Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

SCHIP: it’s on

By

As expected, President Bush has vetoed the bipartisan SCHIP bill.  The Senate has enough votes to override the veto; the House does not.

At least, not yet.  Word on the street is that the House leadership will wait a while before scheduling an override attempt, in the hope that they can rustle up enough votes to make it close.  Part of the idea is to wait for an expected advertising blitz from labor and religious organizations who favor an override (johnk offers a sneak peek).

Which means, among other things, that the winner of the MA-05 race may be seated by the time the House override vote occurs — in fact, whether or not to override the Bush veto may well be the first vote of any significance that the winner takes.

We know that Niki Tsongas opposes Bush’s miserable action, and will vote to override it.  I think we know the answer on the other side, but let’s ask, just to be sure: will Jim Ogonowski vote to override President Bush’s veto?

UPDATE: Apparently, we don’t actually know where Ogo stands on Bush’s veto.  According to today’s Lowell Sun, “Jim Ogonowski … declined to express support or opposition for the president’s threatened veto.”  Come on, Jim!  Have you got the courage of your convictions?  Do you have what it takes?

Meanwhile, Barney Keller, Ogo’s spokesdude, is pretty much lying about the bill.  He told the Sun:

Ogonowski opposes the SCHIP proposal, saying one of its provisions would open the program to children of illegal immigrants.

“We do not allow illegal immigrants to steal from poor children,” said Barney Keller, an Ogonowski spokesman.

Hogwash.  Point me to the provision of the bill that does that, Barney.  You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.  Here’s what the bill as passed actually says:

SEC. 605. NO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS.

  Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents.

Stop lying to the people of the MA-05 district.

HT to TP via johnk for the amusing image of Bush vetoing a bill “for the children.”

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. But I honestly hope that the House does not override because I love this issue in ’08. I know that is such a Machiavellian thing to say, but there it is. Even down here in Scarlet Red Georgia people are not pleased with this veto.
    It really is an indefensible position. Just listen to the White House, which was so desperate as to roll out the old canard about socialized medicine. Give me a break!

  3. Good question!

    I posed this question as a comment to the latest entry on Ogo's “official blog” just now.  Unfortunately, his “official blog” is moderated and I have no idea if he'll allow the question to be posted.

    Man, I tell ya, Ogo's “official blog” is very very GOP-ish.  It's set up like television.  mono-directional communication.  He talks.  You listen. 

    1. Just because a bill has bipartisan support does not mean it’s a good bill.

    <

    p>
    2. Just because a bill has “children” in its name does not mean those are the sole beneficiaries.

    <

    p>
    3. Just because the senate version of the bill calls for a huge increase in federal spending does not mean that it comes with no strings attached.

    <

    p>
    No one answered my earlier comment on this topic. The discussion of this bill has moved passed the kool aid mantra of “its for the children”.

    <

    p>
    If you really care about providing health insurance for the most vulnerable children, you should be taking a more critical look at this bill!

    <

    p>
    Did you know states are allowed to determine age and income limits? That somewhere between 5-20% of the children added to the SCHIP rolls annually are already covered by private health insurance while thousands more with no coverage are not enrolled?

    <

    p>
    Did you know that this is a matching program (as opposed to a pass-through program)? This means that if states are going to receive any more funding, they will first need to spend more. Massachusetts already spends $12B annually on public health. Where is the funding increase at the state level going to come from? And why is no one demanding an explanation of why it costs MA $4B more to insure through MassHealth than through the GIC?

    <

    p>
    Did you know that the insurers are the same health insurance companies that are available to the private sector? It’s no wonder the insurance companies support this bill!

    <

    p>
    Did you know that the senate version calls for a doubling of the allocation in 2008 followed by 5 years of 16.5% annual increases? That doesn’t include the increase at the state level. Conceivably, in 5 years, we could be spending 30% more on public health insurance and have very few gains to show for it because there are no quality or enrollment controls in place.

    <

    p>
    I would love to hear someone defending the particular versions of these bills rather than just giving blanket approval because “it’s for the children”. Seriously. There is a lot wrong with this bill, and it’s being steamrolled through the MSM. Typically, backing from Republicans, the insurance agencies, and the MSM would perk up the progressive radar that something is not quite right. Why not this time?

      • I didn’t argue that it’s a bad bill because I said so. I gave reasons why I think it’s a bad bill. I provided data, including links, and a rationale.

        <

        p>
        Contrast that with your approach:

        <

        p>
        You <a href="http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/frontPage.do?nextDiaryId=1&quot;?quoted a bunch of politicians.
        And you summed it up with:

        <

        p>
        “The opponents of this bill are way, way out of the mainstream.  Even the health insurers want this bill.  The opponents are just wrong, wrong, wrong.”

        <

        p>
        But you never gave any justification as to why you think these bills are right, right, right.

        <

        p>

    • First of all, your concerns that this is a dole-out to insurance companies is absolutely on-target. I think that’s a stupid and patently inefficient way to do things — why not just call them insured under Medicaid and cut out the middleman? On the other hand, that’s what it takes to get this stuff through Congress. It’s not how I would do it, for sure.

      <

      p>
      That being said, there are certain efficiencies of scale that are realized by the state buying this coverage. It creates a market for both the eventual consumers and sellers of the coverage that wouldn’t exist otherwise. The gov’t is finding and paying for customers for the insurers, but they get a relatively good rate. I couldn’t care less about “crowd-out”; many middle-class people can’t afford decent insurance. But all accounts say that will be quite rare.

