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