I’ve been scratching my head over GOP legislators’ affirmation of Pres. Bush’s S-CHIP veto. From a political perspective, and is there any other in Washington, that move looks to be a sure loser. But the GOP’s own pollsters found two issues – immigration and ‘socialized medicine’ that convinced them otherwise .
That is political demagoguery of the worst kind – the bill specifically bans coverage of illegal immigrants, requires coverage of the poorest kids first, and severely restricts coverage for kids in families with incomes above 3x the poverty level.
Fortunately, it looks like the ‘R’s in Congress are starting to have second thoughts about their position on S-CHIP.
Two of the top Republicans in the House have asked Speaker Pelosi to meet and discuss changes to the legislation that might make it more palatable for the GOP. These changes are likely to be little more than moving a few words around enough to give political cover for Bush et al to pass and sign an expansion of S-CHIP.
The key issues for the GOP appear to be the tired ‘socialized medicine’ argument – the potential for states to seek waivers to cover individuals in families with incomes over 3x the poverty level, and a really pathetic attempt by some in the nativist faction to make this an immigration issue.
The latter is just ridiculous. The nativists’ case is non-existent. Here’s an excellent summary of the issue:
“The entire GOP attack on this basis is premised on a change in how the citizenship status of applicants is verified. States administering the program have determined that requiring documentation of citizenship in the form of birth certificates is impractical and harmful, since many applicants don’t have them. (This is notably true in rural areas.) Therefore, the new law is based on verification of social security numbers, which contrary to myth are not provided to illegal immigrants. While that system may not be perfect, the claim that SCHIP covers illegal immigrants is false, and the notion that legions of illegal immigrants will subvert the system and obtain benefits is patently absurd.” (Jeff Coryell, Wide Open blog)
And the former (by allowing states to cover individuals in families with incomes above 2x, the poverty level the government is getting into the health care business) is just laughable. On many fronts.
First, it ignores the wide disparities among states in health care costs. (Health care costs in DC are more than twice those in Utah.) The provision that the GOP leadership is so mad about merely allows states to seek waivers to provide coverage to those with higher incomes – it is no carte blanche. Even if they did get waivers, the number of folks with incomes above 2x who would actually get coverage is really small.
Second, uh, isn’t this the same president who forced thru Medicare Part D, the largest single expansion of government-“managed” health care in fifty years? Do I smell just a whiff of hypocrisy here?
Third, the percentage of kids in families above 3x who would be covered is infinitesimal. And the bill makes it very hard for states to cover higher-income kids. Here’s the specifics:
“if states choose to provide coverage to children in families above 300% Federal Poverty Level (or annual income of $61,950 for a family of 4), a state plan amendment must be approved by the Administration’s Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). To have the state plan amendment approved by CMS, states will have to show that they are implementing “best practices” designed to limit crowd-out and meeting ambitious standards for coverage rates of their lowest income children before they can provide coverage to children in the higher income range.
Most importantly, states will not receive the enhanced federal match rate (approximately 70% federally funded) for the children they choose to cover over 300%.”
What does this mean for you?
More disgust with nativists and ignorami (no, that’s not a made up word) in DC.
