need help writing to my congressman, support of Schip

[fencesitter]

My congressman is one who will not go with this program, but he needs to hear from us.
Here is his statement from his website.....

September 28, 2007

Political Posturing and Children’s Health

By Congressman Joe Pitts

Pundits and politicians have been taking the moral high road for the past couple of weeks regarding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. The program runs out at the end of this month and must be reauthorized by Congress. Because it is an emotional issue involving children and their access to healthcare, the actual quality of the policy has been almost completely disregarded. Those who are praising the legislation completely ignore what kind of program would result from the bill in Congress and talk simply about the travesty of children without health insurance.

I am a part of the very large, bipartisan consensus in Washington that there should not be children without health insurance. SCHIP was originally created by a Republican Congress in a bipartisan manner with Democrats in both Congress and the White House. The original program was necessary, in order to cover children whose families made too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough money to afford private healthcare coverage for their children.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have taken a program meant to cover poor children, and expanded it to cover middle class families. In the bill passed by the House this week, states like New York will be able to cover children in families that make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $82,000 a year. States like New Jersey will still be able to cover children in families that make 300 percent above the poverty line. Additionally, state governments will have incentives to sign up as many children as possible, including illegal aliens and children that are currently covered under private health insurance plans. At this point, it’s not even about insuring children; it’s about making sure children are insured by the Federal Government.

The Democrats are using budget gimmicks so that the bill meets their own rules on spending bills. They have extended the program for another 10 years but have only funded the first five years. This allows the math to add up on the budge ledger, but is fundamentally dishonest. In five years, Congress will either have to create another massive expansion of the program, or children will lose their coverage, including those children brought into the program who originally did have private healthcare.

Additionally, by increasing the tax on tobacco in order to pay for the expansion of the program, the Democrats are using a declining revenue stream to pay for a growing program. Fewer people will smoke as taxes increase, representing a decrease in revenue, while states will be adding children to the program because they have incentives to do so. This math simply does not add up.

Advocates of the legislation are bragging that the program will simultaneously reduce smoking and increase the number of children with health insurance. They are most likely right. Studies have shown that fewer people smoke as the tax on cigarettes is increased.

The problem is, not only would we need everyone who smokes right now to keep smoking, but in order to pay for this massively expanded program, we would need an additional 22 million people to begin smoking. We simply cannot write blank checks with the taxpayers’ dollars. Priorities like children’s health require more fiscal responsibility, not less. We should be working toward the best way to provide health insurance for children who need it, not the fastest way to make children dependent on the government.

I want children to have health insurance; this is why I voted for an extension of the program. However, as legislators we have a responsibility to create public policy that not only achieves the desired end, but achieves it by proper means. Budget gimmicks, regressive tax increases, and luring individuals away from private enterprise in favor of dependence on government programs does not qualify as good public policy.

[BOSSHOG]

1. Does he support THE BUSH WAR IN IRAQ?

If so there is no way he can in good conscience not support SCHIP on fiduciary grounds. Kick his ass with both barrels if this is the case. In support of wasting three billion a week and opposed to an additional two billion over several years. Sad, pathetic motherfucker.

[fencesitter]

5. Of course he supports the war

Quote: "On Monday, I attended the Congressional hearing featuring General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. General Petraeus delivered a report on the military progress of President Bush’s surge strategy, and Ambassador Crocker reported on the political progress of Iraqi leaders in reaching political reconciliation.

I believe General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave frank and independent assessments of the conditions in Iraq. In the past, many of the war’s detractors called for listening to commanders on the ground. Now that the General is reporting on some good news, these detractors are attempting to discredit General Petraeus personally, and the veracity of his report, in an effort to undermine his message.

The assessment by General Petraeus, accompanied by statistical evidence, showed that militarily, the surge is helping to increase security in Iraq."

[davhill]

2. Working Families

Lower middle class working families with children are loosing employer paid medical insurance at a great rate. Many others, who are self employed or work for small business, never had it. If they are only able to buy expensive private insurance at several thousand dollars a month, many of them would no longer be middle class.

[fencesitter]

3. good point

[Warpy]

4. You might not need to. This veto is as popular as

a syphilis chancre at a nudist colony.

My own Rep. Heather Wilson (R-COW) has begun to run commercials about how wonderful she is for fighting against this veto. If a sycophant like Wilson has dropped her support of His Eminence on this issue. he might find an overturned veto by the end of the week.

[againes654]

6. WTF

"We simply cannot write blank checks with the taxpayers’ dollars."

What the hell are you doing in Iraq? Ask how many "blank checks" he has signed off on for bush/cheney's orgasm in Iraq

[fencesitter]

7. Yes, that's my favorite line..

Of course this could be a windfall opportunity for tobacco companies. If you care for the children you must smoke. :smoke: Smoke a cig, save a child.