Pork vs. SCHIP. Check this out.

[Rick Lee]

Children's Health Yields to the Senators From Pork

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, October 24, 2007; A02

The United States Senate yesterday was confronted with a stark choice: health care for children, or pet projects for lawmakers' home states.

The final tally?

Pet Projects 68, Kids 26.

In truth, the children never had a chance. "I predicted 24," the measure's sponsor, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said cheerfully after his defeat.

It was, Coburn's many opponents grumbled, a political stunt. But, as stunts go, this one was particularly revealing. The Oklahoma physician, a foe of the unhealthy cut of congressional pork known as "earmarks," proposed an amendment to a major health spending bill that said no lawmakers' pet projects would be funded until "all children in the U.S. under the age of 18 years are insured by a private or public health insurance plan."

Among the earmarks this jeopardized:

• $130,000 for the National First Ladies' Library in Ohio.

• $500,000 for a "Virtual Herbarium" in New York.

• $400,000 for the Figge Art Museum in Davenport, Iowa.

• $100,000 to celebrate Lake Champlain's quadricentennial.

• $500,000 for "field experiences" on the Chesapeake Bay.

• $50,000 for an ice center in Utah.

"What this amendment is about is asking the Senate to choose," Coburn informed his colleagues on the Senate floor. "Choose your directed earmarks for back home, or make a statement that says we really believe kids' health care is important."

The senators considered this, then went with the herbarium and the lake party. Only two Democrats -- Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Claire McCaskill of Missouri -- joined Coburn, and fully half of his Republican colleagues turned against him. Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John McCain skipped the vote for the presidential hustings.

In a sense, the 9.5 million kids without health coverage shouldn't feel too bad about the vote. When Coburn proposed a similar amendment to the transportation bill -- blocking earmarks until all "structurally deficient" bridges were repaired -- he got only 14 votes.

But lawmakers on both sides have clearly grown weary of Coburn's efforts to embarrass them; just last week, he irked New York's senators when he succeeded in killing a $1 million earmark for a museum dedicated to the 1969 Woodstock concert.

"I assume this comes as no surprise that I oppose the amendment," declared Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Figge Art Museum). "I don't think this amendment is really serious about addressing the health of children."

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Berks County Music Education), author of 166 earmarks in the spending bill, agreed with the senator from the Figge Art Museum. "Senators know their states better than the bureaucrats," Specter argued.

A spokesman for Sen. George Voinovich (R-First Ladies Library) protested that "this is a backdoor way of banning earmarks which he doesn't agree with." A spokesman for Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Lake Champlain) called Coburn's activities "highly questionable and highly selective."

More than one lawmaker complained that if Coburn were truly concerned about children's health care, he would have supported an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which President Bush vetoed. "Maybe a vote for the Coburn amendment could be a cover for those who oppose the SCHIP bill," Harkin theorized on the Senate floor. "Perhaps more and more people are finding out a vote against the SCHIP bill was not a popular vote as we hear back from our communities and states."

Perhaps, but yesterday it was Coburn's turn to force colleagues to make an unpopular vote -- defending $400 million in earmarks instead of using the money to buy health insurance for 173,000 children.

"It seems to me the American public might want to ask why are you earmarking special money for special projects when you have a chance to make sure it will go towards children and really solving the problem?" Coburn taunted. "So this is going to be a tough vote. Kids versus my political career. Kids versus my political power. Kids versus my political earmarks. We're going to see. We're going to get to see what the real priorities of the Senate are."

The senators did their best to ignore Coburn -- literally. While the enemy of earmarks made his closing argument, his colleagues busied themselves in noisy conversations on the Senate floor.

Over the din, Coburn pointed out that 3.6 million children "have not been covered for a year."

"The Senate will come to order!" demanded the presiding officer, Bob Casey (D-Pa.). "The senator has a right to be heard."

The conversations continued. "So this amendment simply states," Coburn argued, that no earmarks would be funded until we've "done our job in terms of caring for our kids."

"Mr. President, I ask the Senate please be called to order," Harkin said, coming to his opponent's rescue.

"The Senate will come to order," Casey repeated, ineffectually.

"We cannot hear the senator from Oklahoma," Harkin repeated.

Casey tapped the gavel. "Take your conversations out of the Senate. That includes the staff."

Only when Coburn finished and his opponents had the floor did the place regain the quiet of a virtual herbarium.

[Evans, Marv]

I copied the text of this an will email it to a bunch of friends.

[sammyg2]

While I absolutely hate pork and pet projects, I also do not support socialized medicine and believe we already have too much welfare. It is eroding the incentives to strive for better, creating generations of welfare babies who will never suceed, never graduate, never be self-sufficient.
So how would I vote? I would go with the majority on this one, no to socialized medicine and no to free health insurance for all. Given the choice I'd vote against the pork also.
Let the parents go out and work for it, let them earn what they get, or let them do without.
I know it's harsh but in the real world (as opposed to the made-up, fantasy world most bleeding hearts live in) this will make the country stronger and make our people stronger. It is the right thing to do. What's worse, to let them do without or to condemn another generation of the poor to a life of dependency? How about the endless stream of illegal immigrants who come to this country to have anchor babies (for free). Should we continue to pay for that? Absolutely not. We should back charge their home country with interest, deducting it from the handouts we give them.

