Do you remember this ad from Health Care America NOW?



On October 20, the Jackson Citizen Patriot reported:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's campaign is demanding that a television advertisement, which they called ``blatantly false,'' be pulled from the airwaves.

The advertisement was sponsored by Health Care for America Now!, an advocacy group that is made up of nonprofit and political organizations.

[...]

Walberg's campaign disseminated its attorney's letter Thursday that calls on the group to retract or correct the ad, and threatens potential legal action.

Legal action? I knew it was an effective ad, but apparently it hit a really sour note with the Walberg people.

The short version of their argument is that Walberg doesn't support letting insurance companies make the rules, but instead supports letting inter-state competition. As I said before, this doesn't let the insurance companies make the rules, but it does give them a bunch of options for which they want to follow, including giving them the option of rejecting coverage of pre-existing conditions.

As far as legal action, I'm not quite sure what action they could take and actually expect anyone to take them seriously. But they did get a response out of Health Care for America NOW. From a press release:

LANSING, MI -- Today, Health Care for America Now (HCAN) responded to Congressman Tim Walberg's threat to sue over a television ad by extending its television ad buy in Michigan and running a new print advertisement in the local weekly. HCAN is putting its hard-hitting ad – "Fighter" - back on the air in Congressman Walberg's district for three additional days and has taken out a full-page ad in the Tecumseh Herald asking "What Is Walberg Hiding?"

Last week, the Walberg campaign issued a press release announcing it intended legal action against Health Care for America Now for a television ad running in Michigan's 7^th congressional district. The ad points out Congressman Walberg's record on health care – a record that indicates he clearly stands on the side of the insurance industry, rather than on the side of quality, affordable health care for all. The Walberg campaign then released a second notice demanding a retraction.

Contrary to Rep. Walberg's allegations, the television ad is 100% true, and HCAN's new print advertisement running in the October 23^rd edition of the Tecumseh Herald spells out the proof once again.

You can see the ad they put in the Tecumseh Herald here.

I'm glad to see that Health Care for America NOW isn't letting up on this. On the substance of issues, Tim Walberg is wrong, and it has the added benefit of being bad politics.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

The fun part about living in a district with lots of national attention is that you get to learn all about political groups you'd never heard of before.

The Hill reports:

Healthcare for America Now, a union-backed liberal health reform advocacy group, is making a $4.3 million ad buy in support of Barack Obama and other Democratic candidates.

Over the next two weeks, the organization will run ads on TV and radio attacking Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and seven GOP congressional candidates for their views on healthcare.

[...]

Echoing talking points used by Obama and his campaign, the ads claim that McCain’s health reform plan would cause 20 million people to lose employer-sponsored health insurance because of changes he would make to how those benefits are taxed.

[...]

Similar ads will air in the states and districts of four incumbent Republican lawmakers: Sen. John Sununu (N.H.) and Reps. Ric Keller (Fla.), Randy Kuhl (N.Y.) and Tim Walberg (Mich.).

[...]

On top of the multimillion-dollar advertising buy, Healthcare for America Now will spend $500,000 on direct mail and telephone campaigning.

It will be interesting to see the kind of impact they might have on the campaign. Personally, I'd like to see all candidates talk about health care more, and, to his credit, it's something Mark Schauer rarely fails to mention.

With Health Care for America NOW, all I can hope is that the "telephone campaigning" doesn't include robocalls. Please, nobody likes those.

Here's the television ad they're running against Tim Walberg:



Ouch. Maybe I'm just a receptive audience, but I'd say that it's a pretty effective ad.

The bill they mention is HR 4460, the "Health Care Choice Act of 2007," of which Tim Walberg is a cosponsor. It was introduced but never made it out of committee, and for a good reason. The bill would allow health insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines, potentially opening you up to cheaper options, should you decide to purchase health insurance on your own.

However, by allowing health insurance companies to designate a "primary" state and making them exempt from the laws of all other "secondary" states in which they sell, that would mean insurers could choose as a "primary" state somewhere that, say, doesn't have a law requiring that they cover pre-existing conditions.

The ad says it would let the insurance companies "make the rules," and that's not quite true. It's more that it would let the insurance companies pick and choose which combination of rules they want to follow. (Thanks to Wikipedia and this blog for guiding me in the right direction.)

Anyway, that's the policy behind the ad. Now, back to the politics.

In addition to the television ad, Congressman Walberg is featured on a website they launched, WhichSideAreTheyOn.com. Walberg's page, with a side-by-side comparison to Mark Schauer, leaves the reader with one clear conclusion-- Tim Walberg's not on your side. They also include a .pdf file with a good summary of Walberg's record on health care. It's certainly a must-read for anyone planning to talk with friends or relatives, and should be added to the talking points for Schauer volunteers going door-to-door.

Labels: 110th Congress, 2008 Election, Advertising, Health Care, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Everyone remembers the 2006 Republican primary, in which Tim Walberg defeated incumbent Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz. But two years earlier, the 2004 GOP primary was just as hard-fought a race, drawing six legitimate Republican candidates, all of whom at some point had a plausible chance of winning.

That race ended with Joe Schwarz squeaking by with a narrow plurality:

Joe Schwarz (R), 28%
Brad Smith (R), 22%
Tim Walberg (R), 18%
Clark Bisbee (R), 14%
Gene DeRossett (R), 11%
Paul DeWeese (R), 7%

We all, of course, know what happened with Schwarz and Walberg two years later. Clark Bisbee considered challenging Walberg in the primary this year, but decided against it, and:

Other names being floated are the two other also-rans in the '04 primary, former Reps. Gene DeROSSETT and Paul DeWEESE.

Neither, of course, decided to join the race. Indeed, Paul DeWeese decided instead to join the Democratic Party:

Former Rep. Paul DeWeese of Williamston, a one-time Republican Senate and congressional candidate, said he's changed parties and is now a Democrat.

For a number of years, the emergency room physician said he's watched a growing disconnect between the needs of people and the Republican Party's narrow "bankrupt ideology."

(Emphasis added.)

Now, we get this news from Schauer for Congress:

FORMER REPUBLICAN STATE REP. PAUL DEWEESE ENDORSES SCHAUER FOR CONGRESS

Says Schauer will fight to fix broken healthcare system, make Michigan more competitive

BATTLE CREEK—Today former state Rep. Paul DeWeese, a one-time Republican from Williamston, announced that he was endorsing Mark Schauer for Congress in the 7th district race. The emergency room physician announced he was leaving the Republican Party earlier this spring.

