How does Kucinich vote for a terrorism insurance bill but against S-CHIP?

[ProSense]

terrorism insurance bill but against S-CHIP?

[Mass]

1. Seems the first one is a democratic bill - Why is it wrong to vote for it?

For the second one, go to his website.

The bill excludes legal immigrant kids.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=75275

I guess that, as they are not American, they do not need to see a doctor.

[pnwmom]

2. So, it's better that no poor kids are covered? This is why Kucinich

doesn't deserve to win. His all-or-nothing approach means we'd usually end up with nothing.

[movonne]

4. We will anyway have nothing...we have been trying to get universal

health care forever...insurance companys have to much influence...

[MH1]

8. S-CHIP isn't "nothing"

do you know anyone who's used it for their kids, and couldn't afford health insurance otherwise?

I do. It's not nothing. And that's an example where the far left politicians like Kucinich lose me.

[pnwmom]

12. You're right -- S-CHIP has been a very good program.

Kucinich was wrong to vote against it on the basis of it not covering enough people.

[Mass]

14. No, he knew that many other Dems would vote for it and it would pass a

and decided to vote on principles. Cant blame him.

[pnwmom]

17. He should have looked to the NEXT battle. Bush is going to veto this bill.

But it is possible, with the bill as it is written now, that enough Republicans will vote to override Bush's veto. The Dems can't do this alone. They need the help of enough Repubs.

[superkia]

7. Why cant all people win? Why do you want a world where some...

are left behind? Is it because you are not one that has ever been left behind? So he would be wrong if he didn't sign a bill that gave everyone rights to a new tax credit except for black people? Your logic makes no sense at all. We need people like Dennis to stand up for the people of America not just certain people in America. He is standing for what is right, the rest shouldn't be president because they stand in the wrong. No wonder our country is in a downward spiral if this is the logic everyone uses when they vote!

[pnwmom]

15. Allowing SCHIP to fail will mean hurting millions of children right now.

He should have voted to approve it, then immediately submitted another bill to cover the children who weren't covered -- not held all the current children hostage to his goal of a more inclusive bill.

[superkia]

16. I think he is smarter than that. Look at the war, that doesnt work in politics.

Just because you give in to a bill that excludes some doesn't mean that his attempt to cover the rest in a later bill would work. That has been the excuse for funding this stupid ass war and he has been the one standing against it. They have funded this war for years saying that its not what we want but we need to give to the soldiers. That is a bullshit way to run policy and it doesn't work. Dennis Kucinich was doing the right thing, he is not the one in the wrong here, it would be the ones that feel that its okay to exclude certain people. Our politicians are supposed to stand up and speak for the people, all of the people not just the ones they want to on any given day.

[pnwmom]

18. Then you're saying it's better for no poor kids to have this coverage

than for some not to have it?

Do you understand why the Conference Committee left out the language regarding children of immigrants? It's because Bush has vowed to veto the bill. He's still going to veto this version of the bill, but -- with the changes -- the bill is likely to get enough Repub support that we will be able to override the veto and continue benefits for millions of children.

[superkia]

20. With your logic, where does it stop? Would it be okay to exclude

black people from a benefit because the president was going to veto it? This is a disgrace that people support this kind of policy making. Show some outrage to the politicians that would not support all children.

[pnwmom]

23. I'm not willing to hold millions more children hostage

to the goal of more inclusive coverage. Nothing will prevent Kucinich or anyone else from introducing a bill to cover more children.

[Mass]

25. The bill passed, so why this anger on Kucinich because he did what he thought was right.

Many GOPers voted against that for bad reasons. It seems to me the outrage should be against them?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

39. If other people had followed Kucinich's lead, it wouldn't have passed. n/t

[Mass]

22. I totally expect Kucinich to vote to overturn the veto.

But if you and others want to blame him for his vote, go ahead.

BTW, the bill was short of being veto proof, so I hope more GOPers will do the same thing.

[pnwmom]

24. You're right, it is far from veto proof.

We'll need as many votes as we can get.

