By Jim Tankersley
The House is still debating a revised children's health insurance bill - and Republicans are crying foul at Democrats' refusal to postpone a vote to allow California representatives to tend to their constituents displaced by a devastating round of wildfires this week.
GOP leaders dubbed the move "heartless" and politically calculated in a release today. And by the way - they don't care much for the revised bill, which Democrats touted as a compromise that could pick up the necessary Republican support to overturn a threatened presidential veto. (President Bush vetoed the first version of the bill, and the House failed to override it earlier this month.)
The revised bill "contradicts principle after Republican SCHIP principle," the House Republican Conference said in a press release earlier today. "Despite claims by Democrats to address Republican concerns, the new bill does not ensure poor kids are covered by SCHIP first before adults, illegal immigrants, wealthier families or kids who already have private health insurance."
We brought you a Democratic "fact sheet" earlier today on the bill. Read on for the Republican response.
Myth vs. Fact: Meet the New SCHIP Bill, the Same as the Old SCHIP Bill
Majority's Latest SCHIP Bill Still Insures Adults, Illegal Immigrants at the Expense of Low-Income Children
Washington, Oct 25 - The House Majority has made some cosmetic changes to their flawed State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill, but in reality the Democrats’ latest effort doesn’t address House Republicans’ substantive concerns with their original measure – and Democratic leaders have continued to refuse to allow real negotiations requested by rank-and-file Republicans in hopes of producing a bipartisan compromise. The majority’s “new” bill is nearly indistinguishable from the previous version of the bill that was rammed through Congress and vetoed by President Bush. For example:
The “new” bill still fails to put low-income children first.
The “new” bill still insures adults and illegal immigrants.
The “new” bill still forces some two million children from private health insurance to government-run care.
The “new” bill still contains a massive tax hike and district-specific earmarks and pork projects.
And according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the bill even COSTS MORE and COVERS FEWER CHILDREN than the Majority’s original SCHIP legislation.
After weeks of playing political games on the backs of low-income children, the Majority has decided to keep on playing. By failing to address House Republicans’ substantive concerns with their original flawed SCHIP measure, Democrats have shown they just aren’t ready to send the President a responsible, bipartisan bill that puts low-income children first. Here are some of the most glaring myths propagated by those attempting to sell this latest SCHIP measure as something different – and facts to expose them:
MYTH: The Majority’s latest SCHIP bill serves low-income children first.
FACT: Rather than requiring that poor children be served first before the program can be expanded beyond 200 percent of the federal poverty level, the Majority’s bill expands the program to cover those at 300 percent of the poverty level. The bill also contains an “income disregard loophole,” which allows states to define “family income” as they see fit and intentionally ignore tens of thousands of dollars worth of income for purposes of SCHIP eligibility. This loophole could permit a family earning more than 300 percent of the poverty level to receive benefits. In fact, under the bill, a family of five in New Jersey making $84,455 per year would still be eligible for SCHIP.
MYTH: The Majority’s latest SCHIP bill serves children only – not adults.
FACT: Though the legislation phases childless adults out of the program within one year, parents are still eligible permanently. Even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says 10 percent of SCHIP enrollees will be adults in FY 2012. With 700,000 adults currently enrolled in SCHIP – even though a half million eligible children are not currently enrolled in the program – the fact that the Majority’s bill explicitly allows SCHIP to continue ensuring adults is irresponsible.
MYTH: The Majority’s latest SCHIP bill does not force children out of private health insurance.
FACT: Virtually identical to the legislation vetoed by President Bush, CBO estimates that the Majority’s latest bill continues to force two million children who already have private insurance onto government-run SCHIP.
MYTH: The Majority’s latest SCHIP bill only covers low-income American children, not illegal immigrants.
FACT: The legislation weakens Medicaid citizenship verification standards included in the Deficit Reduction Act by adding Social Security Numbers – a method even the Social Security Administration admits does not prove citizenship eligibility. It also includes an “Express Lane” program that removes inadequate citizenship verification safeguards in an effort to sign people up faster, no matter their legal status.