      <

      p>
      As far as matches are concerned, I believe that MA is spending much of that money already. Getting matched for money you’re already spending is good. Correct me if I’m wrong: Does the law require states to spend more money? If not, what’s the problem?

      <

      p>
      I won’t argue for a second that this is the best way to do things. But it’s a chance to get kids health care, and they shouldn’t have to wait for the massive structural changes in our governance that would be required for an actually sensible system.

  5. Jim Ogonowski, the Republican nominee in the Oct. 16 election to replace former Rep. Marty Meehan, declined to express support or opposition for the president’s threatened veto.

    But Ogonowski opposes the SCHIP proposal, saying one of its provisions would open the program to children of illegal immigrants.

    <

    p>
    Does anybody except David and the Lowell Sun reporter have trouble understanding Ogonowski’s opinion on the SCHIP bill? Afterall, that’s what matters. David, and I imagine the Sun, are attempting to make the issue about Bush. How ridiculous. How shameful. This is not about Bush. It’s about getting a bill that amounts to little more than a cash influx for the insurance companies.

    • What’s unclear? 

      <

      p>
      So if he has a position why is he running away from making a comment.  He shouldn’t be afraid to state his beliefs, not should he run away from who he is.

      • His edits followed my comments. I can’t prove it. Maybe David would be kind enough to confirm.

        <

        p>
        It’s also a fact that the House version of the bill has the wording about use of funds for illegal immigrants (also added by David later in his post and something I addressed earlier on RMG). The Senate bill is silent on the matter.

        <

        p>
        It’s irrelevant anyway. Even if the House wording were included, there is no oversight of enrollments nor penalty even if they should find the money was used in a prohibited manner. States can simply do a left pocket/right pocket switch and say that the state contribution was what funded the illegal immigrants while the federal dollars were used only for legal immigrants and citizens.

        • Why do you insist on clouding a perfectly run PR campaign with facts!?  Come on.  This family needs their SCHIP to come in, in order to subsidize their kid’s private school.

          <

          p>
          http://www.bloomberg…

          • That family is taking out home equity loans to subsidize private school. 

            I'm guessing you'd rather see that family take out home equity loans to subsidize healthcare?

            Good article.  It shows how health care costs are a major factor in dragging middle class people down the economic scale. 

            • That family is taking out home equity loans to subsidize private school. 

              I’m guessing you’d rather see that family take out home equity loans to subsidize healthcare?

              <

              p>
              I would choose to take no action whatsoever with respect to a families budget decisions.

              <

              p>
              If the family chooses to use the built up appreciation of their home, to fund private schooling, pay the cable bills, pay for 2 cars and all other costs of their choice to raise four kids, I don’t see why society should interfer with their choice, or the choice of any other family earning $72K per year.

              <

              p>

              • You are right.  There is no reason for a society to interfere with a family's financial decisions.  There are many good reasons to provide assistance for a service that is essential for a minimally acceptable standard of living.

                • There are many good reasons to provide assistance for a service that is essential for a minimally acceptable standard of living.

                  <

                  p>
                  Home, cars, private school, basic cable, pool.  Yeah.  Barely getting by.

                  <

                  p>
                  “For God’s sake Mr. Bush, we’re forced to watch basic cable! and an above ground pool”. 

                • And who qualifies. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Is that family described in that article one who you think your tax dollars should subsidize?  i.e. give her government benefits so she doesn’t have to spend income on health care for her kids.

                  <

                  p>
                  Obviously, I don’t think she should be a welfare candidate.

                  <

                  p>
                  If your answer is yes, then our discussion is likely over.  Agree to disagree I reckon. 

                • The only reason to try to frame health care as welfare is so that you can apply the concept of means testing.  Then you can tear your hair and rend your clothes in anguish over the prospect that God's blessing falls also upon the wicked.

                  The bottom line is this:  If I can get the same service cheaper via taxes than through the private sector, the only question I'd have is: where do I sign? 

                • The Dems gussy their arguement with doe-eyed children.  At least you’re more honest.  You acknowledge SCHIP expansion as part of the goal to get to single payer.

                  <

                  p>

                • And I recognise that the health care lobby is the most powerful group in DC.  There is no way on earth these corporations will allow Americans to make these changes directly, so they need to be coddled and bribed and coaxed along for any type of solution to be possible.  At least for the short term.

                • … is moving from an employer expense to an externality.  The private sector doesn’t have a choice, they are getting squeezed.  The only way they can ‘defend’ against the squeeze is by squeezing employees.  The successful externalization of this off of the private sector’s balance sheet is to do what all the other western industrial democracies have done and turn it over (in whatever particular form… they vary) to the public sector.

                • If I can get the same service cheaper via taxes than through the private sector

                  <

                  p>
                  You mean like roads?  And schools, which these latte-drinkin’ fools take their kids out of for private schools?

                  <

                  p>
                  WHERE’S MY FREE CARNIAL CRUISE, DAMMIT?