"The people of Mid-Michigan are ready for change, and Mark Schauer is exactly the kind of leader we need right now to make this state more competitive," said DeWeese. "Unlike his opponent, Mark would never vote against healthcare for kids, and he would never tell his constituents that people without health insurance should seek basic treatment in the emergency room. You don't have to be an ER doctor to understand that this only drives up costs for everyone else in the system. The 7th district deserves a Congressman who will fight to fix our broken healthcare system, and Mark is the best man for the job."

In August 2007, Congressman Walberg voted against the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 (HR 3162), legislation to expand the current State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $47.8 billion and bring 5 million additional children into the program. In March of this year, Walberg claimed at a town hall meeting in Hillsdale that those who cannot afford to go to the doctor have sufficient access to medical care because anyone can obtain treatment at an emergency room.

"I appreciate Paul's support and look forward to welcoming even more Democrats, Independents and Republicans to join our team this year," said Schauer. "Together, we can turn Michigan's economy around, one job at a time."

# # #

(Emphasis added.)

I think it's important to make clear just how significant this might be. DeWeese was certainly a moderate Republican, and as a state Representative, he didn't actually live in the 7th District. At the same time, he's a known quantity to 7th District Republicans, and especially to moderates who are wary of Walberg but not yet sure about Schauer.

And also, it never hurts to have a well-known emergency room doctor say that you're better on health care than your opponent. The town hall the press release mentions contains a heated exchange between a questioner and Congressman Walberg. You can listen to the whole thing here (low-quality .mp3), but here's the important part:

Walberg: ... That’s an issue, and I suggest that health savings accounts aren’t the only way to go, but I also suggest that we need to find ways, like associated health plans, giving the same tax breaks to individuals to purchase health insurance that we give to businesses…

Question: But many people have no money to purchase. You have the poor who have only enough money maybe to buy food. You can’t close the door. They can’t save money…

Walberg: Then wouldn’t it be good to take the government as much out of the way… of standing in the way of people having jobs so they would have incomes so they could afford health care. That’s the strong economics, because right now, everybody in the United States has some health care, maybe even the emergency room.

Question: No they don’t.

Walberg: [Losing patience] Everyone can walk into an emergency room and receive basic health care.

[Crowd noise]

Question: It doesn’t work that way. This community, this community really does pay for …

Walberg: I have a doctor in this row that knows it does work that way.

Someone in crowd: She might know a doctor!

Question: … Well, I’m a nurse practitioner. But we have a… in this community we do have, the community comes together for a free clinic. We put that together, […] it’s an excellent resource for people that do not have insurance. But, not every community has that. Not everybody comes together like that. What I’m saying is, that as a nation, we need to come together to provide basic health care for everyone...

This, of course, is a partial transcript, with a lot more before and after, and I probably made a few mistakes through there. Even so, this is a fairly good account of the discussion.

From this, we see that Tim Walberg's health care plan is, basically, the same "Every man for himself!" strategy he brings to other issues. And if you're still too poor to receive quality health care, well, you can just use the emergency room and drive up the costs for the rest of us.

That's not smart economics, and that's not smart health care. Walberg's system has no room for preventative care, which saves lives and money. It leaves emergency rooms-- the part of the hospital you want working most smoothly-- overcrowded and overwhelmed. And it leaves the rest of us to pay for it anyway.

I'm glad to see former state Representative and Dr. DeWeese endorse Mark Schauer. Are there any other doctors out there interested in endorsing?

Dr. Schwarz?

Labels: 2008 Election, Endorsements, Health Care, Paul DeWeese, Tim Walberg

From my inbox last night:

Dear [---],

In case you missed it, Tim Walberg did an interview with WKHM in Jackson last week. When the topic of Iraq came up during the conversation, Walberg said, "There was clear connections in Iraq to Saddam Hussein to what went on on 9/11."

Apparently the Congressman didn't get the memo that President Bush admitted this wasn't true in 2003, or that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission de-bunked this myth more than four years ago.

This got me thinking about some of the other shocking comments Tim Walberg has made over the past year that show how out of touch he is with the 7^th district. We put this video together to highlight some of his extreme viewpoints:

And, here's the video, called "The Things People Say":



I'm more than a little embarrassed that I'm represented by this man...

Labels: 9/11 Commission, ANWR, Energy, Environment, Great Lakes, Health Care, Iraq, Issues, Mark Schauer, Oil, Tim Walberg

Bumped to the top, because this is more important than polling. -- Fitzy

Congressman Tim Walberg says this on his blog:

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to meet with patients at Jackson Dialysis in Jackson, Michigan and discuss transportation issues. I heard from patient after patient about how high gas prices are negatively affecting their pocketbooks.

[...]

With situations like these becoming more and more common across the country, it is important to ask: how much longer can America afford Speaker Pelosi’s energy plan? We need an energy policy that will use existing American energy sources to create more prosperity and security for the American people.

(Emphasis added.)

From that, we get the impression that the patients Walberg spoke with mainly complained about having to pay for gas to get into the clinic. That's a frustrating problem, and perhaps increasing energy production could help.

There's just one problem: that's not what the patients were complaining about!

Covering the meeting, the Jackson Citizen Patriot brought us this:

Imagine having a four-hour dialysis appointment, then waiting up to three hours in the lobby, nauseated, for your ride home.

It can get tiring, especially for someone like Josephine Young of Summit Township, who has done it three times a week for nearly six years.

Young, 69, was one of a handful of patients at Jackson Dialysis, 234 W. Louis Glick Highway, who talked to U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, on Tuesday about public transportation issues and the soaring price of gasoline.

Young, who uses either a wheelchair or walker, relies on Jackson Transportation Authority's Reserve-A-Ride.

[...]

``We have more than our share of transportation issues,'' Diane French, regional operations director, told Walberg.

``I don't care if it is cardiac, cancer, whatever chronic disease, public transportation is our biggest obstacle. If a patient's children tries to bring them, they may lose their job so that doesn't work either,'' said French, who oversees 15 dialysis centers between Ann Arbor and Ludington.

Jackson Transportation Authority only travels into more rural areas of the county on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, where an estimated 30 percent of Jackson Dialysis Center clients live. So those people must be scheduled those days for dialysis.

(Emphasis added.)

In other words, high gas prices aren't the problem. The problem is that patients without transportation are facing scheduling problems which are threatening proper treatment. These are patients who aren't looking for cheap gas and more oil. They're looking for more transportation options.

These are transportation options, of course, that Tim Walberg opposes.

Here's what Tim Walberg got from the meeting:

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to meet with patients at Jackson Dialysis in Jackson, Michigan and discuss transportation issues. I heard from patient after patient about how high gas prices are negatively affecting their pocketbooks.

[...]

With situations like these becoming more and more common across the country, it is important to ask: how much longer can America afford Speaker Pelosi’s energy plan? We need an energy policy that will use existing American energy sources to create more prosperity and security for the American people.

...

