Now
Fair
73.0°
High
87°
Low
72°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Columns
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Leon Satterfield: Feeling sorry for the prez again

Comments 16 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Monday, Oct 08, 2007 - 12:21:25 am CDT

Confession time: Last week I was feeling sorry for President Bush again.

“Why?” my alter ego asked. “He’s probably going to get all the way through his second term without being impeached. And wouldn’t that be a sign of a successful presidency? Granted, last week’s Washington Post-ABC News poll showed the president’s approval rating at 33 percent, equal to his career low in Post-ABC polls.”

(But only 29 percent approved of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress was doing. So maybe those polled were just feeling cranky about both parties.)

Story Photo

But also last week, the House voted 377-46 to give the Bush administration just two months to present Congress with a plan for withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

That was good news, and there was some more:

On Sept. 27, the Senate gave final approval to a health insurance bill for 10 million children. The vote was 67-29 in favor. And get this: 18 of the 67 were members of the president’s own party.

The bill, according to a story in the Sept. 28 New York Times, would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover “nearly four million uninsured children, in addition to the 6.6 million already enrolled. It would provide $60 billion over the next five years, $35 billion more than the president proposed.”

But here’s the bad news: President Bush said he was going to veto the bill because it would be a step toward “government-run health care for every American.”

“Oh, no!” my ironic inner self said. “Anything but government-run health care for every American. Who do we think we are? Europeans or what?”

And then the president did it. On Wednesday, he vetoed the bill that two-thirds of the Senate had just passed. It was the same week he had said (on Oct. 1, Child Health Day) that “Our nation is committed to the health and well-being of our youth. … My administration supports programs that give parents, mentors, and teachers the resources they need to help and encourage children to maintain an active and healthy way of life.”

Lots of people are unhappy about the veto. A recent ABC-Washington Post survey showed 67 percent of the respondents called for Congress to cut the amount of money we’re spending for the war, and 72 percent said Congress should increase the spending on children’s health insurance.

Eighteen Republicans in the Senate don’t agree with the president. Among them is Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who said the president had shown “little if any willingness to come to the negotiation table.”

And I liked what Republican Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, one of 45 House Republicans supporting the SCHIP expansion, had to say: “I don’t have the time, the energy or the inclination to psychoanalyze the president’s thought process.”

A bit of history: SCHIP has been around since 1997, when it was proposed by Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. It’s been supported by AARP, the American Medical Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans and governors of both parties.

The House of Representatives approved the bill by a 265-159 vote on Sept. 25 with yes votes from 45 Republicans. But Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was pretty sure the president’s veto would be upheld.

That’s because a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate is needed to override the president’s veto.

Should the veto be overridden, the bill would require the states to provide dental services for the kids and to cover mental health services in some states.

And how to pay for such a program? Part of the bill would have been taken care of by increasing tobacco taxes, bumping them up from 39 cents per pack to a dollar per pack. And it might even have caused some smokers to cut back a bit.

To a tightwad former cigarette and pipe smoker with five grandchildren — I’ll show you pictures — that sounded like a win-win solution.

But it all went down the drain when the president vetoed.

