After hearing over and over little news bits on the radio about Bush’s vow to veto the children’s health bill, I did a search.  Some of the headlines I found were:
Bush Ready To Fight Kids Insurance Bill [cbsnews.com]
Children May Lose Out on Insurance [Boston Globe]
Bush Promises Veto of Affordable Health Insurance Plan [emaxhealth.com]

I went with the Washington Post:  “New Bush Policies Limit Reach of Child Insurance Plan.” [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/20/AR2007082002159.html]

When, of course, it should have said:  “New Congress Policies Hyperextend Children’s Health Insurance Plan and Create Undue Tax Burden on American Workers.” 

In his infinite malevolence (possibly encouraged by his Vice President “Darth Vader”) Bush “announced new policies that will make it harder for states to insure all but the lowest-income children.”  These evil policies are “aimed at preventing parents with private insurance for their children from availing of the government-subsidized State Children's Health Insurance Program.” 

What?

If a family has private insurance, Bush is insisting that they can’t get on the dole?  Good!  That’s like if a gainfully employed citizen tried to apply for unemployment benefits! 

Bush’s policy--you know, the one that limits government coverage to only the poorest of the wretchedly poor--does indeed have an income requirement that is absolutely conscience-shocking.  For a family of four, the requirement is $51,625--which, by the way, is over ten thousand dollars more than the national average income.  (Some states such as Taxachusetts and New York have requirements in the $60,000s for a family of three.)

Bush’s policies also require the child be uninsured for one year, ostensibly to allow the parents time to get their act together and purchase some coverage.  Either that or because he wants children to die in the gutter outside the hospital.  (After reading the Post article, I’m leaning towards the latter.)

How come it’s not shameful for these families making $50,000 a year to get on the dole?  Where’s the article pointing fingers at a middle-class family trying to get taxpayers to bear the burden of taking care of their children? 

The new, terribly overreaching policy proposal would raise the income limit to $83,000 a year.  If you make $83,000 dollars a year and can’t afford health insurance for your kids (and you don’t have a gambling problem or MC Hammer’s accountant) then we should reinstate the stockade.  I see no other rational solution.   With income requirements like that (more than twice the national average) it's likely that half the people paying for S-CHIP are going to be poorer than some of the people using it. 

Not one article mentions the $83,000 figure.  For good cause, certainly.  It would contradict the plethora of quotes from democrats, rallying behind the war cry of “the poor children!”

The cost of this expanded, socialist, program?  Thirty-five to 50 billion dollars.  I hate to sound like a hippy, but what if we took that money into Iraq or any other number of third-world countries and helped them start up a decent economy?  Or, an even better idea, they could give all that money to me, and then whenever a poor kid needed to see a doctor, I’d give him two hundred dollars.

No one is bashing the liberals for their sneaky tactics of trying to pass this grossly overreaching bill mere days before it’s set to expire.  They are doing so to make Bush look like a jackass for vetoing a feel-good bill for children.  The reality is when Bush vetoes it, the actually poor children will lose their coverage and it will be 100% the democrats’ fault.  But, of course, I won’t hold my breath waiting for any headlines to tell the truth on that one.  

Bush’s speech on the subject is transcripted with streaming audio.  It’s short, sweet, and to the point, even if his captatio benevolentiae sucks.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070920-2.html]