Uh, Congressman? How will drilling for more oil help this problem?

Did you even bother to listen to what they had to say?

UPDATE: I got an e-mail reminding me about this from the Citizen Patriot last summer:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's office sent out a press release this week that touted his work toward securing $350,000 in federal funding for the Jackson Transportation Authority.
However, the statement made no mention that Walberg actually voted against the transportation appropriations bill that included the JTA funding. The bill passed the House and will now go on to the Senate for consideration.

(Emphasis added.)

So... Congressman Walberg takes credit for helping JTA, while actually voting against it. Then, he visits people who say they want more help from JTA, only to ignore them and their needs and use them as a political tool.

Classy, Congressman.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

NOTE: This disclaimer was added a few days late... I keep forgetting to add it at the end.

Labels: Health Care, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg, Transportation

Bumped to the top. This one matters to me for a lot of reasons, and I want to highlight the update at the bottom. -- Fitzy

Today, I'll be going back through the last few months and writing about some votes that I missed when they happened. I'd like to start with one that's incredibly important to me. (Thank you to the anonymous comments on this back when it happened.)

From my point of view, one of the greatest men to serve in the United States Senate was a man named Paul Wellstone. Wellstone was a political science professor at Carlson College who was elected as a Democrat in 1990 to represent Minnesota in the Senate, where he proudly articulated the progressive point of view. He's the one who popularized the line, "I represent the democratic wing of the Democratic Party," not Howard Dean, and his book The Conscience of a Liberal is a must-read for anyone of any political orientation.

In 2002, Paul Wellstone, his wife, Sheila, his daughter, Marcia, three campaign staffers, the pilot, and the copilot died in a plane crash just a few days before Election Day. Wellstone, despite his leftward lean, is fondly remembered by his Senate colleagues.

Prior to his death, Senator Wellstone had made mental health legislation one of his top priorities, as a result of his own experience with his brother, who suffered from mental illness. A leading ally in his efforts was Republican Senator Pete Domenici, whose daughter suffers from schizophrenia. Wellstone crafted a bill which would end discrimination against mental illness in health care coverage. As the New York Times explains:

Federal law now allows insurers to discriminate, and most do so, by setting higher co-payments or stricter limits on mental health benefits.

“Illness of the brain must be treated just like illness anywhere else in the body,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. Supporters of the House bill, including consumer groups and the American Psychiatric Association, said it would be a boon to many of the 35 million Americans who experience disabling symptoms of mental disorders each year.

[...]

Typical annual limits include 30 visits to a doctor or 30 days of hospital care for treatment of a mental disorder. Such limits would no longer be allowed if the insurer had no limits on treatment of conditions like cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

[...]

Three factors contributed to support for the legislation. First, researchers have found biological causes and effective treatments for numerous mental illnesses. Second, a number of companies now specialize in managing mental health benefits, making the costs to insurers and employers more affordable.

Finally, some doctors say that the stigma of mental illness has faded as people see members of the armed forces returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with mental disorders.

Supporters of mental health parity see it as a civil rights issue, and the debate Wednesday was filled with poignant moments.

“I have a mental illness, and I am fortunately getting the best care this country has to offer because I am a member of Congress,” said Representative Patrick J. Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island and chief sponsor of the House bill. Mr. Kennedy has been treated for depression and drug dependence.

The main Republican sponsor, Representative Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, a recovering alcoholic, said, “I am living proof that treatment works and recovery is real.”

Wellstone's legislation has been reintroduced by his colleagues since his death, notably Congressmen Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad in the House. When it finally came to the House floor for a vote in 2008 as HR 1424, it had the alternate title "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act," but it is still often referred to as the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act.

I can't emphasize enough how important this legislation is and how much it just makes sense. Mental health deserves the same attention and care as physical health, and those who suffer from mental illness don't deserve the discrimination they often receive from our society.

For more information on the bill, click here. Text of HR 1424 is available here.

On March 5, 2008, the House of Representatives finally voted on HR 1424, following a decade-long struggle. It passed, by a vote of 268 to 148, with 13 not voting.

Congressman Tim Walberg... didn't vote.

Oh, he was there that day. The vote for HR 1424 was at 8:03pm, but Walberg did vote immediately before that (7:56pm, to try to send the bill back to committee) and immediately after (8:11pm, to name a post office after someone). But for some reason, Congressman Walberg didn't even bother to take a position on ending discrimination against mental illness.

Congressman, do you not support the bill?

Do you think there's something wrong with it, and you just lack the spine to oppose it?

Do you think those with mental illness deserve to pay more and get less service?

Did you have something more important to do for 15 minutes?

Did you really need to use the bathroom?

Is there any legitimate explanation, Congressman Walberg? It was a straight, yes-or-no vote. If there was something you didn't like about the bill, you could have at least explained why you didn't want to vote for it. The only news item on your website from March 5th has nothing to do with health care.

Were you just hoping no one would notice?

Congressman Walberg, do you think mental illness should be discriminated against?

Michigan's 7th District deserves better than this.

_____
UPDATE: I did a little more looking today, out of curiosity. The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act was recommended to the House of Representatives by the House Committee on Education and Labor, and Congressman Walberg serves on that committee.

On July 18, 2007, the committee voted 33 to 9 to send the bill the full House.

Congressman Tim Walberg... didn't vote. For some reason, even in committee, where Walberg could have fixed any problems he saw, he just couldn't be bothered to take a stand.

Labels: Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Last month, both Mark Schauer and Sharon Renier competed for the endorsement of the SEIU Michigan State Council. SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, represents nearly 80,000 workers in Michigan in health care, state and local government, and building services. These aren't the flashy people who get all the headlines. These are the people who actually work for a living, making the essential services we rely on actually work.

Both Schauer and Renier participated in the "Walk A Day In My Shoes" program, in which each of them spent a work day alongside actual SEIU members, doing their jobs alongside them. In their press releases for each candidate's working experience, SEIU writes:

"Our decision to endorse a Congressional candidate will come directly from our members in the workplace," said Phil Thompson, SEIU Michigan State Council president and executive vice president of SEIU Local 517M. "SEIU members want to know that people running for office understand what it's like to do their jobs and walk a day in their shoes."

Marge Faville, secretary-treasurer of SEIU Healthcare Michigan and the Michigan State Council treasurer, said: "Our representatives in Congress must appreciate and understand what our members go through so they can carry our message to Capitol Hill. By standing shoulder-to-shoulder with workers, candidates for public office demonstrate that they are willing to earn our support."

Schauer spent his day in Adrian alongside Annette Freeman, a Certified Nursing Assistant at the Lenawee Medical Care Facility. Renier spent her day working with Denise Mazuk, a home care worker who cares for the elderly in the Battle Creek area.