"won't somebody think about the children?' was a line often repeated on the simpsons, used to persuade the dumb, uniformed public to go along with anything.
It works on the weak-minded but I'd like to think that most of us here know better. we can see past the emotional weakness and see the truth.

[Rick Lee]

Coburn is the taxpayer hero of the Senate and I don't think he really wants socialized medicine either. He was just using SCHIP to illustrate how pols really prioritize earmarks, for which he is infamous with his colleagues for fighting. To me the most telling part of the article was how everyone ignored Coburn and went on with their private conversations until he was done speaking. Unbelievable rudeness for the Senate, more common in the House. It's too bad they put freshman senators in the president's chair, since they also get ignored by the more seniors ones.

[HardDrive]

[QUOTE=sammyg2;3558088]While I absolutely hate pork and pet projects, I also do not support socialized medicine and believe we already have too much welfare. It is eroding the incentives to strive for better, creating generations of welfare babies who will never suceed, never graduate, never be self-sufficient.
[QUOTE]

I think you need to seperate healthcare from welfare. I don't see how providing health care to kids is creating citizens that are dependant on the government.

I DO however strongly agree that direct welfare aid ($$$) is clearly causing cross generational welfare dependance. I've seen it will own eyes.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

I don't see how providing health care to kids is creating citizens that are dependant on the government.

What?!?! How can you not see that? If the government is providing something that the parents SHOULD be providing, then that, by definition, is creating precisely government dependence.

Do you think such a program would ever go away? It would only grow, both by extending age limits and parents' income limits. It's classic incrementalism and it's designed precisely to instill a sense of government dependency in a generation of kids, so they'll be more likely to support its expansion when they're adults.

[Evans, Marv]

Having worked with the welfare system for some years before retirement, I can tell you there is already more than one generation dependent on our tax dollar. And believe me they get mostly everything paid for including full health care for themselves and kids - legally in the country or not. They have no concept of how much healthcare costs because they never have to pay a penny toward it.
One thing that used to irk me a lot was hearing them refer to their welfare check as their "pay check." And don't believe what you hear or read about them having to work to receive their benefits.
However for the rest of us, I think the cost of healthcare is a rip off. Somehow there has to be some control of the rising costs. Otherwise just think of how much it's going to cost as the boomers reach the age when they need a lot of medical attention. I sometimes wonder if the health care industry is setting themselves up for big profits when that time comes.

[cairns]

I read this last week. What a shame stuff like this isn't given more publicity.

When the Democrats start trying to make an issue over the SCHIP veto you'll know where their true interests lie. And Coburn has used the same tactic on Republicans with the same results.

That's why I shake my head when I see people get so worked up over conservative or liberal points of view. We argue over crap while both parties bleed the coffers dry and help each other do so. The only common principle in Washington is money.

Did you know there's even a 60/40 rule? The party in power gets 60% of the pork- the other gets 40. When one party tries to take more (as Pelosi and Murtha tried earlier this year) the fur really starts flying.

Sadly I don't think Coburn will win this fight.

[Rick Lee]

The only other pol. who's as serious about this stuff as Coburn is Jeff Flake, from AZ and I believe he's retiring. It's very sad that we only have one Coburn. BTW, he's an OB/GYN who refuses to comply with Senate rules requiring him to give up his private practice (The House allowed it when he was there). He still works at his practice when the Senate is not in session. If his fight against earmarks ever gains real traction, watch for his OB-GYN practice to come up before the Ethics Committee.

[turbo6bar]

Give me Ron Paul for president. He may be a kook, but given reins and power, he could lay down the hurt on these crooks in Washington.

[Superman]

Yeah, let the children suffer and die for a while. What an inexpensive and convenient idea. So inexpensive and simple that it doesn't make sense to consider there might be a downside.

And of course, when those kids are brought to the Emergency Room, it won't cost you anything.

And their parents will take their excellent training and education, and their business contacts, and make some MONEY. Happy for the lesson we taught them. Most of the children will survive, and the ones that don't.....well.......that just increases the cost savings.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Superman

Yeah, let the children suffer and die for a while. What an inexpensive and convenient idea. So inexpensive and simple that it doesn't make sense to consider there might be a downside.

And of course, when those kids are brought to the Emergency Room, it won't cost you anything.

And their parents will take their excellent training and education, and their business contacts, and make some MONEY. Happy for the lesson we taught them. Most of the children will survive, and the ones that don't.....well.......that just increases the cost savings.

I really expected a more cogent argument from you, however wrong it might be. Not expanding SCHIP is in no way related to "letting children suffer and die". Shirley, you can't be serious.

