The Las Vegas Sun published an editorial today slamming Nevada’s Republican congressional delegation for opposing a reauthorization of a health insurance program for poor children. In a letter-to-the-editor submitted this afternoon, I set the record straight on this terrible piece of legislation…
Dear Editor,
I’m writing to take issue with your editorial on August 3, 2007, which takes Sen. John Ensign to the proverbial woodshed for his opposition to a “reauthorization” of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known in Washington-speak as SCHIP.
Your editorial maintains that the bill Sen. Ensign, as well as Reps. Dean Heller and Jon Porter, opposed was “a five-year extension of the program, which now covers 6.6 million poor children.” Were that the truth and the whole truth, you might have a legitimate beef. However, this wasn’t a mere reauthorization of the existing program; it was an attempt to dramatically expand the program, complete with a massive tax hike which would be unsustainable without encouraging millions of new Americans to take up smoking. That’s insane.
In addition, as Rep. Joe Barton of Texas pointed out in a letter last week to the Washington Post, the Democrats’ SCHIP renewal bill would have expanded the scope of the program well beyond covering just “poor children.” In fact, the bill expands taxpayer-funded coverage in the program to adults making up to $100,000 a year.
Truth be told, this expansion of SCHIP is nothing but a back-door attempt to impose nationalized health insurance, aka HillaryCare, on unsuspecting Americans - all in the name of “poor children,” of course. It was a cynical, partisan and deceptive effort by the new Democrat majority and Sen. Ensign, Rep. Heller and Rep. Porter were right in opposing it.
Chuck Muth
President
Citizen Outreach
Posted on August 3rd, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
This is just part of the Democrats’ philosophy of redistribution of wealth. Smokers at the lower end of the income spectrum can pay higher taxes to support health care for $100K income families. Oops, I think the Dems need to review which direction their redistribution schemes are supposed to run.
Chuck,
While I agree with you that the expansion of the program is nuts, I’m disappointed that you failed to make note that a significant number of Republicans also voted for this legislation. In fact enough Republicans voted in favor of this “nationalized health insurance” to make it veto proof.
You’re right, Southy. The bill passed 68-31, with 18 Republicans voting yes. This is a typical case of Republican cowardice harkening back to the days of the “Me Too” Republicans during the Johnson administration and parts of the Clinton administration. Instead of explaining why the legislation is bad, wrong or counterproductive, they’ll either vote to enact the legislation to get it off the table so they don’t have to worry about dealing with it during an election year, or they’ll agree in principle with the ideas behind the legislation but disagree with the extent of it (”I support the idea behind this, but we should phase it in gradually, or spend less on it than the Democrats are proposing”).
Another example of Republican cowardice: Senator Thune proposed an amendment to exclude anyone subject to the alternative minimum tax from receiving relief under the bill. The amendment was rejected by a 57-42 vote, with seven Republicans in the majority. I know there have been a lot of claims that the AMT should be abolished, and that people subject to the AMT aren’t really rich. I would agree with that, but I would also think that people earning a high enough income to be subject to the AMT shouldn’t be covered by this bill.