Ultimately, the SEIU Michigan State Council chose to endorse Schauer. In their announcement, they explain:

“Our members firmly believe that Mark Schauer is the best candidate to represent the citizens of Michigan’s 7^th District,” said Phil Thompson, SEIU Michigan State Council president and executive vice president of SEIU Local 517M. “He has a long, proven record of standing by working families, especially when it comes to providing access to quality and affordable health care.”

[...]

“Mark Schauer understands our values and our concerns and has been a strong advocate for working families,” said Marge Faville, secretary-treasurer of SEIU Healthcare Michigan and the Michigan State Council treasurer. “We are very impressed with Mark’s passion, dedication and firm grasp of the issues SEIU members care about.”

Faville said SEIU members were impressed with Schauer’s stances on the Iraq War and health care: “Mark Schauer has opposed the war from the beginning and he wants to bring our troops home as soon as possible. When they get home, he wants the troops — and every American — to have access to affordable, quality health care. Those two issues are extremely important to SEIU members, as they are to all Michiganders. Mark Schauer shares our members’ vision for a better Michigan and a stronger nation.”

Schauer, who served in the state House from 1996 before being elected to the state Senate in 2002, said: “I’m extremely honored to have the support of the SEIU Michigan State Council. The SEIU believes that Michigan’s working families deserve a voice in Washington and that it is time for a change. I share those beliefs and values, and I will carry them with me to Capitol Hill.”

Congratulations to Senator Schauer for the endorsement, and thank you to both Mark Schauer and Sharon Renier for taking the time to seek this endorsement. Thank you for choosing to spend time with the people whose lives you will affect should either of you be elected to Congress.

Which brings me to something from their announcement, which I find very telling:

To obtain the SEIU endorsement, Schauer and his opponent in the Democratic primary went through a multistep, member-driven process that included filling out a questionnaire on issues important to members and their families, participating in a candidate “meet and greet” with members and taking part in a “Walk A Day In My Shoes” event, where candidates spent a day working side-by-side with SEIU members. U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Tipton), the incumbent Congressman in the 7^th District, did not respond to the SEIU’s invitation to participate in the endorsement process.

(Emphasis added.)

I know that SEIU is a union, and Congressman Walberg is a Republican, so the odds were slim to start with. But wouldn't it have been nice to see our representative choose to work alongside the men and women he represents, and try to convince their union that he really can bring about positive change? Even if it was a lost cause, that kind of effort would have meant a lot to me and to a lot of other people.

I suppose Walberg enjoys the company of his friends in the Club for Growth more.

Labels: 2008 Election, Health Care, Labor, Mark Schauer, SEIU, Sharon Renier, Tim Walberg

Here's the quote:

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich) agreed, adding: "I think the freedom-minded, common sense-minded citizens of Maine should rise up against it."

(Emphasis added.)

That's all I saw of the article when I did a Google News search on Congressman Walberg, and, needless to say, I was confused. Why does our representative want to start a revolt in Maine?

Sadly, it's not as exciting as it sounds, but it's still worth mentioning.

Remember the sudden controversy about the middle school in Portland, Maine that decided to add the birth control pill to the items which could be dispensed at the school health center? It sparked a debate over when it's appropriate to give birth control to minors, whether parents should be notified, and whether students engaging in consensual, under-age sex should be prosecuted.

The controversy seems to have died down a bit, though it's interesting to see that 67 percent of Americans polled support the concept of schools providing birth control, with differences among that 67 percent over parental notification. Still, this isn't a national issue, it was one school board in Maine, and, for the most part, it seems to have faded from the headlines.

That hasn't stopped the conservative CNSNews.com from trying to keep the issue alive, however, with their latest article about the controversy being published today. That's where I saw the Walberg quote, though the quote actually came from a previous article, published on October 19.

So, why, exactly, did Congressman Walberg say that Maine ought to "rise up against" birth control?

CNSNews.com asked several federal lawmakers (seven members of the Senate and one member of the House, Walberg) what they thought of the issue. Those that answered said, basically, "I don't know, why are you asking me? It's a local issue!" and some didn't bother to respond. Here are the other responses that they got:

Sen. Tom Coburn: (R-Okla.): "I think all of that should be decided in the states." (Listen to audio)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.): "I'll need to take a look at that one. I'm not aware of that circumstance. I think I'll worry about Maryland right now." (Listen to audio)

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.): "I haven't studied this very much ... generally probably no." (Listen to audio)

Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.): "We certainly shouldn't support that kind of program at the federal level." (Listen to audio)

Needless to say, Congressman Walberg had more to say. Here's the full quote that the "rise up against it" bit came from:

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich): "I hate to comment on other states, but the issue, I think it's inappropriate. I think that it steps in the way of parental responsibility and I think it also gives up - gives up in the sense that we've lost the battle for kids, following a plan that won't affect their lives in a negative way. And when you say you're going to be this way, so we're going to give you birth control and condoms and we're not going to talk about abstinence, it just doesn't work, we've given up. I think the freedom-minded, common sense-minded citizens of Maine, should rise up against it." (Listen to audio)

So, he hates to comment on local issues which are really out of his control, but... he'll do it anyway.

I had a little trouble at first figuring out exactly what he was trying to say, but I think I've got it now. To Congressman Walberg, giving sexually-active teenagers birth control and condoms is "giving up" on them. We should be telling them that abstinence is the only way, rather than giving them the things that could make the lifestyle they've already chosen safer.

Really, from what I can get out of Walberg's comments, it's a moral issue, not a public health issue. It's a battle between morally superior men like Walberg and heathens like myself, who recognize that abstinence-only education doesn't work (here, here, and here, to give you a few of the many articles available).

When forming public health policy, who should we be listening to-- Tim Walberg, or doctors and people who actually know what they're talking about?

Of course, on another level, all of this is beside the point. Should Tim Walberg really be telling the people of Maine anything, let alone to "rise up against" smarter health policies? He's always reminding us about how terrible things are in Michigan, thanks to that "Democrat Governor" and the state legislature. You'd think he'd be spending less time worrying about Maine, and more time working for us.

But that's just me.

(UPDATE: Oops. I made a misquoted Walberg in the title at first, but have now fixed it.)

Labels: Education, Faith and Politics, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

I feel like I've written this post before, somehow...

Today, the House voted on the latest incarnation of the SCHIP reauthorization, which was re-worked to address concerns of people like Tim Walberg over illegal immigrants, adults, and higher-income families receiving coverage.

The latest version passed, with a vote of 265 to 142. That's not a veto-proof two-thirds, but it's pretty close.

Congressman Tim Walberg voted No, apparently unsatisfied with the changes.

The next step, if this version is vetoed (which it probably will be) would be a continuing resolution to fund SCHIP at current levels for another month or so. Otherwise, the program loses all funding after October 31st.