                •   Medicare's overhead is just 1.5 percent, compared with 13 to 16 percent in the private sector. John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health-care consultant, says that the health insurers' overhead came to $120 billion last year, of which $40 billion was profit. By comparison, it would cost $54 billion to cover all the uninsured.

                   http://www.msnbc.msn…

                • Keep in mind, that medicare does little claim verification; private industry verifies claims. (i.e. medicare fraud isn’t calulated in the 1.5% figure)

                  <

                  p>
                  Commercial per-member-per-month premium is about $200-$250 range while the PMPM for Medicare is about $600 range. Same overhead applied to the high number gives a lower overhead rate.

                  <

                  p>
                  Medicare provides no choice, therefore, no marketing costs. Maybe you think that’s ok, maybe not.

                  <

                  p>
                  What’s the real O/H rate for medicare by comparison? I have no clue, nor, do too many healthcare policy administrator guess.

                  <

                  p>
                  But, faith in the holy grail Single payer, is just that, faith.  You, nor I, know what would happen if the US went single payer tomorrow. Nevertheless, you are willing to take the step in the name of faith.  I’m more cautious, because I’ve seen government programs operate, and it’s usually not pretty.

                • Yup.  The insurance industries spend a whopping amount of money trying to deny health care to sick people.  It is an unnecessary undertaking if you are not intent on maximizing profit.

                  The same argument applies to advertising.  Only  necessary if you're trying to turn a profit. 

                  I find it interesting though that you want to view a type of healthcare system that is in use across the industrialized world is some Great Unknown.  There are a myriad of models in use today that can be borrowed from.

                   

            • The family’s monthly bills consume most of their take-home income. Pulling out her checkbook, Lori said there’s the mortgage ($1,500), utilities ($743), phones and Internet service ($200), car insurance and gasoline ($205), property taxes ($230), basic cable television ($48), food ($600) and credit- card payments ($325) on an outstanding $11,000 balance. That’s $46,212 a year, not including clothes, school books and extra- curricular activities for Carlie.

              There’s also $352 a month on a home-equity loan the Siravos took out to send Carlie to a private Catholic high school. Tuition is $9,000 a year.

              “I’ll do anything for her to be happy and get a good education so she doesn’t struggle,” Siravo said. Carlie is thinking of a career as a physical therapist.

              <

              p>
              http://www.bloomberg…

              • because that family made the difficult choice to take out a loan to educate their kid, the kid doesn’t deserve health care?

                <

                p>
                Suppose the home equity line was taken to cover the cost of an illness? Would that make it more palatable for you?  If so, at what point do you stop judging the American family struggling to get by, simply because you can’t relate?

                • Public education wasn’t good enough I guess.  Not to worry, public healthcare will be better.

                  <

                  p>
                  Here’s a Bill, and as a direct result, the US taxpayer will give benefits to the family who is a lucky minority of U.S. residents who own their own home; drive 2 cars; send their kids to private school, and can tune in Fox on their basic cable.

                • this?

                     I would choose to take no action whatsoever with respect to a families budget decisions.

                  Yet now you are critical of this families budget decisions?

                • Being individually critical differs from asserting that the Government take. 

                  <

                  p>
                  See the difference?

                • Being individually critical differs from asserting that the Government take action.

                  <

                  p>
                  See the difference? 

                • a:  “I think you should spend less.  Try public school instead of sending your kid to private school”.

                  <

                  p>
                  b:  “Let’s pass a law demanding that it’s a civil violation to send a kid to private school if that family is on welfare.”

                  <

                  p>
                  See the difference? 

                • I’m consistently frightened by the overly harsh existence you advocate for the United States.  A country where absolutely no one is in it together. 

                  <

                  p>
                  So, as justification for being against thios program, you point to a single family’s individual budget choice, when, as the numbers bear out, they’ve got little wiggle room either way.

                  <

                  p>
                  Let’s put it on the table: middle class families are struggling to make ends meet.  If that family wasn’t paying for private school now, they’d be saving for college in a few years.  The issue isn’t their expenses, the issue is can we help them.

                  <

                  p>
                  You seem to think we shouldn’t simply because you don’t think the government should help anybody.

                • because that family made the difficult choice to take out a loan to educate their kid, the kid doesn’t deserve health care?

                  <

                  p>
                  …that conservatives bitch and moan about the public education system, and, when someone has to take out a loan to be able to send their children to private schools–where conservatives assert that the children will get much better educations–conservatives bitch and moan about them having to make use of public subvention to provide the other necessities of life.

                  <

                  p>
                  Computer says, does not compute

                • I would be perfectly happy with a universal single payer health care bill that includes a clause to prevent the “subsidy of elitist decisions”.

                • In the case on this one particular family, you wouldn’t be subsidizing their “elitist” decision.  The bank already did that with the home equity line.

                  <

                  p>
                  God forbid the government help middle-class America with the basics.  Jesus…

                • In the case on this one particular family, you wouldn’t be subsidizing their “elitist” decision.  The bank already did that with the home equity line.

                  <

                  p>
                  Subsidy: A direct pecuniary aid furnished by the government to a priate undertaking.

                  <

                  p>
                  A bank home credit line is rarely a subsidy. It’s a bargain: value for value received.  As in, they paid or will pay, FMV for the proceeds from the loan.

                  <

                  p>

                  God forbid the government help middle-class America with the basics.  Jesus…

                  <

                  p>
                  Someone earning $72K is well beyond the “basics”, yet, they qualify for SCHIP in NJ.

                • As in, they paid or will pay, FMV for the proceeds from the loan.

