lily
08-03-2007, 12:55 AM
Well, I'm not thrilled by the cigarette hike, but it that's what it takes. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080100266.html?wpisrc=newsletter)
Children's Health Bill Approved By House
Insurance Expansion Near Senate Passage But Faces Veto Threat
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 2, 2007; Page A01
The House yesterday approved legislation vastly expanding a federal health
insurance program for the children of the working poor, shrugging off a
fresh veto threat from President Bush and the fierce opposition of House
Republicans.
The Senate, where the legislation has strong bipartisan support, is expected
to follow suit as early as today, voting on a more modest version of the
program and probably setting up a showdown between congressional supporters
and the White House, which says the measures are far too expansive.
The legislation would launch the most significant growth in federal health
care in a decade, and Democrats hope it will fortify their members as they
head home soon for the summer recess amid voter perceptions that they have
accomplished little since taking control of Congress.
"This is the children's hour," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
declared last night. "We are able to meet our moral obligation to our
children."
The 225 to 204 vote in the House -- largely along party lines -- came after
hours of delaying tactics, strident rhetoric and trench warfare from
Republicans who called the bill the first step toward "socialized medicine,"
financed by an unfair tobacco tax increase and cuts for managed-care
companies in Medicare.
But in the end, the Democrats had weapons that were just too powerful -- a
promise to insure 5 million more children who otherwise would have no access
to health care, adding to the 6 million children already covered -- and the
backing of Republican and Democratic governors, the American Medical
Association, AARP, the March of Dimes, the Catholic Health Association, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, and even cyclist Lance Armstrong. And the
prospects are good in the Senate, where a key Republican, Orrin G. Hatch
(Utah), said, "It's difficult for me to understand how anyone wouldn't want
to do this."
But Bush opposes such a major expansion of the program. In an interview with
The Washington Post last month, he said, "When you expand eligibility . . .
you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from
private insurance to the government."
The House bill would enlarge the State Children's Health Insurance Program,
or SCHIP, by $47 billion over five years to provide coverage to the
additional 5 million children.
Those children would have access to dental and mental health care. And the
bill would offer new options for states to extend Medicaid and SCHIP
coverage up to age 20 and to cover some legal immigrants and pregnant women.
It would expand coverage for preventive health screening for seniors under
Medicare and would provide $19 billion over five years to prevent scheduled
cuts to physician reimbursements under Medicare. Nearly $3 billion is
included for rural health care.
To pay for itself, the bill would raise the federal tobacco tax by 45 cents
a pack, while making federal payments to managed-care plans under Medicare
equal to reimbursements for the federally managed Medicare program.
The bill, which last month appeared to be politically unassailable, stirred
a pitched battle on the House floor. Democrats charged that Republicans were
fighting to deny health care to children, using scare tactics and false
charges to mask their true intentions. Republicans accused Democrats of
pushing nationalized health care while accusing them of slashing Medicare
and imperiling seniors.
"Folks, that's the bottom line: It's government-paid health care," Rep. J.
Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said in a rare speech since he lost the House
speakership in the Democratic takeover. "It's a bad bill for a bad time, and
it's coming under the false pretenses of trying to do something for
children."
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), pointing to the cuts for
Medicare managed-care plans, dashed off a letter to AARP, calling for the
powerful seniors lobby to retract its endorsement and halt its full-throttle
campaign for the bill's passage.
But John Rother, AARP's policy director, responded that funding for Medicare
physician reimbursements and free medical screenings more than makes up for
any difficulties managed-care companies might face when they get the same
reimbursement rates as the core Medicare program.
The Senate measure, a $35 billion expansion of the program over five years,
would continue coverage for about 1 million children who might otherwise be
dropped and add 3 million youngsters.
By forgoing the physician reimbursement issue and rural health-care funding,
senators could pay for its bill with a 61-cent increase in the federal
tobacco tax while avoiding any Medicare cuts. That has given the Senate bill
broad, bipartisan support, but House Democratic leaders say the advocacy of
Hatch and several other conservatives will give their members ample
political cover when negotiators try to reconcile the House and Senate
versions.
Hatch and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said yesterday that the
House-Senate negotiations will aim to keep the final measure within the
scope of the Senate bill, in hopes of avoiding a veto.
"Personally, I believe if we can get enough votes, the president doesn't
want to veto this," Hatch said.
House Republican leaders believe they have turned the issue against the
Democrats. Earlier this week, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the House
Democratic Caucus chairman, huddled with his caucus behind closed doors to
soothe frayed nerves. His tool was an advertisement that Rep. Chet Edwards
(D-Tex.) depended on to win reelection in 2004, when an unprecedented
redistricting in his state had made his electorate strongly Republican.
"I don't want welfare. I just want to get insurance for my child," Jenny
Jones, 28, said in the advertisement, after explaining that her husband had
been killed two years before in a house fire, leaving her 3-year-old
daughter, Bailey, dependent on the Children's Health Insurance Program.
"Look at my little girl, look into her eyes and tell her she's not good
enough to be taken care of."
Of the half-dozen Democrats targeted by Republican-controlled redistricting
in Texas, only Edwards survived. "What trumps everything is 11 million
children with health care and the AARP endorsement," Emanuel said.
