Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Skillet: The Saga Continues | One Last "Last Supper" »

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Clinton Praises Gregoire

posted by on October 3 at 12:05 PM

The Clinton campaign is keeping an eye on Washington State. Using Bush’s veto today of a bill to expand state health insurance programs for children as the opportunity, it sent me a press release decrying the veto and praising Gov. Gregoire’s decision to sue the federal government over new restrictions on children’s health insurance.

Release in the jump…

Hillary Clinton today criticized President Bush’s veto of bipartisan legislation that would have provided millions of additional children with health care, and applauded Washington’s lawsuit to hold the Administration accountable.

"With the stroke of a pen, President Bush has robbed nearly four million uninsured children of the chance for a healthy start in life and the health coverage they need but can't afford. These children are invisible to this president, but they aren't invisible to the American people or to the overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress – and they aren't invisible to me.

"I was proud to help create the Children's Health Insurance Program during the Clinton Administration, which today provides health insurance for six million children. And I will continue to fight to provide health insurance to all children – as I have proposed in the Senate – and to pursue quality, affordable health care for all Americans. No child should be invisible in our country or in our health care system.

“I applaud Washington for its efforts to hold the Bush Administration accountable. Governors and state legislatures across the country are trying hard to cover their children, but are getting no help from this Administration. President Bush has been making it harder for states to provide coverage to families that need help. It’s time for the President to stop playing politics with children’s health care.”

RSS icon Comments


"With the stroke of a pen, President Bush has robbed nearly four million uninsured children of the chance for a healthy start in life and the health coverage they need but can't afford."

One must wonder if he's laughing right now. At everything. At the fact he's the President, that he actually does have power, and that he just buttfucked four million kids. It's hard to take your President seriously when your President is Bush.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 3, 2007 12:12 PM

seriously, how can you be AGAINST this? compassionate conservative, indeed.

Posted by arduous | October 3, 2007 12:14 PM

Mr. Poe is dead on about this.

Only an America-hating Red Bushie would think Bush is in his right mind.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 12:38 PM

Buttfucked four million kids? Why should the Feds be paying for health care for people (up to age 25, I might add) who make several multiples of the poverty level, especially when a significant fraction of them already have private health care?

Posted by Brad | October 3, 2007 12:41 PM

It's just not framed in a way that conservatives can get behind.

What we need is a plan where 4 million children conspire behind closed doors with Dick Cheney to provide themselves health care, while ostensibly fighting the "War on Terror," with no chance the children will ever be held accountable. He'd sign that.

@4: The reason why the taxpayer (not "The Feds") should pay for health care for these kids is that it will demonstrate that socialized health care works. People will wonder why can't everyone have the same benefits with similar cost savings. That's also why Bush vetoed it.

Posted by elenchos | October 3, 2007 12:51 PM

He can be against this, the hate crimes bill, and extending soldiers time home with their families and still call himself a "compassionate conservative" because the spineless Dems let him. Very few are willing to call the Republicans on their bullshit, and even fewer are willing to do it loudly and as often as the Republicans do the Dems.

Posted by Dianna | October 3, 2007 12:51 PM

@ Brad, because you can't choose your parents and you can't choose if they will or will not pay for your health coverage. And frankly, if kids receive health coverage and go to the doctor on a regular basis, they are more likely to end up healthy adults. And because health care is increasingly become unaffordable to even the middle class.

Posted by arduous | October 3, 2007 1:03 PM

Lemme guess Brad, this isn't your problem?

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 3, 2007 1:14 PM

Damn those libtard Nazis who want to give us socialized medicine. I mean, the only evidence we have that it works is the fact that every other industrialized country has it, and it works better for them than our current payola "system" works for us.

Damn those America-hating, child-traitors to Hay-ell!!!!!

Posted by Original Andrew | October 3, 2007 1:20 PM

I know you’re being facetious, but it is interesting that Canadians come down here when their too sick and tired of waiting for the next surgical availability in their socialized system.

Good for Bush. No reason to subsidize families that already have private coverage. I don't want to be paying for little Cindy's breast implants that her parents were going to give her for her high school graduation!

Posted by raindrop | October 3, 2007 1:39 PM

are there new ads on these pages? there seem to be. and they are worse. i like seeing ads for local stuff... not for national gossip websites...

oh, and about children... bush just wants/needs to seem compassionate to the republican base. did he succeed? well, look at brad above for your answer.

the spin is in: the bill goes to far, he says, and that it helps some who are not actually children, and others who could otherwise afford their own healthcare.

Posted by infrequent | October 3, 2007 1:42 PM

@ Brad: Because doing this will ensure that a lot of kids who really, really do not have access to health insurance will get coverage, even if the program might be a little over-inclusive.

And I, like most human beings I know, would rather make sure that kids who need health coverage get it rather than worrying that some who might not will get extra coverage.

In otherwords, Brad, you are a cold-hearted a$$hole.

Posted by Jonathan | October 3, 2007 1:43 PM

Fine, Eli. Now can you please get back to doing your real job and find out what Chris Crocker had for lunch? It has been almost 24 hours since your last update.

Posted by Clint | October 3, 2007 1:54 PM

It is well known that if children are not given their breast (or pectoral) implants as part of a health plan, they will inevitably get them at the emergency room at several times the cost. So you have to pay no matter what; it's just cheaper with a government plan.

Emergency implants also have more complications, further driving up costs.

Posted by elenchos | October 3, 2007 2:02 PM

@ raindrop, oh yes all those canadians who come down here! as compared to all the americans who go to canada and pretend to be canadian so they can get desperately needed medical treatment?

the interesting thing about this is that most countries with socialized medication lag behind america only for elective surgery. and the MOST interesting part about THAT is that one of the most popular elective surgeries is knee surgeries. and the vast majority of knee surgeries? are provided by medicare. otherwise known as america's socialized medicine.

suck on it, private insurance groups!

Posted by arduous | October 3, 2007 2:04 PM


I didn't say I was against the program. The program as it originally stood did cover the poor kids without going as old as 25 or paying for those that could already afford or already had private health insurance. Why not just renew the program as it was - for poor children - instead of massively expanding it to full-grown adults and well into the middle class?

Asshole indeed. Pretty easy to posture with other people's money, isn't it?

Posted by Brad | October 3, 2007 2:09 PM

@ Brad,

I can't think of anywhere else I'd rather my hard earned tax dollars go to. Wait let me think. Hmmm

Halliburton? No.
War in Iran? No.
Missile Defense? No.
Pointless Standardized Testing for Kids ie NCLB? No.

So, yeah. I don't think I'm posturing with other people's money. I think it's my money. And I think this is a pretty damn good place for my money to go, thankyouverymuch.

Posted by arduous | October 3, 2007 2:19 PM

Also: Means testing makes it easy to kill a program. That's why Clinton's welfare reform was possible, while Bush's attacks on Social Security failed. Social Security is popular with middle class voters -- it isn't just a program for the poor and the minorities that you can easily axe when you're feeling stingy.

So by covering a chunk of the non-poor (or the less poor) will eventually secure stronger support. And that moves everybody a step closer to national health insurance for all.

And the whole "other people's money" libertarian nonsense only works if you allow emergency rooms to turn people away because they can't pay. Only libertarians are heartless enough to actually do that. So, other people's money covers the kid's health care either as cheaper preventative medicine or as expensive ER services. Simple choice.

Posted by elenchos | October 3, 2007 2:24 PM

I don't think cash should be going to most of those other things either, arduous. If you want to pay for the health care for someone who's making $60k+ a year and likely already has coverage, you go right ahead. Leave me out of it.

Posted by Brad | October 3, 2007 2:26 PM

Thanks, arduous.

@Brad: Other people's money? Hell. It's my money, I'm talking about. I pay federal taxes, state taxes and local taxes -- just like you.

And you're not talking about what you'd like your taxes to go *for* ... like schools, infrastructure, universal health care, or whatever. So arduous has your number all right.

All you're really saying is that you'd rather some kids got no health insurance because some kinds who you don't think are needy enough might also get it.

I think that sucks.

Posted by Jonathan | October 3, 2007 3:11 PM

Brad - little heads up ... this investment goes a long ways ... know why?


Society gets a lot of bang for these bucks, it is at the other end of the age line that it gets really expensive, over 60.

To me, this is the best investment any society can make in its own future, good health for kids. Follow it with a decent education, and voila, better tomorrow all around.

The real truth is if the bill had been for white kids only - it would be law in a presidential moment.

Bush has sealed the fate of the Republican Party into the shit can. DO NOT FORGET THIS DAY .... VENGENCE NEXT YEAR, REMEMBER WHY

Posted by Essex | October 3, 2007 6:41 PM

Writing in from London where they do just fine with the NHS... oh the jet lag is hurting...

US: about 15% of GDP spent on health care.

Other industrialized countries: About half that.

Know why? It isn't the lack of care, long waiting times (like my 4 week wait for leg surgery from a softball injury earlier this year) It's two primary things:

A: Profits made by insurance companies (about 10% on average) far exceed the cost of running the government program (Medicare admin costs are about 2-3%). Those of you in love with private insurance companies need to have a think: what are they really making and why is THAT coming out of YOUR pocket. Government may not be the most efficient, but in this realm they don't do badly. 40 years of Medicare reinforce that.

B: There are the haves (doctors et al who have to pay back the government for their very expensive education) and the have nots (everyone else working in health care cleaning up Matilda's urine bag for $12/hr. Like a lot of things in this country medicine as well shows two Americas.

We already have basic socialized medicine for people over 65 (called Medicare) and for the extremely poor (called Medicaid). Many seniors buy "top up" insurance at reasonable rates because they want more services. I highly doubt many seniors want to give up medicare... ask around.

So... in my jet lag hysteria, lets let everyone join medicare or something similar to provide a basic net, and then if some want additional insurance providing quicker service or a private room... let THEM buy it. Works in the bulk of first world countries.

Business won't tolerate paying for health insurance much longer. It's bankrupting many companies, and for those that are lucky enough to survive that it creates a competition barrier against other countries where a company doesn't have to factor in that cost. At Ford $1500 on every car produced in this country goes to pay medical insurance for current workers and retirees. The cost to a company like SAAB? Zippo.

Posted by Dave Coffman | October 3, 2007 9:17 PM
23 >passiflora 5 lobed leave

Posted by dotarull | October 11, 2007 1:33 PM

[*map/map_all_coml10.txt||10||r||1|| @]

Posted by dotarull | October 14, 2007 6:28 PM

[*map/map_all_coml10.txt||10||r||1|| @]

Posted by dotarull | October 14, 2007 6:28 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).