[sammyg2]

mmm, how about their parents take care of their kids? you know, the people who brought them into this world? Or better yet, you seem to be pretty worked up worrying about them, how about you take care of them? you don't have to provide health care for al of the kids, how about you go out and find 4 kids who don't have health care and you pay for their healthcare? When you do that, I'll listen. Until then, you are just like other libs. Always asking someone else to pay for something you aren't willing to pay for yourself.


Helen Lovejoy is Rev. Timothy’s judgmental, and gossipy wife and the mother of Jessica Lovejoy.
She introduced herself in the episode "Life on the Fast Lane" as "the gossipy wife of the minister." (Timothy Lovejoy does not support his wife’s gossipy habit, at one point saying "Oh Helen, call off your dogs.") Helen’s catchphrase, delivered at oddly inappropriate times and situations (or crises) is, "Will someone please think of the children?"

[Superman]

Yes, I am serious. Please stop calling me Shirley.

My mistake, I guess. I was imagining that SCHIP was a program to provide medical insurance to children. Further, I was so confused.......... I thought folks were suggesting that SCHIP and similar programs reduce the motivation for parents to work in order to take care of their kids' health insurance.

But......you're right. I must have been confused. Nobody would suggest we withhold medical insurance from children as a method of motivating their parents.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

mmm, how about their parents take care of their kids? you know, the people who brought them into this world? Or better yet, you seem to be pretty worked up worrying about them, how about you take care of them? you don't have to provide health care for al of the kids, how about you go out and find 4 kids who don't have health care and you pay for their healthcare? When you do that, I'll listen. Until then, you are just like other libs. Always asking someone else to pay for something you aren't willing to pay for yourself.

The thing is that SCHIP supporters can only point to the extreme of this - kids suffering or dying or not having healthcare. No sick kid in the US goes without healthcare unless an adult can't get the kid to a doctor or hospital. Who pays the bill is another story, but I don't believe any kid in recent times has been kicked out of an ER bleeding to death or died because no one would treat him without an insurance card. I'm pretty sure my parents, employers and myself have paid FAR more in health insurance premiums than I've ever used in services. (I've never had stitches or broken any bones or stayed in a hospital.) It would have been way, way cheaper for me to just keep that portion of my paycheck or even to get paid more by my employer and then just pay out of pocket each time I went to the doctor. Plenty of parents who qualify for SCHIP can easily afford to do this. I have a good friend who just started his own business and is having a hard time paying for insur. for his wife and kids. He found a policy that's around $200 a month and is only for catastrophic stuff. The small stuff he pays for out of pocket. This is a good deal and I wish I could do the same and take home the amount my employer kicks in for health insur. each pay period.

[cairns]

Jeez Supe can't you comment on anything without these dopey liberal arguments?

Are you adverse to insisting your Senators and Congressmen pay for the SCHIP increases before they bring home any more pork $ to your district? Or are you just going to wail about dying kids when this is really about increasing the welfare pool (oops I mean income limits) on a program that already exists?

Ot if you want to make it partisan why don't you tell us how high the limits could be (to use your jargon- "kids we could save") were we to pay for it with the combined pork of only four Democratic legislators- Pelosi, Reid, Murtha (mmmm Pennslyvania Bar-B-Que) and Byrd (aka the "Porkmaster")?

[Superman]

Good questions, Cairns. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify.

I have heard about some income limits that do not make sense to me. It makes little sense to me, for example, for a family with $80K income to be on publicly-funded health care.

I also know about Pork. The Pork should be tossed. SCHIP legislation should be evaluated on its own merits.

Yes, I have some very dopey notions. Like for example the dopey notion that we are going to pay for poor childrens' health care one way or the other. In my dopey view, we either pay for it using a plan that outlines the costs and other features, or we just let the hospitals dictate the Emergency Room charges. In my extreme dopiness, I favor a more "conscious" approach rather than the approach, popular here, where we pretend that denying coverage to these children is inexpensive.

Another remark that very frequently gets a response from me is this notion that helping people primarily just fosters laziness. In this instance, folks seem to be saying that our failure to develop a conscious health care policy for these people results in laziness. Well, in a way, I guess I agree. Laziness and greed. Misplaced greed.

Attempting to withhold medical care to these children is not going to save money and is not going to motivate anyone.

[Bill Verburg]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you have to get the pol's attention, you do that by voting them out. No matter how big a chuckle head is running against the incumbent vote for him, If the incumbent is any good you can vote for him next time.

The longer a pol is in office the more out of touch they become and the more willing they are to vote for nonsensical earmarks, get rid of every one of them.

[legion]

Originally Posted by Superman

Attempting to withhold medical care to these children is not going to save money and is not going to motivate anyone.

I guess all those stories I hear about people going to college at middle age to make a better life for their kids are total BS. I guess the guy who sits next to me at work, and did exactly that because he was managing restaurants and often taking home less than the wait staff, is just feeding me a line.

And your statement presupposes that these children have a right to my money; a right to the fruits of my effort, while giving me nothing in return. By the same logic, I have a right to your 911. Who's to say I don't deserve it?

[Spud]

This country has been around for 230 + years, can someone tell me what has changed in the last 3 to make this type of program suddenly necessary?

Honestly...