Labels: 110th Congress, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Bumped to the top of the page, since it's kind of important... - Fitzy

The Hill brings us the latest on efforts to pass an SCHIP reauthorization:

After tinkering with their bill, House Democrats believe they have made the necessary concessions to attract a veto-proof majority on legislation expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

House Democratic leadership aides said that the new bill has addressed the three principle Republican complaints made about the original five-year, $35 billion expansion, which President Bush vetoed earlier this month.

A vote on the legislation is scheduled for Thursday. If it is approved with a veto-proof majority, it would qualify as a huge political victory for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as well as Senate Democrats, who already have the votes to override Bush.

and

The revised measure will include provisions prohibiting coverage of adults, preventing families with incomes of 300 percent of the poverty level from qualifying for the program, and making it harder for illegal immigrants to sign up for the program.

and finally,

Liberal activists are carrying out ad campaigns in the districts of seven House Republicans calling out the lawmakers for their votes against the SCHIP bills.

The ad campaign is funded by the MoveOn.org Political Action and is being supported by a broader grassroots outreach efforts being carried out by the MoveOne.org Political Action, big labor unions, Americans United for Change, USAction, the Campaign for America’s Future, ACORN and several other liberal groups.

Although the targeted members, GOP Reps. Tom Feeney (Fla.), Ric Keller (Fla.), Sam Graves (Mo.), Randy Kuhl (N.Y.), Marilyn Musgrave (Colo.) and Tim Walberg (Mich.), arguably aren’t the most likely lawmakers to flip their votes, MoveOn.org’s message won’t be lost on other House Republicans facing difficult reelection bids.

In addition to organizations such as these and Families USA, which are traditional allies of the Democratic Party, influential lobbying groups with ties to both parties also say they’ll keep up their efforts to get an SCHIP bill passed.

“Everything we’ve been doing, we’ve continued doing,” a spokesman for the AARP said. Those activities have included dispatching their formidable lobbying team to shore up support on Capitol Hill for the SCHIP bill, print and TV ad campaigns and grassroots activity.

Obviously, having not seen or read the compromise bill (actually, the second compromise... the original version was bigger than the one eventually passed and vetoed), I can't say whether or not it is good or bad. However, I can say that if it addresses the issues of adults on SCHIP, higher-income families, and illegal immigrants, Congressman Walberg really has no legitimate reason to vote against it. Those were his complaints, and the Democratic leadership says they've addressed them.

Please keep in mind, however, that in the bill Walberg voted against, all of his objections were already addressed. This would just be tougher language.

So, House Democrats have made moves to compromise. Will Congressman Walberg?

We'll find out tomorrow.

UPDATE: Er... we'll find out today. I hadn't realized it was after midnight!

Labels: 110th Congress, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

The House of Representatives just voted on overriding President Bush's veto of the SCHIP reauthorization bill. It failed to received a two-thirds majority.

The vote was 273 to 156 in support of overriding the veto. It would have taken 286 to override the veto.

They haven't announced it yet, but I can only assume from the numbers that Tim Walberg did not change his mind, and voted to support the president and oppose the children and about 80 percent of the country.

I'll have more updates later in the day.

UPDATE: The roll call vote can be seen here. Congressman Walberg did vote against overriding the veto, as expected.

I don't know what to say. I mean, I knew he wouldn't vote to override, but I still can't believe it.

Mark Schauer issued a brief statement:

"I'm disappointed that today a stubborn minority voted to provide political cover for President Bush instead of voting to provide health care coverage to thousands of children. The people of south central Michigan, the children of Michigan, deserve better."

Labels: 110th Congress, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Yesterday, state Senator Mark Schauer wrote a column for the Citizen Patriot in support of SCHIP. Now, it's Congressman Tim Walberg's turn, filling the pages of the Lansing State Journal.

Special interest groups in Washington, such as MoveOn.org, are upset with me for standing up on behalf of the taxpayers in my district and backing a reasoned approach to renewing the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

These special interest groups have been advertising on our local airwaves and spreading lies about my position. I support renewing SCHIP to provide health care to needy children in low-income families, but the bill these groups want me to vote for is the wrong approach.

Those nasty liberals! They're spreading lies about Tim!

Never mind that Congressman Walberg's own rhetoric on SCHIP is less than truthful. Rather than refute his points myself, I'll let the Detroit Free Press do it for me, with their excellent editorial on the facts about SCHIP, also published today.

Walberg says:

This bill would give children's health-care funds to childless adults, people who enter the country illegally and families in New York earning up to $83,000 a year who already have private insurance.

(Emphasis added.)

The Free Press says:

On childless adults-

In Michigan, 42% of SCHIP enrollees are childless adults, a program the state started with the Bush administration's blessing. Enrollees' annual income cannot exceed $3,500; the program is designed mainly to get them preventive care that will keep them out of emergency rooms. Two Republican congressmen (Mike Rogers and Dave Camp) sent a letter supporting the state's application.

In any event, Congress ended this option; it was not in the bill that the president vetoed.

In other words, Congressman Walberg, you're lying.

On illegal immigrants-

Not true now, not true in the bill the president vetoed. A provision that may have helped questionable immigrants was put forth in Congress but taken out before final passage. SCHIP goes only to citizens and legal immigrants who have been in the country at least five years.

In other words, Congressman Walberg, you're lying.

On those families in New York making $83,000 per year-

This can happen only if the administration grants a waiver. It has already rejected such a request from New York, probably the only state where the cost of living might justify such a request.

In other words, Congressman Walberg, you're lying again.

Walberg also says:

To pay for this huge expansion, 22 new million smokers will be required over the next five years. This bill and its budgetary gimmicks are certainly the wrong approach to take on children's health care.

The Free Press responds:

The bill is financed by a 61-cent-a-pack tax increase on cigarettes, which covers costs for the first five years. In the second five years, the cigarette tax will not be enough. Congress will have to decide in 2012 whether to restrict enrollment or find new revenue sources. That does not mean they will encourage 22 million new smokers.

In other words, once again, Congressman Walberg is lying.

Congressman Walberg ends his editorial repeating the same false talking points:

The House is scheduled today to vote to override the president's veto of the most recent SCHIP bill.

The Democrats are playing a typical Washington game by inserting funding for childless adults, illegal immigrants and families earning up to $83,000 a year into a bill for children.

Congress should act immediately to direct children's health care dollars to actual children who are in need and put an end to political games.

The Free Press says:

This state is so economically stressed that it's unfathomable any Michigan member of Congress would say no to SCHIP. Families who've had employer provided health care are getting laid off and bought out, or seeing their premiums soar, or finding them unaffordable as they try to stave off foreclosure.