MYTH: The Majority’s latest SCHIP bill focuses solely on the SCHIP program.
FACT: The Majority’s original SCHIP bill included district-specific earmarks and pork projects, and guess what? The latest version does as well. The earmarks haven’t been removed.
MYTH: The Majority’s latest SCHIP bill insures the same amount of low-income children as their original SCHIP bill, while spending the same amount of money.
FACT: According to CBO, the new legislation (H.R. 3963) actually covers 400,000 less children than in the Majority’s original bill (H.R. 976). Amazingly, the number of insured children drops under the new bill even though the cost of the bill has increased – by a half billion dollars, according to CBO ($35.4 billion for H.R. 3963 vs. $34.9 billion for H.R. 976 from FY 2008-2012).
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The GOP outlook on SCHIPS can be fown at the following link:
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20071025/cx_po_uc/po20071025
Posted by: nisleib | October 25, 2007 3:48 PM
GOP cries like little girls at every goal the Dems try to accomplish. Funny that years ago when GOP was in "rubber stamp" control they used the same tactics and all seemed fair. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, their arrogance is coming back to bite them in the butt.
Posted by: RJinchi | October 25, 2007 3:51 PM
In the mind of the rightwing lunitic fringe:
Billions upon unaccounted for billions for Iraq = GOOD :o)
Heathcare for our children here in America = BAD :o(
Just ask Michelle Malkin
http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k88/Duke_S/?action=view¤t=Michelle_Malkin_300.jpg
Posted by: John E | October 25, 2007 4:01 PM
Hey Swamp editors? Where's the story on Charlie Rangle's ginormous tax hike? I can't wait to see your spin.
Posted by: Brian | October 25, 2007 4:24 PM
RJinchi, I don't think whether the GOP used these tactics first or the Democrats did should be the issue. The tactics are wrong no matter who's using them. If the new SCHIP bill (or any other proposed legislation, for that matter) is so worthy, then the bill should be able to withstand a careful reading and full debate. Anything less smacks of gamesmanship and deception.
Posted by: Greg | October 25, 2007 4:27 PM
*The bill also contains an “income disregard loophole,” which allows states to define “family income” as they see fit and intentionally ignore tens of thousands of dollars worth of income for purposes of SCHIP eligibility. This loophole could permit a family earning more than 300 percent of the poverty level to receive benefits. In fact, under the bill, a family of five in New Jersey making $84,455 per year would still be eligible for SCHIP.
Maybe they states are given this leeway because the cost of living in say New Jersey may be quite different than say in Arkansas, and a family of 5 living on 80,000 translates very differently in each scenario when it comes to affording private insurance.
Posted by: kb | October 25, 2007 4:48 PM
It’s another deception. All they had to do was re-authorize the law. Instead, they decided to play politics with the children. http://www.intleiorg.com/
Posted by: Dr Coles | October 25, 2007 5:27 PM
We have got to get those 25 yr. old children covered under SCHIP and don't forget those children of families making $80,000.00 as their parents drive around in their late model luxury SUV's.
Hey wait! I thought this hand-out was for the poor children.
Posted by: Paulo | October 25, 2007 5:40 PM
SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program)
Why is the federal gov't working on a "State" program? But really, hwy do I want my money to pay for insurance for the children those who drive an Escalades and have twenty pounds of gold hanging on their necks. Let people get their priorities straight and quit taxing the responsible for the benifit of the irresponsible. If you cannot afford to support (food, clothing, school supplies, health insurance, etc.) ten children, then stop after one or two!!!
I'm tired of the best of Americas families not being able to afford large families because we are forced to support the large families of the worst of Americans (and Illegal Aliens too!).
Posted by: James Jones | October 25, 2007 6:01 PM
Greg wrote, "the bill should be able to withstand a careful reading and full debate."
It already did. It passed both chambers of Congress.
The president vetoed it, citing a number of lies as his rationale.