                  <

                  p>
                  And that family will pay above market value for the cost of education after they pay off the loan and interest on the loan.  I still don’t understand what your problem is with this one scenario.

                  <

                  p>
                  By the way, saying that “someone” earning $72,000 is misleading.  The bill would cover a family of four making 300 times the poverty level, which is about $62,000 a year.  Whether that amounts to $72K in NJ, I have no idea.  But it’s not as though both parents are making $72K a year.

        • but I can assure you that your comments on this or any other post have had nothing to do with the updates I posted to this one, or to any other.

          <

          p>
          Thanks for playing, though.

  6. The MA-5 election will make a difference in this override vote. 

    <

    p>
    The question is valid to ask, on your first day on the job how will you vote on the SCHIP veto override.

    <

    p>
    Don’t run away and hide like George Bush did today, stand up for you principles and give us your answer!

    • Don’t run away and hide like George Bush did today,

      <

      p>
      Regardless of your politics, a veto is the farthest thing from running away and hiding.

        • I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 976, the “Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007,” because this legislation would move health care in this country in the wrong direction.

          The original purpose of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was to help children whose families cannot afford private health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid, to get the coverage they need. My Administration strongly supports reauthorization of SCHIP. That is why I proposed last February a 20 percent increase in funding for the program over 5 years.

          This bill would shift SCHIP away from its original purpose and turn it into a program that would cover children from some families of four earning almost $83,000 a year. In addition, under this bill, government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children. If this bill were enacted, one out of every three children moving onto government coverage would be moving from private coverage. The bill also does not fully fund all its new spending, obscuring the true cost of the bill’s expansion of SCHIP, and it raises taxes on working Americans.

          Because the Congress has chosen to send me a bill that moves our health care system in the wrong direction, I must veto it. I hope we can now work together to produce a good bill that puts poorer children first, that moves adults out of a program meant for children, and that does not abandon the bipartisan tradition that marked the enactment of SCHIP. Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage.

          • then later noticed you were talking about Bush.  Lies and inaccuracies aside from the statement posted above.  We’ve been there many times before.  Why keep repeating false statements?  For heavens sake.

    • This election has nothing to do with the override.  The election will not be certified by the secretary of state in time.  Nice try though.

  7. Any reason speaker Pelosi was too busy to hold this vote sooner in September, so the issue could be decided before the expiration date?

    <

    p>
    Worked all night on that Rush Limbaugh condemnation, perhaps?

    <

    p>
    That is what people see – Democrts shoving kids into budget negotiations as cannon fodder.  Very attractive.

  8. Apparently some here do not recognize that companies want to divest themselves of health insurance coverage for their employees and dependents–and their retirees.  I would have believed that the Republican party’s business supporters would have twisted some arms to get GWBush to sign the bill.  So, I guess that business will continue to provide health ensurance coverage for at least the minor dependents.

    <

    p>
    The illegal alien issue is largely a red herring.  Remember Typhoid Mary?  Providing health care coverage for illegal aliens is largely a public health measure.  Illegal aliens can infect the Einheimer just as easily as a legal alien.  Irrespective of that, if and when the Republicans stop decimating agricultural interests in Mexico and Central America by dumping US government subsidized agricultural products there, I’ll sit up and listened.  I’ve discussed the latter issue here before.

  9. …Note that the veto preserves the issue for the next set of primary elections and the general election in 2008.  Query how the Republican and Democratic candidates will respond to the issue.

    <

    p>
    Most of the issues raised by dweirt’s lengthy post above are pretty much irrelevant to the potential political consequences of the bill and its veto.

    • It’s more about scoring political points than it is about doing good work. We’ve known since 1997 that this bill would expire in 2007. The president put forward a proposal back in February that included a 20% increase in funding and controls to ensure that the poorest were covered first.

      <

      p>
      Our dear Senator writes about children parading with their red wagons as if it were something to be proud of. Shame on him! In this sordid charade, he’s a pimp.

      <

      p>
      I understand that in politics you need to build leverage. But it is unconscionable the way these politicians are using children to do it. I don’t see this as Republican or a Democratic issue. In this bi-partisan farce there’s enough blame to go around.

      • Our dear Senator writes about children parading with their red wagons as if it were something to be proud of. Shame on him! In this sordid charade, he’s a pimp.

        <

        p>
        …about GWBush when he trotted out the “snowflake children” when he vetoed the stem cell research bill?  If not, why not?

        • In general, using children to advance political agendas does not sit well with me.

          <

          p>
          Specifically, the backers of the red wagon parade are pimps because they are using children to get money and to get political power that can be used on something completely unrelated to SCHIP. Right? Isn’t that what all the timing speculation is about — how it might affect the general election?

          <

          p>
          I’m particularly upset because I think the proposals from the House and Senate are awful pieces of legislation. They are using children to sell a piece of junk and doing a disservice to those very children all at the same time.

          <

          p>
          Bush certainly invited the families in that photo to trigger an emotional response. I do not share Bush’s views on stem cell research, and I recognize the children are their to push an agenda. But having babies held by their parents standing behind you is a far cry from having children parade by the White House or featured in YouTube videos. Did the latter even know what they were doing or why?

          <

          p>

          • At least SHCIP actually has something to do with children. Embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with children or babies etc. To forge a connection between stem cell research and children seems to me a higher form of manipulation than what can be criticized in the Kennedy video.