There's no decent reason to deprive them of peace of mind over their children's health.

There are still probably a few hours left before the vote. Call Congressman Walberg and ask him to do the right thing and change his position.

(202) 225-6276

or

1-877-TIM-MI07

Labels: 110th Congress, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

(Thanks to an anonymous comment!)

In a guest column for the Citizen Patriot, Senate Minority Leader and congressional candidate Mark Schauer makes the case for SCHIP.

A few key pieces of the column:

Sometimes if people say something often enough, it seems true. That's what many have been doing in misrepresenting a bipartisan bill to guarantee health-insurance coverage to 80,000 Michigan children. We must set the record straight as Congress has another chance this week to do the right thing and approve this common-sense legislation.

[...]

Those who oppose the plan have resorted to myths. They say this proposal will allow illegal immigrants to receive coverage. In fact, the bill specifically says, "No federal funding for illegal aliens." Period.

It is also untrue to say families making $83,000 a year will be eligible. New York once applied for a waiver for families at that level, but it was denied. The bill maintains current eligibility requirements, which means that Michigan children from families earning less than $41,000 would qualify. "Wealthy" families would not take advantage of this program. See for yourself by visiting the nonpartisan FactCheck.org.

The notion that this bill will result in "socialized medicine" also doesn't hold water. In Michigan, the MIChild program is run by a network of private health-care providers. By extending the coverage to an additional 25,000 kids, the same private network will be used.

This approach could even save our country money in the long run because families without health coverage often turn to the more-expensive emergency room for care. It's true this version spends more than the president would like, but it is not nearly as much as the $12 billion per month we spend in Iraq.

[...]

As elected officials, we make tough choices. I recently voted for a budget solution that protects health-care access, even supporting cuts and reforms that traditional Democratic interest groups didn't support. It's time for Rep. Walberg to make a choice that shouldn't be so tough.

But you should really just have read the whole thing.

The veto override vote is tomorrow. It might seem like a lost cause, but contact Congressman Walberg and tell him that you want him to do the right thing, support life, and vote to override the veto.

Labels: Health Care, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

Walberg won't listen to the facts and he won't listen to labor. He won't listen to the American people or his own constituents. He certainly won't listen to the Democrats or to Mark Schauer. So far, he's only listened to the Club for Growth.

But before he was Congressman Walberg and before he was state Representative Walberg, he was Reverend Walberg. The national group Catholics United has been appealing to his pro-life morals to try to encourage him to vote to override President Bush's veto.

Now, local religious leaders are doing the same.

Several members of the Joint-religious Organizing Network for Action and Hope (JONAH) plan to meet with U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, today at 11 a.m. to persuade him to vote to override President George W. Bush’s veto of a federal and state funded children’s health insurance program.

Following the meeting, they plan to hold an open prayer for the Congressman’s vote at about 11:30 or 11:45 a.m. at Commerce Pointe near Battle Creek City Hall.

The public are welcome to join in the prayer.

This isn't an issue about money. It doesn't add to the debt, and no one would ever call this pork spending. And this isn't about "socialized medicine," because SCHIP is nothing like what Canada or Western Europe use. And this isn't about illegal immigrants or $83,000 or any of that stuff, none of which is an actual part of the bill.

This is a simple question of morals. When you see people in need-- especially children-- do you help them?

The meeting is over by now, but I hope it went well. I hope they convinced Congressman Walberg to listen to his conscience and changes his mind.

If Congressman Walberg votes to support the president's veto, it'll certainly make him an easier candidate to defeat. But you know what? I don't care about that. Once, just once, I want to see my congressman do something that will help someone besides the Club for Growth.

Labels: Faith and Politics, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

Something new from a different source...

Via DailyKos.com:

Ad Campaign Criticizes Pro-Life Members of Congress for Voting against Children's Health Insurance

Washington, DC- Catholics United will launch a radio advertising campaign targeting ten members of Congress whose opposition to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) have compromised their pro-life voting records.

The ads, which feature a mother urging her Congressional Representative to support SCHIP, will primarily air on Christian and talk radio stations from Monday Oct. 15 to Wednesday, Oct. 17 as Congress approaches a critical Oct. 18 vote to override President Bush's veto of bipartisan SCHIP legislation.

"Building a true culture of life requires public policies that promote the welfare of the most vulnerable," said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United. "At the heart of the Christian faith is a deep and abiding concern for the need of others. Pro-life Christians who serve in Congress should honor this commitment by supporting health care for poor children."

The following members of Congress have voted against SCHIP, which provides high-quality health coverage to more than six million children whose families would otherwise be unable to afford insurance. Radio ads will air on local radio stations in their congressional districts.

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida

Rep. Joseph Knollenberg, Michigan

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Michigan,

Rep. Tim Walberg, Michigan

Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio

Rep. Gene Taylor, Mississippi

Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Minnesota

Rep. Sam Graves, Missouri

Rep. Thelma Drake, Virginia

Rep. John Peterson, Peterson

The script for the radio commercial reads: "I'm the mother of three children, and I'm pro-life. I believe that protecting the lives our children must be our nation's number one moral priority. That's why I'm concerned that Congressman X says he's pro-life but votes against health care for poor children. That's not pro-life. That's not pro-family. Tell Congressman X to vote for health care for children. Call him today at XXXX, that's XXXXX."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA, and the Catholic Health Association have all urged Congress and President Bush to support SCHIP.

(Emphasis added.)

Catholics United doesn't have anything on their website about this, but I'm guessing that they'll update it sometime soon.

I don't know anything about Catholics United, but I think this is a very powerful line of reasoning against Congressman Walberg's votes against reauthorizing and expanding SCHIP. How can you be for life if you aren't willing to support an entire lifespan?

UPDATE:
Here's the audio of the radio ad.

Labels: 110th Congress, Faith and Politics, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

The television ad I mentioned the other day directly targeting Congressman Tim Walberg on his SCHIP vote was unveiled today. (This is in addition to the national "Abby" ad I posted before.) Here's the ad:



Ouch.

Consider this an open thread.

Labels: 110th Congress, Health Care, Issues, Open Thread, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Americans United for Change is launching an ad campaign urging Republicans in Congress to override President Bush's veto of SCHIP. Here's the national ad they're running:


They're also specifically targeting individual Republicans in Congress, including Tim Walberg. From their press release:

With support from AFSCME, SEIU and MoveOn.org -- Americans United for Change will launch a significant-six figure national TV ad starting on Monday called “Abby” that will run through the expected October 18th vote. You may view “Abby” here: http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/blog/entries/abby/

AFSCME will also launch targeted TV ads next week pressuring key Republican lawmakers to stand up for families and kids in their districts by immediately changing course and voting to override the President’s veto, including U.S. Reps. Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4), Sam Graves (MO-6), John “Randy” Kuhl (NY-29), Thomas Reynolds (NY-26), Timothy Walberg (MI-7), Joe Knollenberg (MI-9), Steve Chabot (OH-1), and Tom Feeney (FL-24).