And then we need universal health care for all ages.

[ProSense]

3. I don't see anything in the bill that says they're excluded, there is some

optional language, but it's not limited to legal immigrants, and under the age 19 is included.

[Mass]

5. I would have to read the bill to be sure, but I know this is one issue.

[MH1]

10. Are you looking at the conference report?

Kucinich's statement says that the original House bill didn't have that exclusion.

In Kucinich's defense, it is possible that this is a protest vote, for that language being changed, and in the face of a veto he will vote for it. That's only speculation on my part though.

[MH1]

6. Well, in today's political climate, it's hard to get the immigrant benefit through

I'm not saying I agree, but right now there is so much anti-immigrant feeling, and frankly I don't like seeing the majority of children held hostage to that ideological battle.

[Mass]

9. If they dont want immigrant kids to get medical care, they should stop immigration.

Taking it on the kids is sad, particularly when many of these kids would need it.

[MH1]

11. I agree it's sad. But...

S-CHIP is an entitlement program. It's there to help certain categories of people. It is a damned shame that immigrants are excluded, but I don't think we should exclude EVERYONE just because we can't win that battle.

[Mass]

13. No, but this was in the initial bill in the House. It should have been in the Conference Report,,

[pnwmom]

19. It wasn't in the Conference report, because they decided to pass a bill

that enough Repubs might agree to support -- so the bill could survive a Bush veto. We need 2/3 to override a veto, and we couldn't get there without compromise.

[G_j]

27. & compromise means denying some children!

What a pitiful state we find ourselves in.
They should have left it in!

[pnwmom]

38. Not compromising means denying ALL of the children currently covered. n/t

[Synnical]

21. The bill left out legal immigrant children, that's why Kucinich opposed it:

[Mass]

26. BTW, what is your beef with the terrorism insurance bill?

I am not familiar with the bill, but the rollcall shows that all Dems but 2 voted for it.

[ProSense]

28. I have no beef with it, I was pointing out hypocrisy,

especially since the Repubs are the ones always screaming terror.

[Mass]

30. Sorry, but I do not see the hypocrisy. Can you be clearer?

[ProSense]

31. My point is posted

here.

[Mass]

33. Yes, but your thread is an attack on Kucinich, not against the GOP.

[ProSense]

34. What are you talking about?

The hypocrisy is about Republicans and have nothing to do with this thread. The OP is a stand-alone question.

[Mass]

35. So, what is your problem with Kuchinich voting for the insurance bill,

which is in the title of THIS thread?

How does Kucinich vote for a terrorism insurance bill but against S-CHIP?

[ProSense]

36. A question of priorities! Are you expecting something sinister? n/t

[Mass]

37. No clue what I was expecting.

Sorry to have wasted my time and yours in this thread. As I said, I understand why he voted like that on SCHIP, even if I also understand why others (not all) Democrats voted for it, and I have no problem with it.

[ProSense]

29. Summary of the S-CHIP bill

Children's Health Insurance

On September 25, the House passed the final House-Senate agreement to reauthorize the successful Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), H.R. 976, for an additional five years. CHIP provides health coverage to American children whose parents do not qualify for Medicaid, but can not afford private insurance. This bill will bring health coverage to approximately ten million children in need – preserving coverage for all 6.6 million children currently covered by CHIP, and reaching millions more low-income, uninsured American children in the next five years.

Specifically, this legislation:

Invests $35 billion in new funding for CHIP. The bill reauthorizes the Children’s Health Insurance Program, investing an additional $35 billion over five years to strengthen CHIP’s financing; increase health care coverage for low-income, uninsured children; and improve the quality of health care children receive. As Republican Senator Grassley has pointed out, “As far as the size of the package, it’s important to understand that about half of the new money is needed just to keep the program running, and the rest goes to cover more low-income kids.”