Retired English Professor Leon Satterfield writes to salvage clarity from his confusion. His column appears on alternate Mondays. His e-mail address is: leonsatterfield@earthlink.net.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Columns > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Doug wrote on October 8, 2007 7:16 am:
" A wolf in sheeps clothing. This is government welfare for families with children who earn 300% of the poverty guildine income. Why? I pay for my childrens health care insurance and I do not need to pay for others who are capable by way of some bureaucratic boondoggle. Yes, the FINANCING of our health insurance system is crazy but throwing money at a wall is not the answer. "
joe vocht wrote on October 8, 2007 3:03 pm:
" Perhaps Doug never read Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape where Mr Morris points out that if, while traveling through the jungle, a baby gorilla happens to wander away from the group...any gorilla...even if not blood related...will pick up the youngster and bring it to the fold. I guess gorillas have a more developed sense of community than humans! "
Husker in VA wrote on October 8, 2007 4:45 pm:
" The govt. is already too large. We have a dept. for everything under the sun. The last thing we want is govt. controlled health care. Anyone whoes ever served knows first hand that the reality of govt. health would be a disaster. The govt dosent even monitor how it spends our tax dollars! Why in the world would we want to give them more to mingle with? Especially if it conserns our health? "
Eric wrote on October 8, 2007 5:00 pm:
" the right thing to do is to help those in need. What about those of us who cant afford health care for ourselves, let alone our children? Is it my childrens fault that my monthly health care premium would be around $900? Why should my children suffer from lack of insurance? I am just hopeful that Doug never needs this program. "
Eric H. wrote on October 9, 2007 4:12 am:
" I am a registered nurse working at a hospital that sees a large percentage of non-payers. I am in agreement that this program should not have been approved as proposed. The government should only help those who truly need it, and should not create any new programs with any potential for abuse. Like it or not some people would use this program to free up money for alchohol, tobacco, and drugs. I'm in favor of making money available, but requiring an application and financial review of individual families with guidelines for acceptance that allow for a minimum amount of abuse. A graduated system requiring people to pay premiums with matching federal funds is more fiscally responsible. "
Zoomie wrote on October 9, 2007 11:46 am:
" Ahh, the ignorance abounds! 300% of poverty guideline? That's the MAX allowed (both CURRENTLY and in the new bill, which made NO change here). So while 300% of poverty (or about $60k) sounds high here, as the US Gov't documented just last month, what a family of 4 gets for a $40k per yr income in Omaha requires $82k in NY. So shouldn't simple logic tell you the limit has to be set higher in higher cost places to live? DUH! Gov't IS too large! Made much larger thanks to Bush, FYI! But this is NOT gov't controlled healthcare and never has been. Did you miss it was originally written by Sen Orrin Hatch (R-UT)? That its supported by Health Insurance companies? That 18 Republican Senators, plus 45 House GOPers, supported it? DUH! And gov't incompetence (a fact of life under a GOP Administration) doesn't mean gov't is always bad. The VA Medical system was named BEST health delivery system in the nation for 3 straight yrs from 1998-2000 (of course, that was under a COMPETENT Administration, the hallmark difference between GOP and Dem White Houses).And Eric, whatever hospital you work in, I hope I never wind up there 'cause the empathy sure is gone! EVERY program (gov't or private) has the possibility of abuse, but there is no evidence over the last 9yrs this one has been excessively abused (even under Bush). And it DOES require you to apply, be checked out, and verified. Do you seriously think you just walk in and ask for money and they give it to you (sorry, that was GOP contractors in Iraq and New Orleans). DUH! "
Lauren wrote on October 9, 2007 11:55 am:
" What would be fiscally responsible would be getting cost containment into the health care system through a program of targeted and specialty hospitals rather than every hospital thinking they have to have everything so that their doctors can charge outrageous fees without having to be inconvenienced or investigted. We had helathcare planning in our State during the late 70's and early 80's, with consumer representation in the process until our good Republican Governor Thone nixed it by refusing the federal dollars that assisted its development. That was done at the behest of the Hospital Assocation and Medical Society. Political favors often turn out bad for the common person or the comon good of the citizenry of the State. "
Downhome wrote on October 9, 2007 11:58 am:
" Yes, let's compare our social conventions to Apes that last check paid no taxes and oh by the way killed their young when food was scare or dialed back their breeding when resources did merit having larger families and at last check didn't smoke. Schip will be put in place and some form should be. Kids should not suffer from lack of insurance-on the other hand adults should not benefit because they chose to have kids. So find the middle ground and make a deal. "
Ripper wrote on October 9, 2007 12:03 pm:
" Poor Leon, cannon fodder thinking again this week. If in fact this is anything other than a political maneauver by both Rep and Dems, you would have no issue with an override. But guess what, voting on something you know will be vetoed so you can crow and crow is as old as politics. As FDR once said "its just good politics for election time, shouldn't be considered anything else". I long for the day when something of substance is covered in OP/ED instead of inane chatter. "
JT wrote on October 9, 2007 8:55 pm:
" It's pretty funny that people make fun of Dr. Satterfield for ripping this terrible president even though the good doctor has been right about everything and the president is continuously, horribly, wrong. All you people who are complaining about big government are checking every penny that the US is spending in Iraq right? You're appalled by Blackwater and their gross misuse of tax dollars, not to mention Halliburton skimming all that cash out of your pockets. Or have you just been brainwashed into hating "socialized medicine?" "
Ripper wrote on October 10, 2007 10:09 am:
" Having studied economics, taxation laws and their effect on society and commerce and on socialized medicine-I have 'brainwashed' myself into looking for reasonable arguement. I have found very little beyond innuendo in Leon's dialogue, so if that makes me 'brainwashed' against socialized medicine then count me in. "
Rys wrote on October 10, 2007 1:48 pm:
" I'm a smoker and when I first heard about the tax increase to support this bill I was appalled. But if the money I'm using to knowingly harm my body can go to keep a little kid healthy, then I'm more than willing to chuck it over. In fact, it might make me smoke more so I can feel like I'm donating more to the cause. ;) "
Herb wrote on October 10, 2007 4:03 pm:
" This leader of the government of the US can use all the bashing that can be dished out "
Way wrote on October 11, 2007 8:10 am:
" Besides what they already do too poorly, no way so we want govt to run anything else. Especially another country. "
Cassie929 wrote on October 11, 2007 10:20 am:
" Children's Health Insurance Having just gotten a rescue dog from a shelter with no health insurance for it yet and being on limited income, it occurred to me that if she gets sick and the medical bills are considerable I might have to put her to sleep. Considering the matter further, it seems to me that most parents, for some undefinable reason,have an aversion to this solution to the expense of their children's health care problems. Even President Bush probably carried insurance for his daughters and did not want to think in this manner. It seems unAmerican, unpatriotic, even to me not to protect our pets somehow, not to mention our children. "
older and wiser wrote on October 12, 2007 2:10 pm:
" Leon for the Senate!!!!!!!I think Senator Satterfield has a nice ring to it. "

Ads by Yahoo!