SEIU will launch TV ads as well, also starting next week, targeting U.S. Reps. Tim Johnson (IL-15), Rodney Alexander (LA-5), John Boozman (AR-3), Kay Granger (TX-12), Thelma Drake (VA-2), Robin Hayes (NC-8), Barbara Cubin (WY-AL) John “Randy” Kuhl (NY-29), Thomas Reynolds (NY-26), and radio ads targeting Reps. Michele Bachmann (MN-6), Robert Aderholt (AL-4).

In addition to television and radio ads targeting 15 members of Congress, the AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org, USAction and TrueMajority announced plans for a massive field mobilization against as many as 20 other targets (see list at bottom) including efforts to get union households involved in lobbying members to support the veto override and activating the powerful progressive online forces. Yesterday groups involved in the coalition held over two hundred and fifty events from coast to coast protesting the President’s veto.

Labor has usually sat out most elections in the 7th District, and I'm excited to see them take on an active role. I look forward to seeing what they do.

Labels: 2008 Election, Health Care, Labor, Tim Walberg

There's been more going on than just the SCHIP vote and veto, but as long as Tim Walberg wants to talk about it, I will too.

Yesterday, Congressman Walberg released a statement:

“I support renewing SCHIP to aid children in low-income families. I have co-sponsored legislation that would extend the current children’s health insurance program by 18 months.

“The legislation I have supported would ensure that the children’s health program is available for children who need it, and not for adults, people who enter the country illegally or families who already have private insurance. The Democratic legislation takes a program originally meant for children of low-income families and expands it to cover some families earning up to $83,000 and illegal immigrants while moving millions of children from private health insurance to government programs.

“I will continue to work in a non-partisan way to ensure SCHIP is reauthorized so there is not a lapse of service and do it in a fiscally responsible way that ensures poor children receive the insurance and adequate care they need.”

This is basically the same line he's been repeating for a while. Don't be confused when he says

"I support renewing SCHIP to aid children in low-income families. I have co-sponsored legislation that would extend the current children’s health insurance program by 18 months."

He's not talking about the bill which the House passed and which he voted against. He's talking about the alternative bill that was not voted on, and would not expand the SCHIP program. So, that's a mildly-deceptive way of wording things, but that's not what's bothering me right now.

Walberg continues:

“The legislation I have supported would ensure that the children’s health program is available for children who need it, and not for adults, people who enter the country illegally or families who already have private insurance. The Democratic legislation takes a program originally meant for children of low-income families and expands it to cover some families earning up to $83,000 and illegal immigrants while moving millions of children from private health insurance to government programs.

(Emphasis added.)

That's where the lies and distortion come in.

First, on that $83,000 figure, from FactCheck.org:

In fact, nothing in either the House or Senate bill would force coverage for families earning $83,000 a year. That's already possible under current law, but no state sets its cut-off that high for a family of four and the bill contains no requirement for any such increase. The Bush administration, in fact, just denied a request by New York to set its income cut-off at $82,600 for a family of four, a move New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and members of Congress from the state have vigorously protested. And Bush would retain the authority to deny similar applications under the proposed legislation. An Aug. 17 letter to state health officials from the Center on Medicare and Medicaid Services outlined new guidelines for states that would make it quite difficult for states to raise eligibility above 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($51,625 for a family of four). So Bush is simply wrong to say that the legislation "would" result in families making $83,000 a year to be eligible. It might happen in a future administration, but that would be possible without the new legislation.

(Emphasis added.)

Now, as the bill evolved in Congress, New York became a special case, as FactCheck.org later explains:

Here’s what would happen to New York’s request to increase its eligibility cap to 400 percent of the poverty level: The new legislation would rescind the Aug. 17 letter from HHS that required states to meet certain requirements before they could raise eligibility above 250 percent of the poverty level. Instead, HHS would issue new requirements for states seeking to increase their caps above 300 percent. After Oct. 1, 2010, states failing to meet those requirements wouldn’t get federal funds for children above that 300 percent mark (see Sec. 116 of the bill).

[...]

So, New York could increase its income eligibility cap to $82,600 for a family of four for at least two years, until late 2010, as long as the state’s plan is approved by HHS. After that, to continue getting funds for children above the 300 percent level, the state would have to meet the federal government’s new guidelines. The president has a point in that the bill allows New York to increase its eligibility cap beyond what his administration was willing to permit. But with the eligibility restrictions and incentives the new legislation puts in place, it’s misleading for the president to say the bill is “turning [the program] into one that covers children in households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year.”

It's complicated and a little tough to follow, but here's the short version. There's a chance that one state out of 50, a state with a pretty high cost of living in some places, might raise it's cap to nearly $83,000, but it would only last for two years.

So, yeah, Congressman Walberg, "some families" earning up to $83,000 might be eligible. But we both know that you were trying to imply that this would be a nationwide thing. Not a lie, exactly, but certainly deceptive.

Now, how about those terrible illegal immigrants? The Democrats, apparently, want to give them health care. Again, as Walberg says:

The Democratic legislation takes a program originally meant for children of low-income families and expands it to cover some families earning up to $83,000 and illegal immigrants while moving millions of children from private health insurance to government programs.

There's one problem: the Democratic bill does no such thing.

As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution succinctly states as it dispels myths about SCHIP:

Claim: Illegal immigrants will be able to sign up for benefits. It is against federal law for illegal immigrants to sign up for SCHIP programs. That wouldn't change.

Where did the idea that illegal immigrants could sign up for SCHIP come from?

How would these illegal immigrants get into the program? Simple. A provision in the bill allows potential enrollees to show only a Social Security card - not documents proving citizenship - when they apply at the state level to get in the programs.

It simplifies the process, so that you don't need to fight through as much paperwork to get benefits. I always thought efficiency in bureaucracy was something Republicans liked.

But that doesn't matter, because those nasty Democrats went ahead and gave illegal immigrants social security benefits, right? So, illegal immigrants can get SCHIP, too.

Actually, no. It's a different issue entirely, but as FactCheck.org explains:

Republicans are tagging Democratic opponents across the country for wanting to "give Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants." But nobody's proposing paying benefits to illegals, not until and unless they become US citizens or are granted legal status.

Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Social Security, and if they somehow present a Social Security card to enroll in SCHIP, they are breaking the law now and they would be breaking the law under the Democratic bill. It's that simple.

So when Tim Walberg says that the bill expands SCHIP to cover illegal immigrants, he's lying.