              • However, I still thinkthe use of children-as-victims in the stem cell debate is highly propagandistic and ridiculous.

                <

                p>
                There are 500,000 surplus IVF embryos in the US, so 99 Snowflake children conceived and delivered, 499,901 to go. Also, making the connection with human life and a 150-cell blastocyst (the actual source of stem cells) is dishonest.

          • …GWBush’s use of so-called “snowflake children” at the ceremony celebrating  his vetoing of the stem cell research bill wasn’t making use of children for his political purposes, are you?  How does that differ from the SCHIP amendment supporters making use of  the “red wagon parade”?

            <

            p>
            Or, for that matter, how dows that differ from politicians kissing babies while campaigning?  Going further, or, for that matter, GWBush’s reading My Pet Goat to a bunch of elementary school kids on the morning of 9/11–while being filmed, of course.

            <

            p>
            There is no difference, and I believe that you know it, despite how many twists and turns and splitting hairs that you might attempt.

            • And of course it was using children to pull on heartstrings.

              <

              p>
              While they are both examples of something I don’t agree with, there is a magnitude of difference between kissing babies or having them in a photo op, versus having them be active participants. The former is passive. It’s the latter that I have the strongest objections to.

              <

              p>
              If you don’t see the difference, or consider it to be insignificant, we’ll just have to leave it that we disagree.

              <

              p>

              • …there is a magnitude of difference between kissing babies or having them in a photo op, versus having them be active participants

                <

                p>
                Oh, yes, the word silly comes to mind.  IIRC, the “snowflake children” appeared to be too young to run around a room, much less pull a wagon.  Irrespective of that, they were “active participants” merely by having been there, even if they were being held by their–mothers?

                <

                p>
                Irrespective of that, the proponents of their respective sides on the respective issues were making use of children to push their political agenda.  That is the point, which you apparently wish to ignore, for a reason that is a mystery (actually, it isn’t a mystery).  The ages of the children, or what they were doing (or not doing) is irrelevant.

  10. Hogwash.  Point me to the provision of the bill that does that, Barney.  You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.  Here’s what the bill as passed actually says:

    <

    p>  </blockquoteSEC. 605. NO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS.

      Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents.

    <

    p>
    Stop lying to the people of the MA-05 district.

    <

    p>
    I went to the bill David and that’s all it says.  There are no penalties for enrollment of illegals and there is no verification for declaration of eligibility.  The following section is a loophole you can drive an 18 wheeler through David.  In fact amendments were offered to make the verification requirement mandatory and not voluntary and were shot down. 

    <

    p>

    SEC. 211. VERIFICATION OF DECLARATION OF CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY FOR PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAID AND CHIP .

      (a) State Option To Verify Declaration of Citizenship or Nationality for Purposes of Eligibility for Medicaid Through Verification of Name and Social Security Number-

      (1) ALTERNATIVE TO DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT-

      (A) IN GENERAL- Section 1902 (42 U.S.C. 1396a), as amended by section 203(c), is amended–

      (i) in subsection (a)(46)–

      (I) by inserting `(A)’ after `(46)’;

      (II) by adding `and’ after the semicolon; and

      (III) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

      `(B) provide, with respect to an individual declaring to be a citizen or national of the United States for purposes of establishing eligibility under this title, that the State shall satisfy the requirements of–

      `(i) section 1903(x); or

      `(ii) subsection (ee);’; and

      (ii) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

      `(ee)(1) For purposes of subsection (a)(46)(B)(ii), the requirements of this subsection with respect to an individual declaring to be a citizen or national of the United States for purposes of establishing eligibility under this title, are, in lieu of requiring the individual to present satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality under section 1903(x) (if the individual is not described in paragraph (2) of that section), as follows:

      `(A) The State submits the name and social security number of the individual to the Commissioner of Social Security as part of the program established under paragraph (2).

      `(B) If the State receives notice from the Commissioner of Social Security that the name or social security number of the individual is invalid–

      `(i) the State makes a reasonable effort to identify and address the causes of such invalid match, including through typographical or other clerical errors, by contacting the individual to confirm the accuracy of the name or social security number, respectively, submitted, and by taking such additional actions as the Secretary, through regulation or other guidance, or the State may identify, and continues to provide the individual with medical assistance while making such effort; and

      `(ii) in the case that the name or social security number of the individual remains invalid after such reasonable efforts, the State–

      `(I) notifies the individual of such fact;

      `(II) provides the individual with a period of 90 days from the date on which the notice required under subclause (I) is received by the individual to either present satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality (as defined in section 1903(x)(3)) or cure the invalid determination with the Commissioner of Social Security (and continues to provide the individual with medical assistance during such 90-day period); and

      `(III) disenrolls the individual from the State plan under this title within 30 days after the end of such 90-day period if no such documentary evidence is presented or if such invalid determination is not cured.

      `(2)(A) Each State electing to satisfy the requirements of this subsection for purposes of section 1902(a)(46)(B) shall establish a program under which the State submits each month to the Commissioner of Social Security for verification the name and social security number of each individual newly enrolled in the State plan under this title that month who is not described in section 1903(x)(2).

