Republicans block overturning SCHIP vetoFollow

Good for them. The US Government has no business paying for health care for families making $80k a year.

Good for them. The US Government has no business paying for health care for families making $80k a year.

Hi. I know you're a moron who doesn't care, but nothing in the current legislation changes income caps. Nothing at all. With the law as it stands today, and where it will continue to stand after the veto, any state can set it's income limit at $1,000,000,000 if they want. I realize you don't care about actually understanding legislation so long as you've been told what to think about it, but it's individual states that adjust the income caps to be appropriate with their relative costs of living.

That would be why, at present, in North Dakota a family making $30,000 doesn't qualify, while in Hawaii a family making $70,000 does. Because you can't buy a 5 bedroom house in Maui for $80,000.

States are given an exemption under the SCHIP program to use the money for other health care programs if they already cover low income children. In Minnesota that's the case. Minnesota uses SCHIP money to cover MinCare. MinCare covers families making several times the poverty line. I don't have the time to look it up right now. Expanding SCHIP by 35 Billion Dollars would allow states like Minnesota to greatly expand the income range of covered people. It would cover families making in excess of $80k a year. You can call me whatever you like, Smash. Facts is facts.

Of course, what good is a fact to a liberal who just wants more of my wage in taxes, right?

It would cover families making in excess of $80k a year.

No.

Quote the part of the bill that changes the current system to allow this.

Just joking of course, moron. Like you'd read a bill.

Ignore the current exemption, which wouldn't change

Hey, fuckstick.

ALL THIS VETO DOES IS SHIFT THE BURDEN OF GENERATING REVENUE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THE STATES.

Get it yet? If you live in a wealthy state, as you do, you'll just pay more taxes to fund child health programs that are nearly impossible for state legislators to vote against. If you don't smoke, and I have no idea if you do or not, this veto just made you pay more money to finance children's health care, which this bill WOULD NOT HAVE DONE.

Comprendez yet, buffoon?



Edited, Oct 18th 2007 7:08pm by Smasharoo

Sorry, I was at work. He should be fine tomorrow.

Nexa

You're correct. However, that's not where they changed it. Nice bit of redirection though. You heard that on a radio show didn't you?




Yes. However, the federal program will only match funds up to 150% of the poverty rate (determined based on a calculation of median incomes for each given state).

See. Where they changed this is that they didn't change the federally defined "cap", at all. They simply changed the section of the code that defines what funds the fed's will match. The federal "cap" is written not so much as a cap, but as a guarantee that any child under 150% but not otherwise covered by madicaid will be covered directly via federal funds regardless of state levels. States may at their discretion choose to cover for higher amounts, but the fed will only match up to that level (and will provide coverage up to that level regardless of state programs).

The change does not affect the "We'll always cover anyone up to 150%" part of the code. What it does change is the matching funds section, in which now the federal government *must* match funds a state provides for children of families up to 300% of the poverty level. I can only assume that the 81k figure was calculated by multiplying the highest state median income by 3.


One of us actually read the code and did a bit of research. I wonder which of us that was?


Beyond that significant change, the proposed amendments to the code would also prevent those families from substituting the medicaid coverage with private coverage. In other words, even if a family *can* afford their own coverage they may be forced via state law to use medicaid instead (with their own payments scaled to their income of course).

What's really insidious about this is when you read Section 116. It basically opens up the floor for this to children of families that exceed 300% of the poverty level. Now, there's no matching funds, but this section is what allows the states to mandate that families in those levels use medicaid instead of whatever private health plan they might otherwise have used. There's no upper limit set at all. In fact, there are no numbers in there at all. The law is written to require some future levels applied based on a future assessment made by a number of agencies and based on the recommendations of the Secretary at that time (which could be any time in the future). It's intended to address the "crowding out" issue, where state funds end up being low because higher income people don't enter the system (preferring private health care to public health care).

This opens to door for states to mandate much higher income level families participation in the program (of course they're paying more while getting less) in order to make those programs as a whole more economically viable. The chilling part is that the law essentially legalizes this, but doesn't state what the potential future level would be. It's left to some future decision made by any future secretary.

So, for example, if say Hillary Clinton were to win the election next year, she could appoint a secretary who could then set the income level at say 1000% of the poverty level. The law would then come into effect at that level, requiring anyone up to that income range to pay into the program and participate even if they'd rather use some other form of health coverage.


It's a horrible abomination of a law. Bush was right to veto it. It has little to do with simple spending a small amount to cover children of low income families (those above the poverty line, but still unable to obtain their own health coverage privately). It's for those who *can't* get other health coverage. Extending it in a way that can force people who can get other health coverage to participate is authoritarian and not representative of the sort of system I'd like to live in.

The change does not affect the "We'll always cover anyone up to 150%" part of the code. What it does change is the matching funds section, in which now the federal government *must* match funds a state provides for children of families up to 300% of the poverty level. I can only assume that the 81k figure was calculated by multiplying the highest state median income by 3.

Wrong as usual.

Thanks for saving me time of having to refute your pointless falwed arguments by making one so amazingly wrong it's not required. TRY READING THE ******* LEGISLATION YOU HAVE A PRE FAB OPINION ON.

Jesus, how hard is it?

I'd just like to note that I took a brief gander at the bill and there is no fucking way in hell that I'm reading through that thing. Someone elect me to federal legislative office and I'll think about it.

Edited, Oct 18th 2007 9:43pm by Jophiel

There is 125 amendments alone. Smash did you really read all of that? Not trying to discredit your argument, but that is awfully dry shit to read, and a lot of it.

Godalmighty! TMFIA!

Let's just solve this in a friendly poll.



Let the numbers give us a clear answer.

Which amounts to basically the same thing,

No. See if you can figure out why.