But how about that last piece, where Walberg says:

The Democratic legislation takes a program originally meant for children of low-income families and expands it to cover some families earning up to $83,000 and illegal immigrants while moving millions of children from private health insurance to government programs.

(Emphasis added.)

Millions of children from private health insurance to government programs? It sounds like socialized medicine! It sounds like HillaryCare!

It also sounds like another lie.

From NPR:

At issue is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP. It currently covers about 6 million children in families that earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid program for the poor, but not enough to afford their own, private health insurance. The bill the president vetoed would have added $35 billion to the program over the next five years — enough to cover about 10 million children total.

"I believe in private medicine," Bush told an audience in Lancaster, Penn., on Wednesday morning. "I believe in helping poor people, which was the intent of SCHIP, now being expanded beyond its initial intent. I also believe that the federal government should make it easier for people to afford private insurance. I don't want the federal government making decisions for doctors and customers."

Not Administered by the Government

But SCHIP isn't the kind of program where government officials make medical decisions. Under SCHIP, children are enrolled in private health insurance.

"Typically, children have a choice from among competing private health-insurance companies," says Stan Dorn, a senior research associate with the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank. "There's no federally specified benefits package. There's no individual entitlement."

(Emphasis added.)

In other words, this isn't socialized medicine. The federal government isn't even close to making decisions for doctors.

This is government-subsidized medicine. The federal government gives money to the states, and each state comes up with a program that ensures health coverage for eligible children.

What it does do is make health insurance a lot more affordable to people who can use the extra money.

I'm hoping that I covered everything without making too many mistakes. But I'm fairly confident that my post is a lot more accurate than anything Tim Walberg has said about the issue.

Labels: 110th Congress, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

President Bush vetoed the SCHIP bill today, as expected. With 67 Senators supporting the bill, everything falls on the House of Representatives to override the veto. If all the Democrats in the House and the Republicans who supported SCHIP last time vote to override, they'll still be 15 votes short. That's 15 Republicans who need to be swayed.

Here's some polling data on the issue, from ABC News and the Washington Post:

"There's a proposal to increase federal spending on children's health insurance by 35 billion dollars over the next five years. It would be funded by an increase in cigarette taxes. Supporters say this would provide insurance for millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured. Opponents say this goes too far in covering children in families that can afford health insurance on their own. Do you support or oppose this increased funding for this program?" Options rotated.

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
9/27-30/07 72 25 3

(For more good information on SCHIP, see here and here.)

It might be a lost cause, but a group of activists is ready to try to convince Congressman Tim Walberg, who voted against Michigan's children, to change his mind and vote to stand with 72 percent of Americans. From the Battle Creek Enquirer:

A rally to encourage Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg to vote to override President George W. Bush’s veto of a $35 billion expansion of the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) will be held 3:30 p.m. Thursday at Mill Race Park in downtown Battle Creek.

Walberg has promised to side with the president’s plan to expand the program by just $5 billion. Although the Senate may have a two-thirds majority necessary to override the president’s veto issued today, analysts estimate the House is about 15 votes shy of an override.

Kate Segal, Calhoun County Commission chairwoman; Tony Walker, vice mayor of Battle Creek; and Marvin Austin, former county commissioner, plan to attend. The gathering is organized by Kalamazoo-based Michigan Citizen Action, an affiliate of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit USAction.

(Emphasis added.)

I'd love to be there, but, unfortunately, I'm not actually in the state of Michigan at the moment... Still, I'd encourage everyone to go. Maybe, if enough people show up, it might convince Congressman Walberg to change his mind.

If you attend the rally, be sure to send me an e-mail about how it goes.

Labels: 110th Congress, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

As you may recall, Congressman Tim Walberg voted against re-authorizing funding for children's health care (twice), a move that has brought the congressman considerable (and deserved) criticism.

I mean, let's be serious here. The man voted against helping children in a bill supported by the insurance industry and the AARP, and he tries to say that he voted against it because it was "socialized medicine" and a "nanny-state" and hurt senior citizens. This was a chance to help children in need, and he blew it. But it's never about doing the right thing for Tim Walberg. It's about doing whatever the Club for Growth tells him to do. So, it was a dumb move on every level.

That's why I was very pleased to see that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is going to be running a series of ads in the districts of vulnerable Republicans who voted against the bill. (Thanks, lpackard.)

Here's the radio ad that's running in the 7th District:

Text of the Ad, "Simple Choice," Against Kuhl and Walberg Follows
"Nearly 700,000 children here in New York risk losing their affordable, quality health insurance, while Congressman Randy Kuhl receives his health care at taxpayers' expense.

"With the State Children's Health Insurance Program – SCHIP – set to expire, Congressman Kuhl has a choice to make.

"Continue to stand with President Bush or with American children.

"SCHIP will expand health care coverage for nearly 10 million children, and is funded by a 61 cent increase in the tobacco tax.

"Congress and 49 governors from across the country support SCHIP.

"Yet President Bush threatens to veto it SCHIP and Congressman Kuhl stands with him –instead of kids.

"Congressman Kuhl has a simple choice: give 10 million children the health care they need or turn his back on those children.

"Call Congressman Kuhl [Walberg] and tell him to stand with kids, NOT George Bush."

Disclaimer:
Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, www.dccc.org. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Obviously, with Walberg's name instead of Randy Kuhl (and, I hope, with Michigan data instead of New York). There's also a robocall running:

Robo Calls
In addition to radio ads, the automated calls will made in each of the targeted districts (with the exception of NJ-03) encouraging constituents to call their Republican Member and support children's health care. Lisa Matzenbach, a mother of a chronically ill child on SCHIP, recorded the calls. Lisa and her daughter live in Joe Knollenberg's district. The text of the call follows:

"I am Lisa Matzenbach calling on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"My daughter, Liane, has a chronic illness. Even though I work full time, I can't afford her care without SCHIP – the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"Congress recently passed legislation to provide SCHIP health care to over 10 million uninsured American children.

"But, Congressman Joe Knollenberg and President Bush are against providing more than 118,500 Michigan children access to the health care they desperately deserve.

"Please call Joe Knollenberg at (248) 851-1366 and tell him it's time he put our children first."

Again, with Walberg's information, not Knollenberg. I'm not normally a fan of robocalls-- as Sharon Renier learned, they can be used against you as a nasty campaign tactic and they can be kind of annoying. Still, it names the organization-- the DCCC-- at the start of the ad, so that's something.

Regardless of tactics, I'm glad to see them bring up this issue. Walberg is just plain wrong on it (for a refutation of the Bush-Walberg version of the story, click here), and he's on the wrong side of popular opinion as well.

By the way, if you want to read one local SCHIP related story, be sure to check out this article from the Battle Creek Enquirer.

Labels: 110th Congress, DCCC, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg