Spitzer threatens to sue federal govt over SCHIP.
Today in the New York Daily News, Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) sharply criticizes the Bush administration’s cuts, which block the state’s plan to expand coverage “to children whose parents earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, from 250 percent currently.” From his op-ed:
There are 400,000 uninsured children in New York. To put this in perspective, if they were to gather in one place, they would form the second-largest city in the state - larger than Rochester, Albany and Binghamton combined.
To deny coverage to these children is not only morally wrong, it is profoundly bad public policy. […]
But then - last Friday - the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, at the behest of President Bush, slammed the door in the face of children and families across our nation.
Not only would CMS prevent states from increasing their income limits to bring more children into the program, CMS has actually proposed reducing the income limits many states already have, forcing children out of the program and into the ranks of the uninsured.
Yesterday, Spitzer also threatened to sue the federal government “on charges that new regulations on children’s health insurance violate an existing program that covers children from lower-income families.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
35 Responses to “Spitzer threatens to sue federal govt over SCHIP.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Go Spitzer. You show them how it’s done. Any system that sets a poverty level at a fixed level and applies that level to every state is insane. I think that Bush and Laura should be forced to live in New York for one month on the poverty level income they have set. That would show him the folly of what he has done.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:01 amIt amazes me that people are willing to spend billions of dollars a week on the other side of the world, but not willing to spend a few million more over a few years here.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:05 amSpitzer is harly a good example.
He’s under investigation for abuse of power.
He’s hardly a guy to admite.
It’s funny how you Leftists complain about Bush, when when a fellow Leftist does the same you guys are silent!
Hypocrisy!
August 28th, 2007 at 10:10 amJust a question.
Since this is a federal program, wouldn’t Congress have to vote on changes to it. After all, the money for these programs comes out of the Federal budget, which is controlled by Congress.
Anybody?
August 28th, 2007 at 10:10 amIt amazes me that people are willing to spend billions of dollars a week on the other side of the world, but not willing to spend a few million more over a few years here.
Comment by Bob — August 28, 2007 @ 10:05 am
The government doesn’t spend billions of dollars on the other side of the world. As with most foreign assistance, most of the money spent on Iraq never leaves the United States…
August 28th, 2007 at 10:11 amAll this from the biggest, greatest, largest, richest and stupidest country in the world
August 28th, 2007 at 10:13 amIt’s funny how you Leftists complain about Bush, when when a fellow Leftist does the same you guys are silent!
Hypocrisy!
Comment by Trajan — August 28, 2007 @ 10:10 am
linky?
August 28th, 2007 at 10:16 amThe cons only cherish children in the womb. After they’re born, not so much.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:18 amAnybody?
Comment by hacker bob — August 28, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Program is administered by Busits.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:19 amEither DO or DO NOT. There is no “threaten”.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:24 amAh, I see, the Republican-infested State Senate is going to waste the taxpayers’ time and money with another phony investigation, a la the Clinton years. Republicans can’t win elections, so they try to disrupt the work of the duly-elected officials with these sham, partisan witch-hunts, right out of the Rove antiAmerica playbook. so the repukes will spend hundreds of hours and millions of dollars, come up with nothing, and look like foolish wastrels again.
This ocuntry needs to outlaw and replace the Republican Party with good patriots.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:24 amWhy does the President hate American children?
August 28th, 2007 at 10:28 amCan anyone explain to me why people who make 400% of the poverty level should expect the government to pay for for their health care?
If a family of 4 earns 80 grand a year, and chooses to not have health insurance for their kids, that is a personal decision, not the governments problem.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:30 am“Ah, I see, the Republican-infested State Senate is going to waste the taxpayers’ time and money with another phony investigation, a la the Clinton years. Republicans can’t win elections, so they try to disrupt the work of the duly-elected officials with these sham, partisan witch-hunts, right out of the Rove antiAmerica playbook. so the repukes will spend hundreds of hours and millions of dollars, come up with nothing, and look like foolish wastrels again.
This ocuntry needs to outlaw and replace the Republican Party with good patriots.
Comment by ronjazz — August 28, 2007 @ 10:24 am”
Yes, and that’s the strategy the Democrat controlled federal congress is using which has EARNED them that 15% approval rating.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:35 amBy your reasoning, parents who can afford private school should not expect the government to pay for their children’s education.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:37 amSELFISHNESS as a society is the problem
August 28th, 2007 at 10:40 amSimple explanation- not enough corporate welfare in the program for BushCo friends.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:41 amWith large numbers of wounded and sick civilian contractors severely straining the U.S. military’s hospitals and clinics across Iraq, the U.S. military is considering authorizing the creation of a parallel privately-run medical care system for the 129,000 contractors on the Pentagon payroll in Iraq.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:51 amComment by Tobey Tall
I say let them rot. Mercenaries and war profiteers…all of them. They can pay for their medical bills from their hazard pay.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:57 amIf a family of 4 earns 80 grand a year, and chooses to not have health insurance for their kids, that is a personal decision, not the governments problem.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 28, 2007 @ 10:30 am
What if it’s not their decision? If both parents are working for Wal-Mart or some other corporation that doesn’t offer health insurance to employees, and they have to choose between spending money on private health insurance, food, or heating oil each month, then it’s not really their decision not to have health insurance, is it?
August 28th, 2007 at 10:59 amFire away, spitzer!
August 28th, 2007 at 11:07 amWhy shouldn’t kids have free health care? We give them a free education, don’t we? Should we take that away too?
August 28th, 2007 at 11:11 amCongress’s approval ratings aren’t in the dumper because they’re being partisan — they’re bad because the Dems aren’t being partisan enough; they’re not doing what the public wants them to do, which is to hunt down and get rid of Bushco. I wonder if that’s going to be left to the public as well.
Compassionate Conservatism = No Child Left Alive
August 28th, 2007 at 11:18 am“By your reasoning, parents who can afford private school should not expect the government to pay for their children’s education.
Comment by TheToonguy — August 28, 2007 @ 10:37 am”
Perhaps they shouldn’t expect the “government” to pay for their education.
However, I have an assessment on my property taxes that pays toward both the public schools and the college in my area. I don’t have any kids going to college yet, and if I did, they would have to pay tuition to go there.
You see, what some folks forget is that the “government” doesn’t pay for anything. They don’t have any of their own money. The citizens of the United States pay for everything through taxes.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:34 amThe real shame here is there’s only 23 comments. Am I the only person on here whose children don’t have coverage? Keep heckling back and forth at each other. It’s doing so much for the cause.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:35 amHealthcare should be a non-issue for everyone. Meaning its provided, end of story.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:48 am“The real shame here is there’s only 23 comments. Am I the only person on here whose children don’t have coverage? Keep heckling back and forth at each other. It’s doing so much for the cause.
Comment by bh3392 — August 28, 2007 @ 11:35 am”
Only 23 comments because this is such a hollow issue. It sounds good for politicians to “do something for the children”, and then make the issue a political hot-button to use in labeling each other as either “for the kids” or “child haters.”
However, there is no real issue here. Each state may have slightly different criteria for measuring who gets what state insurance, but the reality is that NO child is turned away from health care in the United States, whether in some sort of government program or not.
My wife and I have 6 kids between us, so I know of what I speak.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:53 amIn Washington last week, the White House renewed George W. Bush’s war against children’s health care that dates back to his days as Governor of Texas. Just two weeks after the House and Senate each approved major expansions of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), the Bush administration announced draconian new eligibility rules that would trim thousands of low income children from the rolls. But unlike his Texas two-step when he claimed credit for a program he fought tooth and nail, this time George W. Bush isn’t running for anything.
For the details, see:
August 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pm“Bush Repeats His Texas War on Children’s Health Insurance.”
#27 - However, there is no real issue here. Each state may have slightly different criteria for measuring who gets what state insurance, but the reality is that NO child is turned away from health care in the United States, whether in some sort of government program or not.
No issue? Then please help direct me to find where a middle income family in NJ can get free healthcare?The cheapest I can find for my family is $800/month and that’s not possible on our income.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:17 pmComment by bh3392 — August 28, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
It is all you fault, bh3392, it all started when you chose you parents (bad choice) who in turn chose the wrong parents (Your grand parents) who in turn again chose the wrong parents (Your great grand parents)… ab infintinitum. The only way to correct this is to go back in time and encourage your forebears to lie cheat and steal in order to better your lot.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:16 pmEach state may have slightly different criteria for measuring who gets what state insurance, but the reality is that NO child is turned away from health care in the United States, whether in some sort of government program or not.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 28, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Any proof that NO child is turned away from health care in the US, Big Foot in the Mouth? There is no shortage of articles documenting cases that say otherwise.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:41 amHowever, as soon as a like Tauscher returns and massages the progs’ preconceived belief of how Iraq’s going (it’s a “disaster!”), then they all hypocritically laud her and kiss her a$$. This mental laziness among progs is really a damning indictment of their intellectual prowess. Progs are also charlatans for not taking Tauscher to task for the same reasons they disbelieved Vitter and Corker: Tauscher herself only spoke to the US military (getting their “talking points) and spent only 30 hours in Iraq.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pmHowever, as soon as a slu* like Tauscher returns and massages the progs’ preconceived belief of how Iraq’s going (it’s a “disaster!”), then they all hypocritically laud her and kiss her a$$. This mental laziness among progs is really a damning indictment of their intellectual prowess. Progs are also charlatans for not taking Tauscher to task for the same reasons they disbelieved Vitter and Corker: Tauscher herself only spoke to the US military (getting their “talking points) and spent only 30 hours in Iraq.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pmTauscher proves that ALL progressives are stupid sheeple who are narrow-minded followers who refuse to independently think for themselves. This disease of progs is easily seen in their fanatically automated reactions regarding Tauscher’s questionable intrepretation of Iraq’s situation. Whenever Demoncrats like O’Hanlon or Levin or Baird return and tell the truth–to their own detriment as they’re hated in their own party–progs react with sheeple-like ideology, dismissing the aforementioned as Bush stooges or liars. However, as soon as a slu* like Tauscher returns and massages the progs’ preconceived belief of how Iraq’s going (it’s a “disaster!”), then they all hypocritically laud her and kiss her a$$. This mental laziness among progs is really a damning indictment of their intellectual prowess. Progs are also charlatans for not taking Tauscher to task for the same reasons they disbelieved Vitter and Corker: Tauscher herself only spoke to the US military (getting their “talking points) and spent only 30 hours in Iraq.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pmTauscher herself only spoke to the US military (getting their “talking points) and spent only 30 hours in Iraq.
Comment by fasdfasd — August 29, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Which is still three times longer than Vitter, etc. spent there. And what do your three rants have to do with this thread on child health care, anyway? Typical case of neo-CON lack of reading comprehension, I suppose.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:13 pm