Sunday, October 14, 2007

Giffords Minute on S-CHIP Veto


Tucson, Arizona. Somehow I missed this until now. Better late than never. I've already said enough about the ridiculous veto, while I am not entirely pleased with the bill.

I would prefer the bill passed, but the selective taxation (tobacco) policy has flaws we must address. Consumption based taxation is inherently regressive and targeting specific products places burden on certain populations.

The benefits of the bill, financed more equitably, are a slam dunk. S-CHIP is a good program addressing a horrible problem. What is wrong with this country? We're the richest country in the world yet our health care system fails our own children. Every civilized country except the United States has health care for its population.

In this country, we spend $30 BILLION per year marketing prescription drugs.

Does the reader get this? What the pharmaceutical industry spends in ONE year on advertising is what the S-CHIP would cost over FIVE years. After dropping $500 B + to war profiteers, insuring kids is too expensive.

12 Comments:

Blogger roger said...

"After dropping $500 B + to war profiteers, insuring kids is too expensive."

Right on. Add to that the countless billions spent on keeping Mexicans out...and they can say very little about taxing and spending.

BTW Giffords new fund total (net) is $1,166,294 with $1,126,838 on hand. She had something like $960K at the last report so she continues to raise about $200K a quarter...and it isn't even election time yet.

Nothing yet on Bee.

Oh...do watch for the numbers in district 3 (Shaddeg) and 1 (Renzi). Lord was near even in 3 and Kirkpatrick has been raising a ton also.

10/15/2007 7:54 AM  
Blogger x4mr said...

Hey Roger,

The Econometrics course has become utterly ridiculous. If I didn't have a strong math background, I would be a crispy critter by now.

The guy has us taking partial derivatives of matrices with respect to vectors. Think products and exponentials of things containing summation signs.

There is something wrong with the type of person that takes a course like this.

10/15/2007 11:58 AM  
Blogger roger said...

Damn! Great that you are hanging in there Matt! Keep at it.

Yes, I would have steered you toward a good ole fashioned statistics course or a higher level course in policy analysis or something. Maybe like the one in public administration or policy schools have.

Just me.

By the way, still nothing up on the FEC for Bee. I had some dude on Sonoran Alliance saying that he doesn't have to file if he is an exploration candidate. That is utter BS. I suspect we will see a report...BECAUSE (here is the law):

Check out page one under the definition of a candidate.

http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf

The gist of it is that the law is clear about the fundraising and candidate part. IF you raise more than $5000 or someone else raises more than $5000 for you, than you are a candidate by definition...and must report.

It doesn’t matter what people call his campaign, if he has raised more than $5000 (and he had better if he is going to have a hope of beating Giffords) then he must report.

Now here is the REAL fun that you might write a post about. If he is declared a candidate by law under FEC rules, doesn't that mean that he is a candidate under the rules of Arizona as well (federal law supercedes state law and he wouuld be a candidate by definitioni of state law if he is by federal)?

If he is a candidate...which he is if someone has raised $5000 for him (that website qualifies), then he HAS to resign under state law.

I think his campaign may have royally F-ed up on this one.

10/15/2007 12:35 PM  
Blogger Dustin said...

How could any campaign overlook something so basic?

"There is something wrong with the type of person that takes a course like this."

hah! are you not taking this course! I kid.

I think I've said all I can about s-chip, but I'm interested to see if they can override the veto. I'm not holding my breath, congress has more important matters to attend to, like ad condemnation and 100 year old events.

10/15/2007 1:07 PM  
Blogger thinkright said...

this bill is far from "fiscally responsible" as Gabby puts it.
the SCHIP may have needed some expansion of benefits, but "kids" up to 25 years of age? C'mon.

& 400% the level of poverty?

On top of it, the SCHIP bill taxes the poor (smokers) to give free benefits to the middle class. There aren't enough smokers at this time to pay for it. What's next? an SCHIP program that recruits the 22 million more smokers required to pay its bill?

The program in Arizona is hardly utilized at this time. Let's get the children that can qualify fore the current program ON the current system and see where we stand.

Big Pharma influence on which drugs Docs prescribe (based on what benefits the Doctor, not the patient) needs to be addressed. I'm not sure the SCHIP delved into that..did it?

Regarding Bee, I'm positive he filed. It just takes a while to show up on the FEC system.

10/15/2007 1:21 PM  
Blogger roger said...

Thinkright,

On Bee, I would suspect that he would file. Now when he does, then he is a candidate for federal office by law. Will we be seeing a resignation soon? I mean, only the most Clinton among us could argue that you are a federal candidate under federal law and not under state law. This report means that he must resign his post and run...its hard to argue otherwise.

On the SCHIP,

Most of what you have said about the SCHIP program is the rare exception...most of funding of this law helps over 80,000 poor children in Arizona. We might even admit that it is waste that goes into the program. However, of the $500 + Billion spent on the war in Iraq, how much was waste? Is this spending a bad program? Is it fiscally responsible?

I think this was a big mistake for the administration and the GOP who did not vote for it. Not only does it just look bad, but it means that the GOP comes across as favoring massive government spending on the border and in Iraq but feels that this money on children is somehow wasteful. Hard to have it both ways.

10/15/2007 1:29 PM  
Blogger thinkright said...

On Bee,
the filing would be as an "exploratory Cmtee".

on SCHIP,
those poor children can get assistance now through the system. They just aren't using the benefit, simple as that. Expanding it further won't help those children any more. Let's get the current system utilized before an expansion is needed.

In re: Iraq. So, because the US is spending money in Iraq, any wastefull spending is ok? The border issue must be addressed(secure border & guest worker program).


I'm not heartless, I agree that the poor should be helped, but the current program isn't being utilized in AZ, the new SCHIP proposals expand government welfare too far (to more than the poor). For Gabby to blame GWB is plain insincere. Just a political stunt. If you check out Gabby's votes, she isn't quite sure what "fiscal responsibility" means.

10/15/2007 2:25 PM  
Blogger Sirocco said...

TR,

SCHIP isn't limited only to Arizona. Just because families here aren't taking full advantage of it doesn't mean it's bad on a national level.

Further, SCHIP, by design, is not aimed solely at the poor, but also working families with children for whom the cost of insurance may be excessive.

LEt's see ... Bush wetoes the bill ... e absolutely deserves "blame".

10/15/2007 3:25 PM  
Blogger roger said...

"On Bee,
the filing would be as an "exploratory Cmtee"."

It doesn't matter one bit how he files. As soon as he raises over $5000 he becomes a candidate. This is under the very definition of candidate that appears on page 1 of the FEC laws. As soon as he raises the funds or someone else does for him, he is "candidate" under federal law and must file. As such, he is also a candidate under Arizona law as well and must resign to run under our law.

It might be a stupid law...but its the law. That is what Republicans tend to believe in above all...Rule of law. Splitting hairs and Clintonizing it won't change that he is a candidate.

I would bet that my argument would fly much better before a judge than would whatever reasoning or rationale has led Tim to this very silly silly decision to call the law something other than what it clearly is.

10/15/2007 3:36 PM  
Blogger Eli Blake said...

I don't think that Bush would sign this bill no matter how it was paid for (even if all the money was borrowed to be paid back by someone in the future, like the cost of the Iraq war and the prescription drug program.)

The reason is because corporate America doesn't make money off if it. Unlike the trillion dollar prescription drug bill that primarily spends enormous sums of money to give directly to the pharmaceutical industry.

10/15/2007 4:54 PM  
Blogger Liza said...

I have no problem if S-CHIP gets the additional funding, but what worries me is that it's another bandaid on a crisis that not going away.

My concern is that too many politicians actually believe in bandaid "solutions" to the healthcare crisis because they hope to avoid a single payer, universal system.

Eventually, we will have to disconnect access to healthcare from employment. There is no other way to provide healthcare in the 21st century.

10/15/2007 5:04 PM  
Blogger x4mr said...

Liza and Eli regarding S-CHIP, BULLSEYE.

It is pure band-aid on an issue that continues to escalate as politicians refuse to address the fundamental issue.

As long as our government, which is now the case more than ever, is solely committed to maximizing the profits of a handful of corporations, we will continue to squabble over measures trying to address the litany of wounds and bashes dealt to everyone else.

All but the super rich will continue to languish deeper and deeper into scarcity, poverty, low wages, poor education, lack of health care, and no representation from a government that has lost all connection with the people.

Eli is spot on. S-Chip could be free, and the White House would shoot it down because it impacts the profit projections of its friends.

10/15/2007 6:36 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home



SOMETHING ELSE