      `(B) In establishing the State program under this paragraph, the State may enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Social Security–

      `(i) to provide for the electronic submission and verification, through an on-line system or otherwise, of the name and social security number of an individual enrolled in the State plan under this title;

      `(ii) to submit to the Commissioner the names and social security numbers of such individuals on a batch basis, provided that such batches are submitted at least on a monthly basis; or

      `(iii) to provide for the verification of the names and social security numbers of such individuals through such other method as agreed to by the State and the Commissioner and approved by the Secretary, provided that such method is no more burdensome for individuals to comply with than any burdens that may apply under a method described in clause (i) or (ii).

      `(C) The program established under this paragraph shall provide that, in the case of any individual who is required to submit a social security number to the State under subparagraph (A) and who is unable to provide the State with such number, shall be provided with at least the reasonable opportunity to present satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality (as defined in section 1903(x)(3)) as is provided under clauses (i) and (ii) of section 1137(d)(4)(A) to an individual for the submittal to the State of evidence indicating a satisfactory immigration status.

      `(3)(A) The State agency implementing the plan approved under this title shall, at such times and in such form as the Secretary may specify, provide information on the percentage each month that the invalid names and numbers submitted bears to the total submitted for verification. For purposes of the previous sentence, a name or social security number of an individual shall be treated as invalid and included in the determination of such percentage only if–

      `(i) the name or social security number, respectively, submitted by the individual does not match Social Security Administration records;

      `(ii) the inconsistency between the name or number, respectively, so submitted and the Social Security Administration records could not be resolved by the State;

      `(iii) the individual was provided with a reasonable period of time to resolve the inconsistency with the Social Security Administration or provide satisfactory documentation of citizenship and did not successfully resolve such inconsistency; and

      `(iv) payment has been made for an item or service furnished to the individual under this title.

      `(B) If, for any fiscal year, the average monthly percentage determined under subparagraph (A) is greater than 3 percent–

      `(i) the State shall develop and adopt a corrective plan to review its procedures for verifying the identities of individuals seeking to enroll in the State plan under this title and to identify and implement changes in such procedures to improve their accuracy; and

      `(ii) pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the amount which bears the same ratio to the total payments under the State plan for the fiscal year for providing medical assistance to individuals who provided invalid information as the number of individuals with invalid information in excess of 3 percent of such total submitted bears to the total number of individuals with invalid information.

      `(C) The Secretary may waive, in certain limited cases, all or part of the payment under subparagraph (B)(ii) if the State is unable to reach the allowable error rate despite a good faith effort by such State.

      `(D) This paragraph shall not apply to a State for a fiscal year if there is an agreement described in paragraph (2)(B) in effect as of the close of the fiscal year.

      `(4) Nothing in this subsection shall affect the rights of any individual under this title to appeal any disenrollment from a State plan.’.

      (B) COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING AND MAINTAINING SYSTEM- Section 1903(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)(3)) is amended–

      (i) by striking `plus’ at the end of subparagraph (E) and inserting `and’, and

      (ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

      `(F)(i) 90 percent of the sums expended during the quarter as are attributable to the design, development, or installation of such mechanized verification and information retrieval systems as the Secretary determines are necessary to implement section 1902(ee) (including a syste
    m described in paragraph (2)(B) thereof), and

      `(ii) 75 percent of the sums expended during the quarter as are attributable to the operation of systems to which clause (i) applies, plus’.

      (2) LIMITATION ON WAIVER AUTHORITY- Notwithstanding any provision of section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315), or any other provision of law, the Secretary may not waive the requirements of section 1902(a)(46)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(46)(B)) with respect to a State.

      (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- Section 1903 (42 U.S.C. 1396b) is amended–

      (A) in subsection (i)(22), by striking `subsection (x)’ and inserting `section 1902(a)(46)(B)’; and

      (B) in subsection (x)(1), by striking `subsection (i)(22)’ and inserting `section 1902(a)(46)(B)(i)’.

      (b) Clarification of Requirements Relating to Presentation of Satisfactory Documentary Evidence of Citizenship or Nationality-

      (1) ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUED BY A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE- Section 1903(x)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1396b(x)(3)(B)) is amended–

      (A) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vi); and

      (B) by inserting after clause (iv), the following new clause:

      `(v)(I) Except as provided in subclause (II), a document issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe evidencing membership or enrollment in, or affiliation with, such tribe (such as a tribal enrollment card or certificate of degree of Indian blood).

      `(II) With respect to those federally recognized Indian tribes located within States having an international border whose membership includes individuals who are not citizens of the United States, the Secretary shall, after consulting with such tribes, issue regulations authorizing the presentation of such other forms of documentation (including tribal documentation, if appropriate) that the Secretary determines to be satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality for purposes of satisfying the requirement of this subsection.’.

      (2) REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- Section 1903(x) (42 U.S.C. 1396b(x)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

      `(4) In the case of an individual declaring to be a citizen or national of the United States with respect to whom a State requires the presentation of satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality under section 1902(a)(46)(B)(i), the individual shall be provided at least the reasonable opportunity to present satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality under this subsection as is provided under clauses (i) and (ii) of section 1137(d)(4)(A) to an individual for the submittal to the State of evidence indicating a satisfactory immigration status.’.