The Republicans chose to avoid overriding his veto, again citing those same lies as their rationale.
Paulo wrote, "don't forget those children of families making $80,000.00 as their parents drive around in their late model luxury SUV's."
Name a single state that has families at $80,000 in SCHIP, Paulo.
You can't because there aren't any.
New York applied for such status, but the President decided not to grant it.
Other states that do exceed the stated SCHIP income levels were granted the ability to do so by the same President who is now complaining about those income levels... Go figure.
Get your facts straight people (that includes the Republican House caucus).
Republican Sen. Pat Roberts explains how his own party's lies are, in fact, lies.
Is the GOP position really so weak that they have to lie?
And why on earth can't the news media be bothered to point out the conservatives' lies?
Posted by: Rob_N | October 25, 2007 6:15 PM
Hmmm...were Paulo and the rest of the rabid repubs moaning and bitching and crying foul about GW's recess appointments? No. When the Repugnant Party pulls their BS, it is a hoot and totally ok by you guys. Suck it up, losers. Better get use to it for when the Democrats control both Houses and the Whitehouse.
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | October 25, 2007 6:22 PM
The Republic plan;
"It cures all that ails you! Rickets, the grip,
general pains of discomforture, distemper, ill pleasures of all sorts and description.
And gentlemen, it's the only confabulation that is guaranteed to cure the lady in your life of the vapours!
Step right up get your own bottle of Dr. Faust's, I MEAN FRIST'S! Cure All Elixir.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 25, 2007 6:24 PM
Instead of answering questions, the new bill raises a new one. How is it that the new bill supposedly excludes more people from SCHIP coverage than the previous bill (e.g., adults, illegal immigrant and children of families earning more than $61k) but still retains the same price tag?
This discrepancy means that the proponents of SCHIP expansion have been using fuzzy math. It seems likely that the math is fuzzier in the current bill because it proposes to do less for the same amount of money. Does Congress really think we are that stupid? What gives?
John E:
Please learn to disconnect the war in Iraq from domestic welfare spending. One can agree that the war in Iraq is bad without believing that the newer SCHIP bills are any good. Consider the possibility that both are irresponsible.
Posted by: John W. | October 25, 2007 6:34 PM
If you cannot afford to support (food, clothing, school supplies, health insurance, etc.) ten children, then stop after one or two!!!
I'm tired of the best of Americas families not being able to afford large families because we are forced to support the large families of the worst of Americans (and Illegal Aliens too!).
Posted by: James Jones | October 25, 2007 6:01 PM
Jimmy Jones, what makes one family "better" than another? Would love to hear your criteria.
The children who are 'left behind' in health care don't necessarily come from large families. And the so-called pro-lifers want those kids born at any cost...
You've obviously never lost a job, or had a child suffer a catastrophic illness or accident that could wipe you out overnight. Is that what you really want for American families?
You're not invincible, Jimmy. It could happen to you or anyone, regardless of "better" or "worse".
Posted by: DD | October 25, 2007 6:38 PM
DD,
Re James Jones;
You covered it. Thanks.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 25, 2007 7:23 PM
Nice of you to include the GOP talking points directly in the article as though the points were in fact "facts".
Must also be nice to not have a clue about what health problems do to middle and lower income families. Oh, to live in that ivory tower where you can "sit down and discuss with your doctor what options are right for you" as GW put it.
But hey, we have Iraqi children we need to bomb, and we won't be able to pay off the bomb tab for decades so it would be fiscally irresponsible to prevent disease within our own population. And, dear god, what if someone who was undeserving was treated instead of dying in the streets?
Medical services are critical to responding to terrorist attacks - unless preventing the death of US citizens is not a true priority in the war on terror. Why then allow the provate sector to run our medical infrastructure when we don't have facilities to respond to an attack? Maybe if they could make hospitals out of bombs and sole source the staffing contracts to Halliburton it would be priority, but apparently using tax dollars to improve our medical infrastructure doesn't make enough profit for the GOP business associates.
Money first, US citizens last, and to hell with the sick children.
Posted by: Adam | October 25, 2007 7:28 PM
John E:
Please learn to disconnect the war in Iraq from domestic welfare spending. One can agree that the war in Iraq is bad without believing that the newer SCHIP bills are any good. Consider the possibility that both are irresponsible.
Posted by: John W. | October 25, 2007 6:34 PM
No chance, John.
Posted by: John E | October 25, 2007 10:30 PM
The GOP? I thought we buried these guys yesterday. Health care is imperative. World dominance for a bunch of fake redneck Texas hillbillies is silly.
Posted by: Mrs. Jesus | October 26, 2007 12:35 AM
Rick Sneads...Fairy N.C,
Did John Edwards teach you how to spell where,as were?
Gud luk in 2008...yull's need it!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 26, 2007 2:11 AM
Are you listening? The article is telling you SCHIP will continue to cover adults, take children off private insurance, enroll illegal immigrants, and is a first step towards socialized medicine. Socialized medicine has worked so well in other countries that they're coming to the US for procedures. Additionally it's full of pork projects! This bill should be for legal US children. Period. And it's not. The Democrats need to stop grandstanding and playing political games. They knew it would be vetoed, in fact they want it vetoed so they can run more ads on tv, which are outrageously incorrect and unfair. I am so tired of seeing the huge picture pulled out of a crying child. This is followed by a sad story. This is all the Democrats ever do is pull out crying baby pictures and sad stories. God forbid they debate the facts. Anyone that stoops to emotional blackmail to try to win a case obviously doesn't have a case. Sad stories exist on both sides of any debate. Stick with the facts and maybe congress can get something done.
Posted by: shelley | October 26, 2007 2:23 PM
Why were the Republicans saying they didn't even have time to read the bill. Reid and Pelosi didn't want to let them. That's why they rammed it thru... and it will get vetoed again.
Then the Dems can CRY ABOUT ALL THE CHILDREN. What B.S.
How many Democrats (or Republican) House members actually read the Bill.
Not many I assue you. Politics _uck.
Bendover taxpayers.
Posted by: David Stamm | October 26, 2007 4:39 PM
It appears that many Americans want to expand SCHIP coverage, yet are looking to fund the expanded coverage by increasing the taxes on cigarettes, cigars and smokeless tobacco consumed by less than 20% of the population. Is this a reasonable and logical source of revenue to fund the expansion of SCHIP?
If SCHIP is such an important program isn't it logical that everyone pay their fair share to insure the children?
Congress must stop hiding under the smokescreen and start deal with reality.
Congress must sit down with the President and work out a satisfactory compromise before it too late.
Posted by: Charles J. Janigian | October 27, 2007 4:03 PM
Who could be against the SCHIP bill? It was written in accordance with the true American spirit: "Find a way for someone else to pay your expenses." Everyone just loves Santa Clause, except for those from whom he must steal in order to be able to give away so much. That is the true nature of this bill, yet another tax-and-spend scheme, using the poor little children as political shields. What descent human could oppose a measure to insure their health? The authors of this offensive chose, as a funding source, a group which they believe would not have much of a political base, those who manufacture, sell and consume tobacco. Congress would not even dare to consider financing a measure benefiting children with taxes on such things as baby food, diapers, children's clothing, juvenile furniture or toys. Never in a million years could we count on something that fair happening in the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Posted by: Marshall | October 28, 2007 1:26 AM
This rediculous SCHIP funding will absolutely kill the Cigar industry in America and abroad. It will put thousands of cigar rollers and cigar sellers, Brick and mortor and internet alike, out of business.
No one can stand a 20,000% tax increase.
No one can stand a 53% tax on the cigar inventory in their shop.
People will quit buying cigars in droves if this passes, causing a loss in revenue
Find a way to fund SCHIP which spreads the payment across 100% of Americans, and it will sail past defeat!
Posted by: Greg | October 28, 2007 2:51 AM