SCHIP & Acronyms as the Deadline Draws Near

Exile over at Rochester Turning raises a good question:

Tom Reynolds was a cosponsor of HR 976, the SCHIP bill. Then he voted against the bill.

Why would he do this?

So I decided to call up Reynolds’ Greece office for an answer. Unfortunately, instead of responding with logical reasoning about the exorbitant cost, the lack of a realistic revenue stream or the striking irony that a family could receive SCHIP benefits while paying the Alternative Minimum Tax (which is supposed to target the “richest” segment of society) I was answered by the rep in the office with the same tired GOP talking points.

Nonetheless, she stated HR 976 originally existed as an extension of the current SCHIP program with a 20% expansion in funding and this was the bill that he co-sponsored. This was in February.

Cuts to Medicare was the next reason given which means someone, either the entire Reynolds office or this single staffer, was grossly misinformed as the legislation as passed by both Houses does not contain the provision proposing to pay with SCHIP increases via a cut to the Medicare Advantage system.

Then she hit me with it, that shining GOP talking point which has for some reason become a staple in too many debates to remember: “Plus the bill would allow health care for illegal immigrants which is something the Congressman does not support.”

While this statement is technically correct, there is a provision in the bill that allows for states to extend coverage to an individual unable to provide proof of citizenship, this reasoning tends to do nothing more than draw applause from the far right, ire from the far left and blank stares from the rest. A deader political horse, besides abortion, I have not seen and arguing this point in New York appears to be an even more futile platform. If recent action from Governor Spitzer in regard to the DMV is any indication the requirement of identification, or lack thereof, is becoming the norm.

Again Reynolds and his talking heads have missed the point.

The House bill as it originally existed was nothing more than an extension, with a 1/5 increase in funding, of what supporters are calling a successful program. Supporters point to its success as the main reason for its extension.

However, CHAMP legislation forwarded by the Senate provided for increased funding for the provision of benefits to families at 400% of the Federal poverty level and proposed to pay for the expansion via the tax on cigarettes and cigars.

The legislation we have seen action on recently and referred to in all media as SCHIP is really a hybrid of the legislation as it was originally written mixed with the extensions contained in CHAMP.

The staffer did not understand these actions, however, as she was unable to explain them. I was told she would have to do some research and get back to me, she took my number but I never received a return call.

As mentioned earlier this last answer demonstrates why opponents of the legislation have been unsuccessful in making their platform audible: illegal immigrants would be eligible for health insurance but this already occurs as some states have extended coverage to such individuals under the program for the past ten years, to object now is after the fact.

What should be the focus of any SCHIP opposition is the program’s actual cost and ineffectiveness.

The SCHIP expansion is billed as a program that will cost U.S. taxpayers $35 billion, however, I am willing to wager that no one supporting this expansion realizes that the legislation contains a scheduled cut to the program:

Known as a “funding cliff,” the yearly Schip layout increases to $13.9 billion in 2011, then abruptly cuts spending by 65% below current funding levels. This helps “score” the bill as costing only $35 billion over the five-year budget window, but it also means that come 2012 Congress will . . . have to . . . kick kids off the rolls.

That’s right everyone who says they are in this for kids, there could actually be fewer children insured under this bill when all is said and done. Of course we all know that the same political sideshow will be mounted and the end cost of the program will likely be greatly effected:

In an effort to hide $40 billion in spending, the bill cuts SCHIP funding by approximately 80 percent in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. Of course supporters of the “compromise” bill do not intend to cut SCHIP by an 80 percent reduction, forcing millions of children off the program. So the real cost of the proposal is likely more than $110 billion (over 10 years). The bill more than doubles the cost of the current program.

And cigarette taxes are going to pay for this? Visit my previous SCHIP post to understand the idiocy of that assumption.

Yet some may still be willing to foot the bill for this bill, after all, more people are insured now then before the program’s inception, right? Not according to a study from the Center for Studying Health System Change:

…from 2001 to 2003, the proportion of low-income Americans enrolled in public programs rose 6.1 percentage points. However, this increase was offset by a 4.9 percentage point decline in coverage by employer-sponsored plans. Overall, the rate of uninsured fell only about one-half point. [See Figure VII.] Casual empiricism suggests that it takes a 13 percentage point increase in public coverage to reduce the uninsured rate by 1 percentage point.

If the cost does not sway you, if the ineffectiveness of government-provided health care programs does not sway you, perhaps the two most ludicrous provisions of this legislation, of any legislation I have seen recently, will at least cause you to pause and say “Wait a minute . . . “

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program allows SCHIP benefits for childless adults through 2012.

Wait, it gets even better:

Expands SCHIP eligibility up to 300% of federal poverty level and grandfathers States with higher eligibility levels. Under the Senate proposal thousands of American families will be “poor enough” to qualify for SCHIP and have the government pay for their health care, but be “rich enough” to be required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

I defy anyone to explain the logic of this provision, of any provision in this bill. There will likely be plenty more debate on this issue as the emergency funding provision passed extends the current program until mid-November.