      (3) CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES TO MOTHERS ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID-

      (A) CLARIFICATION OF RULES- Section 1903(x) (42 U.S.C. 1396b(x)), as amended by paragraph (2), is amended–

      (i) in paragraph (2)–

      (I) in subparagraph (C), by striking `or’ at the end;

      (II) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); and

      (III) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph:

      `(D) pursuant to the application of section 1902(e)(4) (and, in the case of an individual who is eligible for medical assistance on such basis, the individual shall be deemed to have provided satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality and shall not be required to provide further documentary evidence on any date that occurs during or after the period in which the individual is eligible for medical assistance on such basis); or’; and

      (ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

      `(5) Nothing in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 1902(a)(46), the preceding paragraphs of this subsection, or the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, including section 6036 of such Act, shall be construed as changing the requirement of section 1902(e)(4) that a child born in the United States to an alien mother for whom medical assistance for the delivery of such child is available as treatment of an emergency medical condition pursuant to subsection (v) shall be deemed eligible for medical assistance during the first year of such child’s life.’.

      (B) STATE REQUIREMENT TO ISSUE SEPARATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER- Section 1902(e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in the case of a child who is born in the United States to an alien mother for whom medical assistance for the delivery of the child is made available pursuant to section 1903(v), the State immediately shall issue a separate identification number for the child upon notification by the facility at which such delivery occurred of the child’s birth.’.

      (4) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS- Section 1903(x)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1396b(x)) is amended–

      (A) in subparagraph (B)–

      (i) by realigning the left margin of the matter preceding clause (i) 2 ems to the left; and

      (ii) by realigning the left margins of clauses (i) and (ii), respectively, 2 ems to the left; and

      (B) in subparagraph (C)–

      (i) by realigning the left margin of the matter preceding clause (i) 2 ems to the left; and

      (ii) by realigning the left margins of clauses (i) and (ii), respectively, 2 ems to the left.

      (c) Application of Documentation System to CHIP –

      (1) IN GENERAL- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)), as amended by sections 114(a) and 116(c), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

      `(10) CITIZENSHIP DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS-

      `(A) IN GENERAL- No payment may be made under this section with respect to an individual who has, or is, declared to be a citizen or national of the United States for purposes of establishing eligibility under this title unless the State meets the requirements of section 1902(a)(46)(B) with respect to the individual.

      `(B) ENHANCED PAYMENTS- Notwithstanding subsection (b), the enhanced FMAP with respect to payments under subsection (a) for expenditures described in clause (i) or (ii) of section 1903(a)(3)(F) necessary to comply with subparagraph (A) shall in no event be less than 90 percent and 75 percent, respectively.’.

      (2) NONAPPLICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES CAP- Section 2105(c)(2)(C) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)(2)(C)), as amended by section 202(b), is amended by adding at the end the following:

      `(ii) EXPENDITURES TO COMPLY WITH CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS- Expenditures necessary for the State to comply with paragraph (9)(A).’.

      (d) Effective Date-

      (1) IN GENERAL-

      (A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the amendments made by this section shall take effect on October 1, 2008.

      (B) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS- The amendments made by–

      (i) paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171; 120 Stat. 80); and

      (ii) paragraph (4) of subsection (b) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 405 of division B of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432; 120 Stat. 2996).

      (2) RESTORATION OF ELIGIBILITY- In the case of an individual who, during the period that began on July 1, 2006, and ends on October 1, 2008, was determined to be ineligible for medical assistance under a State Medicaid plan, including any waiver of such plan, solely as a result of the application of subsections (i)(22) and (x) of section 1903 of the Social Security Act (as in effect during such period), but who would have been determined eligible for such assistance if such subsections, as amended by subsection (b), had applied to the individual, a State may deem the individual to be eligible for such assistance as of the date that the individual was determined to be ineligible for such medi
    cal assistance on such basis.

      (3) SPECIAL TRANSITION RULE FOR INDIANS- During the period that begins on July 1, 2006, and ends on the effective date of final regulations issued under subclause (II) of section 1903(x)(3)(B)(v) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(x)(3)(B)(v)) (as added by subsection (b)(1)(B)), an individual who is a member of a federally-recognized Indian tribe described in subclause (II) of that section who presents a document described in subclause (I) of such section that is issued by such Indian tribe, shall be deemed to have presented satisfactory evidence of citizenship or nationality for purposes of satisfying the requirement of subsection (x) of section 1903 of such Act.

      • it’s at the top of my reply. The whole section is one sentence.  There is no teeth there.  If there is no enforcement mechanism than the section is toothless and is an afterthought. 

        • The bill doesn’t require photo ID, therefore it steals from poor kids and hands money to illegal immigrants.

          <

          p>
          Dude, if that’s Ogo’s logic, he’s got bigger problems than being wrong on this bill.

        • It’s a fake point, providing name and social security number is required.  You are requiring people who might the poverty to have passports or purchase a photo ID.  There is not even a compelling case that illegal immigrants are doing anything significant in the system.  From an older article.

          <

          p>

          The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.

          • It is “suggested” and compliance is “voluntary”.  I linked to and printed the section if you can show me where it is mandatory so be it.

            <

            p>
            And to David’s point, this has been Ogonowski’s position from the beginning.  He hasn’t changed it. You’ve railed against it saying it was false and a lie, but when faced with the facts you say pathetic.  Ogonowski is not against SCHIP and railed against those that are against helping poor children. You see though he wants to help them and not have people who shouldn’t be eligible stealing their services. It’s quite simple.

            • Ogonowski is not against SCHIP and railed against those that are against helping poor children.

