October 19, 2007 3:47 PM
Posted By News Questions
& comments 1
House Narrowly Fails to Override SCHIP Veto
On Thursday, the House of Representatives narrowly failed to overturn President Bush’s veto of a bill that would have extended coverage under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to nearly 4 million uninsured children. According to Representative John Dingell (D-MI), more than 90 percent of families covered have incomes are below $41,300 for a family of four.
The vote was 273-156, 13 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass the measure over the president’s veto. The bill was passed last month in the Senate with more than a two-thirds majority.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) express her intention, within “the next two weeks, . . . to send the president another bill that provides health care for 10 million children.”
From Thomas Berg on MirrorofJustice.com:
"It's really too much to hear the President oppose the expansion on the ground that it may benefit some families with incomes up to $83,000 in one or two states, when his own coverage proposal -- a fixed income-tax deduction for a family at any income level who buys health insurance -- "would disproportionately increase coverage among higher income groups," according to the consulting-firm report that the administration itself quotes (see near the end of the Factcheck.org page). According to that report (see Figure 3 at that link), the percentage increase in coverage among families making more than $100,000 a year (38.6 percent) will be double or greater the increase among families making less than $40,000 (19.1 percent for incomes in the 30s, less for lower incomes) -- yet the President criticizes the congressional bill for not "focus[ing] on serving children from families below" the $40,000 level! As is usually the case, the choice of a tax deduction as the means to deliver benefits disproportionately helps those in higher tax brackets. By contrast, under the congressional bill, according to the Urban Institute study quoted in Mr. Anderson's article, SCHIP will still preserve 70 percent of its benefits for children in families under $41,300 yearly income (figuring a four-person family) -- hardly "a welfare program for the middle class" as Mr. Anderson claims. In the light of this contrast, I'm not so confident as Mr. Anderson that everyone in the debate is focused on helping the poor. Where is the administration proposal that focuses on expanded coverage for the modest-income family?"
From Thomas Berg on MirrorofJustice.com:
"It's really too much to hear the President oppose the expansion on the ground that it may benefit some families with incomes up to $83,000 in one or two states, when his own coverage proposal -- a fixed income-tax deduction for a family at any income level who buys health insurance -- "would disproportionately increase coverage among higher income groups," according to the consulting-firm report that the administration itself quotes (see near the end of the Factcheck.org page). According to that report (see Figure 3 at that link), the percentage increase in coverage among families making more than $100,000 a year (38.6 percent) will be double or greater the increase among families making less than $40,000 (19.1 percent for incomes in the 30s, less for lower incomes) -- yet the President criticizes the congressional bill for not "focus[ing] on serving children from families below" the $40,000 level! As is usually the case, the choice of a tax deduction as the means to deliver benefits disproportionately helps those in higher tax brackets. By contrast, under the congressional bill, according to the Urban Institute study quoted in Mr. Anderson's article, SCHIP will still preserve 70 percent of its benefits for children in families under $41,300 yearly income (figuring a four-person family) -- hardly "a welfare program for the middle class" as Mr. Anderson claims. In the light of this contrast, I'm not so confident as Mr. Anderson that everyone in the debate is focused on helping the poor. Where is the administration proposal that focuses on expanded coverage for the modest-income family?"