OMFG!! Tell Me Why!!!

[iamjoy]

I just read that Kathy Castor (FL Democrat) voted AGAINST the reauthorization of SCHIP. She was one of eight Democrats. Another was - Dennis Kucinich!

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/906/

:wtf:

[Mojorabbit]

1. I think I read here

that Dennis didn't because it would not cover illegal children which from a public health angle is smart but politically these days not so much. My memory might be foggy though.

edited for spelling

[babylonsister]

2. Per Dennis:

"I cannot support legislation which extends health coverage to some children while openly denying it to other children," Kucinich said. "This legislation is woefully inadequate: and I will not support it.

"Legal immigrant children deserve the same quality health care as other children receive. It is Congress' responsibility to address the main difficulties that prevent legal immigrant children from gaining access to health care. Today, we did exactly the opposite.

http://blog.cleveland.com/wideopen/2007/09/kucinich_votes_no_on_schip.html

[GCP]

4. Legal immigrant is different from illegal

The parents pay taxes, SS, the kids should be covered and I'm amazed they're not. BTW - from a public health standpoint it would be smart to cover ALL children, but in today's political climate, a suicidal gesture.

[mmonk]

11. Yes.

People were piling on Dennis for his vote but the bill is patently unfair.

[aquart]

6. Yup. Not so simple, is it?

But, since immigration is the latest crap hot button issue, it probably would have been impossible to get a bill including those children thru this Congress and probably the next as well. So Dennis demonstrates his high morals and genuine goodness and HIS UTTER INABILITY TO COMPROMISE which is the essence of democratic government. Which is why his campaign, with so many good ideas, will go nowhere.

And he knows it. But he still has the brazen blazing courage to fight for what he believes. And, if we have any chance of getting ANY of the things he proposes, his supporters MUST turn out in their entire strength to vote for him, even knowing he will lose. Because every vote makes his voice more important.

[ruggerson]

8. You nailed it

The phrase - "Politics is the art of the possible" is completely lost on many DU'ers.

[iamjoy]

7. So, It's Better To Cover None

This is one of the things I dislike about Kucinich. I agree that all too often Democrats have rolled over and played dead before Republicans, but the fact is sometimes compromise is a good thing. Of course many of us think SCHIP doesn't go far enough, but others feel it went too far. Still, it really is better than nothing.

Ask the parent of the child ready to lose health coverage whether they appreciate Kucnich's standing firm.

[MH1]

13. Exactly

this is why I would not vote for DK for pres - I think this was a really bad vote from him. If he's not ever willing to compromise, even in an obvious case like this, then he'd be a LOUSY president.

[woodsprite]

3. You know, I know why DK voted against it, but sometimes,

and with this administration particularly, you need to take what you can get. They could massage it later to refine it. Even 50% of America's needy children being covered is better than no children. It would have sent an even stronger message than it did if the Dems voted together on this.

[Bucky]

9. I just hope he's there for us when it comes time to override the veto

The vote will be close in the House. Republican House districts are much more ideologically pure, so conservatives willing to go out on a limb and do something politically risky like, say, help sick children is really asking for trouble.

[frazzled]

10. The "perfect" as the enemy of the "good"

That is the failing of so many strong ideologues on both sides of the aisle, and I'm afraid it is sometimes Kucinich's Achilles heel.

There are times when values cannot be comprised--issues of war are certainly one, because they cannot be changed or retracted. No do-overs, so to speak (despite some candidates' wishes to do so), because dead soldiers and civilians can not be revived, and wars are far harder to get out of than into.

But most legislation can be changed--improved, tinkered with, jettisoned. Fight as hard as you can to include what is right in them, but sometimes, as you say, if the Congress and/or the nation isn't there yet, compromise is necessary ... and incremental improvements can be added later.

I don't know the details of this legislation, but I'm wondering if some other healtlh options are currently available for non-citizen children. Take a stand, yes, for what is right--but don't throw the babies out with the bathwater.

[bluedog]

5. she wanted "more"

Castor initially voted for the House version of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill, but then voted against the final version negotiated with the Senate. She said the final version wouldn’t serve as many children as the version she favored, and relied too heavily on cigar taxes—she had been stung by criticism over the taxes, a problem in her district.





http://www.tboblogs.com/index.php/news/story/bush-schip-veto-could-put-pressure-on-castor/

[slipslidingaway]

12. From this article many legal immigrant children had been

covered in the past. There are other bills pending in Congress that deal specifically with legal immigrants, IMO separating the two groups will make it more difficult for these children to receive the coverage they had in the past.

In the same family you could have some children with benefits and other children with no coverage.


http://www.cbpp.org/4-20-07health2.htm

"However, while there are fewer uninsured citizen children, the percentage of low-income immigrant children who lack health coverage has climbed since 1996, when federal legislation restricted the eligibility of legal immigrants for Medicaid and SCHIP during their first five years in the United States (Figure 1). The disparities in health insurance coverage between citizen and immigrant children, already large a decade ago, have grown significantly larger. Today, almost half of low-income immigrant children are uninsured...

Before 1996, legal immigrants were eligible for Medicaid coverage on the same terms as citizens; they could be covered if they otherwise met a state’s Medicaid income and eligibility criteria. The 1996 welfare legislation terminated federal eligibility for regular Medicaid coverage for most legal immigrants during their first five years in the country, regardless of how poor they are or how serious their medical needs. These provisions also apply to SCHIP, which was enacted in 1997. There are exceptions for some immigrants, such as refugees and asylees, who can continue to get insurance during their first seven years in the United States. (U.S.-born children of immigrants, who constitute the great majority of children in immigrant-headed families, are citizens and remain eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP.) Those who are otherwise barred from Medicaid due to their immigration status are eligible for Medicaid coverage for emergency medical care, which includes childbirth but not prenatal care...

Health insurance coverage can help immigrant children access cost-effective preventive care instead of waiting for health problems to become so severe that they necessitate more expensive emergency room care. Similarly, providing prenatal care to avoid pregnancy complications is considered more cost-effective than paying for neonatal intensive care after a child is born..."