              <

              p>
              So, instead, we’ll hold up funding for eligible children or, in the case of the administration’s version, actually cut benefits to covered children.

              <

              p>
              Who’s stealing and exploiting children again?  Who’s hurting children?  Uh, that would be you folks in your deranged attempts to make yourselves look fiscally responsible. 

              <

              p>
              There’s always this, though, to remind everyone of the reckless obsession Republicans have with blasting a sovereign nation into oblivion:

              <

              p>

              Cost of the War in Iraq

              (JavaScript Error)

              <div><a href="http://costofwar.com" target="_top">To see more details, click here.</a></div>    <!-- this line triggers the counter to start -->    <script language="JavaScript">    inc_totals_at_rate(1000);   </script>

    • the US Code, but, I would infer from Sec 211(c)(1)(A)

      <

      p>

      (c) Application of Documentation System to CHIP –

        (1) IN GENERAL- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)), as amended by sections 114(a) and 116(c), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

        `(10) CITIZENSHIP DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS-

        `(A) IN GENERAL- No payment may be made under this section with respect to an individual who has, or is, declared to be a citizen or national of the United States for purposes of establishing eligibility under this title unless the State meets the requirements of section 1902(a)(46)(B) with respect to the individual.

      <

      p>
      that the current SCHIP law already requires an enrollee to be a citizen or national, and that subsection 211(a) merely provides an optional method  for states to be able to verify it using cross checks of names and social security number.  I don’t have access to the definitions, but I would presume that “national” includes resident aliens, green-card holders, people with work visas, and so forth. 

      <

      p>
      If my inference is correct, the current SCHIP law in the US Code probably does provide for penalties.  Note that what you have cited above is merely an amendment to an existing statute.

      • current SCHIP law has an ID requirement.  That requirement was taken out of the new law and made “voluntary”.  That is the whole point.  Thank you for unwittingly helping me make it.

        <

        p>
        All Ogonowski is saying is don’t change current law to open up a loophole for illegal immigrants to get coverage.  That is all he is saying.  It’s pretty simple now isn’t it.

        • …you obviously don’t have the slightest idea what you are writing about.  Subsection 211(a) doesn’t change the elegibility requirements, it merely provides an alternate methodology using Social Security records that a state may use to verify eligibility. 

          <

          p>
          I would have believed that that would have been clear.

  11. I thought this tidbit from the Lowell Sun’s coverage of the debate was interesting.

    <

    p>

    Tsongas said after the debate. “He wants to sacrifice (health care) for millions of children for the sake of a few who might slip through the cracks.”

    <

    p>
    It really is simple Ms. Tsongas.  Fill the cracks so that no slippage will occur.  If you close the loophole by continuing to require identification proving citizenship or legal resident status, you have Jim’s support. He as much has said so repeatedly. 

    <

    p>
    It is refreshing to see that you do agree there is a loophole there.

    • This is a totally fake issue.  Yes, a few might slip through the cracks.  So what.  That will happen even if there is an ID requirement, because fake IDs are a dime a dozen.  As you know, many poor families who would most benefit from SCHIP don’t have driver’s licenses etc., so this requirement would make it difficult if not impossible for them to access the benefits.  It’s the same thing with voting — for the sake of preventing the incredibly rare cases of actual voter fraud, you guys are willing to disenfranchise thousands and thousands of eligible voters.

      <

      p>
      Is it really worth it to lock thousands of otherwise-eligible beneficiaries out of health care or voting for the sake of rooting out a couple of bad apples?  Doesn’t seem like it to me.  But then, I’m not a Republican.

    • It really is simple Ms. Tsongas.  Fill the cracks so that no slippage will occur.  If you close the loophole by continuing to require identification proving citizenship or legal resident status, you have Jim’s support. He as much has said so repeatedly.

      It is refreshing to see that you do agree there is a loophole there.

      <

      p>
      Riddle me this: when was the last time we failed to pass a law making something criminal on the basis that the cops would fail to catch a few perps?  Who has ever said ‘let’s hold off on the law until we make the police perfect’???

      <

      p>
      Riddle me this: when have we ever decided not to lower taxes on the assumption that some revenues will ‘slip through the cracks’?  Who has ever said ‘well, why bother lowering taxes on people who have tax shelters and will never pay them to begin with?’?

      <

      p>
      Riddle me this: when have we ever decided to hold off raising taxes because some won’t pay them? 

      <

      p>
      Riddles riddles riddles…

      • and were stripped from the reauthorization bill.  That is the problem.  There were penalties now they are gone.  Put them back.  It’s not a riddle it is fact.

        • Penalties are in current law (6.00 / 1)

          and were stripped from the reauthorization bill.  That is the problem.  There were penalties now they are gone.  Put them back.  It’s not a riddle it is fact.

          <

          p>
          I’m completely failing to see how this answers any of the riddles I posed.  I’m failing to see how this changes anything even one iota…

          • Again, he knows this whole issue is a huge loser for the Ogomeister, so he’s trying to make it as confusing as possible.  But it’s really very simple.  The bill expressly does not authorize benefits for illegal aliens.  Yet they say it does.  But if they acknowledged the truth, they’d lose the issue.  So they have to make it very complicated.

        • There were penalties now they are gone

          <

          p>
          …chapter and verse, to the sections of the re-authorization bill that removes the penalties from current law.

Archives