Ensures health care coverage for more than 10 million American children. First, the bill ensures that the 6.6 million children who currently participate in CHIP continue to receive health care coverage. It also extends coverage to 3.8 million children who are currently uninsured, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Does not “expand”CHIP; simply provides for enrolling children who are currently eligible but not yet enrolled. Despite claims by President Bush, this bill does nothing to “expand” the CHIP program; this bill maintains current law regarding children’s eligibility for CHIP. Two-thirds of uninsured children are currently eligible for coverage through CHIP or Medicaid – but better outreach and adequate funding are needed to identify and enroll them. This bill gives states the resources and incentives necessary to reach millions of uninsured children who are eligible for, but not enrolled in, the program.

Targets lowest-income uninsured children for outreach and enrollment. The bill is designed to target specifically the lowest-income uninsured children for outreach and enrollment in CHIP coverage. The bill does NOT call for CHIP coverage for children in families at higher income levels. Instead, it reduces federal matching funds for future coverage of children at higher income levels, and provides incentives to cover the lowest-income children instead.

Improves CHIP benefits -- ensuring dental coverage and mental health parity. Under the bill, quality dental coverage will now be provided to all children enrolled in CHIP. The bill also ensures that states will offer mental health services on par with medical and surgical benefits covered under CHIP.

Provides states incentives to enroll uninsured low-income children. The bill provides incentives for states to lower the rate of uninsured children by enrolling eligible children in CHIP and Medicaid, including providing bonus payments. States will receive state-based allotments that are responsive to state demographic and national spending trends. States that face a funding shortfall and meet enrollment goals will receive an adjustment payment to ensure that no child who is eligible for Medicaid or CHIP is denied coverage or placed on a waiting list.

Replaces CMS August 17th letter to the states. On August 17, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sent a letter to the states drastically changing federal policy and placing unrealistic conditions on the ability of states to cover children above 250 percent of poverty. This bill replaces that letter. First, the bill states that it agrees with the President on the importance of ensuring that low-income children have health coverage and taking steps to address substitution of private coverage. Secondly, the bill replaces the letter with a more appropriate approach. In place of the letter, the bill gives states time and assistance in developing and implementing best practices to address substitution of coverage. The bill also puts the lowest-income children first in line by phasing in a new requirement for coverage of low-income children as a condition of receiving CHIP funding for coverage of children above 300 percent of poverty.

Improves outreach tools to streamline enrollment of eligible children. The bill provides $100 million in grants for new outreach activities to states, local governments, schools, community-based organizations, safety-net providers and others.

Improves the quality of health care for low-income children. The bill establishes a new quality child health initiative to develop and implement quality measures and improve state reporting of quality data.

Prioritizes children’s coverage. The bill contains provisions to phase out the coverage of parents and childless adults in CHIP. However, it provides coverage of pregnant women as a new state option as well as preserving the options to cover pregnant women through a state waiver or through regulation.

Is fully paid for – by raising the tobacco tax by 61 cents a pack. The higher the cost of cigarettes, the less likely kids will take up smoking. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a 61-cent increase in the tobacco tax means that 1,873,000 fewer children will take up smoking.

link

[lonestarnot]

32. So Dennis votes no on this bill in favor of a better one?

Which would be? And thanks for posting the summary! :hug:

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Surely John Kerry hates our troops because he voted against the 87 billion

I was annoyed when Dennis voted against the Iraq withdrawal bill over semantics. But the fact that legal immigrants' kids aren't covered is bullshit and a good reason to vote this down and re-write it.

[LWolf]

41. Why not ask him?

I'll go out on a limb and speculate:

The terrorism insurance bill provides support for those people suffering disaster-type losses. Since DK is always up for supporting people who need help, this seems consistent.

He also is very passionate about making sure that every child, AND EVERYONE ELSE, has health care. CARE, not insurance.

That's why he co-authored HR 676. Since the bill in question does not guarantee equal access to health care for all, and since there is already a bill that does, and since the bill in question is for insurance, rather than care, and he does not support further enriching insurance companies, this vote seems to be consistent with his positions as well.