Children's Health Bill Approved By House
Insurance Expansion Near Senate Passage But Faces Veto Threat
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 2, 2007; Page A01
The House yesterday approved legislation vastly expanding a federal health
insurance program for the children of the working poor, shrugging off a
fresh veto threat from President Bush and the fierce opposition of House
Republicans.
The Senate, where the legislation has strong bipartisan support, is expected
to follow suit as early as today, voting on a more modest version of the
program and probably setting up a showdown between congressional supporters
and the White House, which says the measures are far too expansive.
The legislation would launch the most significant growth in federal health
care in a decade, and Democrats hope it will fortify their members as they
head home soon for the summer recess amid voter perceptions that they have
accomplished little since taking control of Congress.
"This is the children's hour," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
declared last night. "We are able to meet our moral obligation to our
children."
The 225 to 204 vote in the House -- largely along party lines -- came after
hours of delaying tactics, strident rhetoric and trench warfare from
Republicans who called the bill the first step toward "socialized medicine,"
financed by an unfair tobacco tax increase and cuts for managed-care
companies in Medicare.
But in the end, the Democrats had weapons that were just too powerful -- a
promise to insure 5 million more children who otherwise would have no access
to health care, adding to the 6 million children already covered -- and the
backing of Republican and Democratic governors, the American Medical
Association, AARP, the March of Dimes, the Catholic Health Association, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, and even cyclist Lance Armstrong. And the
prospects are good in the Senate, where a key Republican, Orrin G. Hatch
(Utah), said, "It's difficult for me to understand how anyone wouldn't want
to do this."
But Bush opposes such a major expansion of the program. In an interview with
The Washington Post last month, he said, "When you expand eligibility . . .
you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from
private insurance to the government."
The House bill would enlarge the State Children's Health Insurance Program,
or SCHIP, by $47 billion over five years to provide coverage to the
additional 5 million children.
Those children would have access to dental and mental health care. And the
bill would offer new options for states to extend Medicaid and SCHIP
coverage up to age 20 and to cover some legal immigrants and pregnant women.
It would expand coverage for preventive health screening for seniors under
Medicare and would provide $19 billion over five years to prevent scheduled
cuts to physician reimbursements under Medicare. Nearly $3 billion is
included for rural health care.
To pay for itself, the bill would raise the federal tobacco tax by 45 cents
a pack, while making federal payments to managed-care plans under Medicare
equal to reimbursements for the federally managed Medicare program.
The bill, which last month appeared to be politically unassailable, stirred
a pitched battle on the House floor. Democrats charged that Republicans were
fighting to deny health care to children, using scare tactics and false
charges to mask their true intentions. Republicans accused Democrats of
pushing nationalized health care while accusing them of slashing Medicare
and imperiling seniors.
"Folks, that's the bottom line: It's government-paid health care," Rep. J.
Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said in a rare speech since he lost the House
speakership in the Democratic takeover. "It's a bad bill for a bad time, and
it's coming under the false pretenses of trying to do something for
children."
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), pointing to the cuts for
Medicare managed-care plans, dashed off a letter to AARP, calling for the
powerful seniors lobby to retract its endorsement and halt its full-throttle
campaign for the bill's passage.
But John Rother, AARP's policy director, responded that funding for Medicare
physician reimbursements and free medical screenings more than makes up for
any difficulties managed-care companies might face when they get the same
reimbursement rates as the core Medicare program.
The Senate measure, a $35 billion expansion of the program over five years,
would continue coverage for about 1 million children who might otherwise be
dropped and add 3 million youngsters.
By forgoing the physician reimbursement issue and rural health-care funding,
senators could pay for its bill with a 61-cent increase in the federal
tobacco tax while avoiding any Medicare cuts. That has given the Senate bill
broad, bipartisan support, but House Democratic leaders say the advocacy of
Hatch and several other conservatives will give their members ample
political cover when negotiators try to reconcile the House and Senate
versions.
Hatch and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said yesterday that the
House-Senate negotiations will aim to keep the final measure within the
scope of the Senate bill, in hopes of avoiding a veto.
"Personally, I believe if we can get enough votes, the president doesn't
want to veto this," Hatch said.
House Republican leaders believe they have turned the issue against the
Democrats. Earlier this week, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the House
Democratic Caucus chairman, huddled with his caucus behind closed doors to
soothe frayed nerves. His tool was an advertisement that Rep. Chet Edwards
(D-Tex.) depended on to win reelection in 2004, when an unprecedented
redistricting in his state had made his electorate strongly Republican.
"I don't want welfare. I just want to get insurance for my child," Jenny
Jones, 28, said in the advertisement, after explaining that her husband had
been killed two years before in a house fire, leaving her 3-year-old
daughter, Bailey, dependent on the Children's Health Insurance Program.
"Look at my little girl, look into her eyes and tell her she's not good
enough to be taken care of."
Of the half-dozen Democrats targeted by Republican-controlled redistricting
in Texas, only Edwards survived. "What trumps everything is 11 million
children with health care and the AARP endorsement," Emanuel said.