Supporters of the legislation, which has broad bipartisan support, mobilized lobbyists — 400 from the American Cancer Society alone — and began advertising to win the votes needed to override a veto threatened by Mr. Bush. The president says the measure, which would renew and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, costs too much and would be “an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American.”
The bill would cover four million children, in addition to the 6.6 million already enrolled. The overwhelming majority of those on the rolls are in low-income families. The House plans to vote on the measure as early as Tuesday, and the Senate is expected to pass the legislation a day or two later.
Federal health officials urged states to draft contingency plans in case tens of thousands of children lose coverage because of the impasse when the program expires Sept. 30. As one option, the officials said that states might consider shifting some children onto Medicaid.
Mr. Bush dispatched Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, to “work with states on ways to mitigate the damage that would result if Congress allows this program to lapse.”
Administration officials said they were concerned that the White House was being hurt by televised news reports that portrayed the fight as a struggle between Mr. Bush and poor children, rather than as a philosophical debate over the role of government in health care.
That's because it IS a fight between Bush and poor children. And top Republicans aren't happy to be caught in the middle.
A senior Senate Republican accused President Bush yesterday of holding a bipartisan expansion of the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program hostage to his broader policy goals of using tax deductions to help people afford private health insurance coverage.
With a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the children's health insurance program due for a final vote in the House today, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and White House aides agreed that Bush's opposition to the legislation stems not from its price tag but from far larger health policy issues. The White House wants to use the issue of uninsured children to resurrect the president's long-dormant proposals to change the federal tax code to help the uninsured, adults and children alike, Grassley said, calling that a laudable goal but unrealistic politically.
"The president has a goal that I share, that we need to take care of the uninsured through private health insurance," said Grassley, relating a sharp conversation he had with Bush on Thursday morning. "But you can't put that on this bill."
The tax code cannot help families so poor that they don't owe anything in taxes. It's simply not an end-all and be-all. You either have a responsibility to society to ensure that its citizens are falling down dead in the streets or you don't. The Senate apparently has made up its mind, with enough votes for a veto-proof majority. We'll see if the House can get to 290 (it's not likely, but with children's health such a potential cudgel in next year's elections, you never know).
UPDATE: Firedoglake is making calls. It's worth it. The money for 6 weeks in Iraq would cover 10 million kids for 5 years. This is a vote about our priorities as Americans.
UPDATE II:
