Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« On Ellen....No Ellen??? | Counter Programming »

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Rep. Hastings Vetoes Health Care for 11,000 Children

posted by on October 18 at 17:33 PM

As I Slogged earlier, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA, 4) was the one member of Washington’s U.S. House delegation that voted to uphold President Bush’s veto of children’s health care expansion.

The Democrats wanted to add $35 billion to the program and provide coverage for children in families making up to 300% of the federal poverty level ($51,510 for a family of 3). This would have increased enrollment from about 6.6 million to 10 million children. Bush vetoed the bill and today, the Democrats failedóby 13 votesóto override.

Of the 72,000 uninsured children in Washington from families with incomes below 300% of the federal poverty level, an estimated 11,000 are in Rep. Doc Hasting’s 4th Congressional District.

Earlier this month, Governor Gregoire sent a letter to Rep. Hastings asking him to vote to override Bush’s veto.

RSS icon Comments


that's my hometown district!

Hastings was the surprise guest speaker at my high school graduation breakfast. Total d-bag.

Posted by Kevin | October 18, 2007 5:39 PM

Will the heteros stand up for their children or leave it to us Gay folks to fix?

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | October 18, 2007 5:48 PM

Yeah, but Senator Dodd just killed Bush's reauthorization of the FISA law.

Two can play that game, and Doc Hastings gonna find out who gets recalled faster!

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 18, 2007 5:56 PM

@1, it's OK to say "douche." Or type it. Fuck, scream it at the top of your lungs.

Posted by Spoogie | October 18, 2007 7:30 PM

I reckon ol' Doc wants to take care of all those chillens hisself instead of leavin' it up to the guv'ment. Yee-haw, ya big douche.

Posted by Bauhaus | October 18, 2007 9:26 PM

Do more than 11,000 people live in Central Washington? Hastings could blow some guy in the Wenatchee International Airport bathroom and still get re-elected (apart from CWU). Funny one of his districts in Yakima (I think the 14th) has the largest percentage of people on welfare in the state - 25% of the population.

Posted by Touring | October 18, 2007 10:10 PM

The good doctor embodies entrenchment so well.

Posted by laterite | October 18, 2007 10:47 PM

300% of poverty level, for a family of four, is over $60K/year.

Given those numbers, it is really hard to deny that the real intent of this legislation is to get an ever large fraction of the population insured by the government, until finally the remaining taxpayers footing the bill say "screw this, I want mine, too" and vote for the government to insure everybody. And if that's your goal, then this is fine legislation.

But if you instead judge this legislation as it's being sold, which is as a way to extend insurence to children whoose families couldn't possibly afford to insure themselves, that number shows that the sales pitch is total bunk. $60K/year is well above the median household income in Washington, so this legislation would extend government insurance deep into the middle class.

Posted by David Wright | October 19, 2007 12:38 AM

@#8, I make about $45k a year and I only support a cat and I live check to check. Imagine a family of 3 (or 4 or 5) living off $60k a year and then go fuck yourself.

Posted by monkey | October 19, 2007 7:31 AM

@ 8

David, you poor, asppiring to be something, climber.
Don't you realize that the lowest of rung of 'middle class' begins at an income of $150,000?

And, at that level, a few pennies spent on the health of children not your own is noblesse oblige?

Grow up greedy boy.

Posted by old timer | October 19, 2007 8:42 AM

@8 The monthly premium for medical insurance for a family of four would be over a thousand a month if they were self-insuring. That's a lot of money, and just carrying catastophic coverage doesn't lower it much at all. Children need preventative care and they get cuts and colds which are not covered in catastrophic policies. When you put off routine care kids end up in ER's with more severe, and thus, more costly illnesses. Public aid children's health care is money well-spent.

Posted by derek | October 19, 2007 11:47 AM

Comments Closed

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