake]

Bush said "Get back to me when kids are made of oil."

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, W is lying in this particular case. The limit a state could use had the bill passed would be closer to $60,000 for a family of four.

[BushDynasty]

Now, fellas. I'm not lyin', I just read why my handlers put in front of me.

[Wild Cobra]

Well I'm glad he vetoed it. It raises the level from families at the average income point (200% poverty level) to either 300% or 400% of the poverty level. If they didn't make these increases, I could see the bill passing just fine. The $83K number spoke of is at the 400% poverty rate, but I can only find 300% in the legislation (link below), in numerous places. I didn't read the whole bill, so I guess it's possible the 400% is 200% and another 200% somplace, or some other addition. It could also be a non-exsistant number that was in the original bill, but removed with an amendment.

Why do we need to help families at the $60k or $80k rates? This could be disastorous. First of all, health care for children is not as expensive as for adults. Most people withn these income levels have jobs that cover dependants for a little bit more. My children are of age now, but I think my payments were about $80 per month to add them. What this legislation has the potential of doing, is having employers drop dependant care because the government now provides it. The numbers of the privately insured could drop, for favor of free health care.

The plan now costs how much more, and how do we pay for it?

link: HR 976 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h976eah.txt.pdf)

[ChumpDumper]

The plan now costs how much more, and how do we pay for it?I have exactly the same same questions about Iraq.

[2centsworth]

I have exactly the same same questions about Iraq.
the defense budget is pennies compared to entitlement programs

[ChumpDumper]

A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far.

The higher $2 trillion amount takes a 'moderate' approach. Both figures are based on the projection that US troops will remain in Iraq until 2010, with steadily decreasing numbers each year. The economists also used government data from past wars, and included such costs as the rise in the price of oil, a larger US deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the war, the loss to the economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they would have done if not injured, and the increased costs of recruiting to replenish a military drained by repeated tours of duty in Iraq. These are items which are almost never included by the US government when determining the cost of the war....

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html


Iraq war is costing $100,000 per minute

By Mark Mazzetti and Joel Havemann

WASHINGTON — The White House said Thursday that it plans to ask Congress for an additional $70 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, driving the cost of military operations in the two countries to $120 billion this year, the highest ever.

Most of the new money would pay for the war in Iraq, which has cost an estimated $250 billion since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

The additional spending, along with other war funding the Bush administration will seek separately in its regular budget next week, would push the price tag for combat and nation-building since Sept. 11, 2001, to nearly a half-trillion dollars, approaching the inflation-adjusted cost of the 13-year Vietnam War.

The cost of military operations in 2006 is $35 billion higher than what Congress had estimated a few months ago that the Defense Department would need this year....

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002780385_spending03.html

I have that in between my couch cushions.