Side by side across the divide

I'm not sure why Frelinghuysen is peddling misinformation on the SCHIP program, which has been highly successful and well targeted in N.J. One by one, the right tries to demonize SCHIP (illegal immigrants have it! it takes money from social security!), and their argument is fundamentally dishonest at its core. Only legal immigrants can obtain SCHIP, and adults in SCHIP must be extremely impoverished to qualify, as in Michigan where an adult must only make $3500/year to qualify.

There is good reason why Democrats and most sensible Republicans supported this bill, and that's because it works. May Saxton, Garrett and Frelinghuysen be held accountable for their unconscionable votes against this program.

We should be ashamed that over one hundred thousand children in New Jersey don't have health care, but what I fail to understand is how he thinks denying health care to millions should make us feel any better.

What I find particularly disgraceful is how his colleague, Rep. Jim Saxton, believes that we should deny health care to children because Republicans have cut Medicare reimbursements. I also find it personally offensive that Saxton’s op-ed in the Asbury Park Press characterizes children’s health is a wedge issue.

It is disappointing that Garret has not put out a statement justifying his vote, but if he did, it would probably read: NJ millionaires need tax cuts more than children need health care.

You are wrong again Martin. Under the bill, illegal immigrants could claim SCHIP benefits. One only has to look at the response of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Michael Astrue, who stated that nothing in the bill would prohibit illegal immigrants from obtaining benefits. Who are we to believe: you or the person who is in a position to know the facts? And those legal immigrants you tout need to wait 5 years to qualify while the illegals mentioned above can illegally (there is that word again) benefit from the program. Additionally, the most impoverished? Since when is $83,000 a year poverty. Whether you like it or not, those making 83k a year qualify for the program. A recent USA Today poll showed that 54% of Americans agree with the President that $83k a year is too much and agree with him that the benefits should go to children earning less than 200% of the poverty level - or $40k a year. While all of this is going on, our great State of New Jersey can't even get the children who currently qualify for the program registered. That is 119,000 kids who don't get covered because the State is inept. And NJ justice - Saxton does not want to deny children health care. Nice try. He supported the creation of the program and supports increasing the enrollment. But what he doesn't want is money being taken from programs to benefit senior to pay for the program. Nor does he want a repeat of what is happening to Medicare to happen to SCHIP. Stop reading in between the lines to justify your erroneous arguments.

Marty - you are the king of drivel. I am sorry you do not agree with the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that illegal aliens will be able to obtain benefits under SCHIP (his letter dated Sept 24, 2007). The bill as voted upon yesterday loosens the citizenship verification needed to obtain benefits under SCHIP under Section 211 of the bill. Read it! One would only need to show identification and a valid Social Security number to be eligible. Do you honestly think illegal immigrants are not currently using fraudulently obtained SS numbers to obtain federal assistance? Additionally, the bill would allow states to set up an "express lane" which would allow individuals who already qualify for welfare and other government sponsored assistance to enroll. An individual who therefore qualifies for child care programs by attesting to his/her legal status in the country may also be enrolled in SCHIP without any additional verification. And as for your pontification that the bill strictly prohibits illegals from obtaining benefits here is the wording from Section 605 - "Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents." Now that has teeth! That is what you meant by "ensuring" illegals don't obtain benefits? That's all it says. It means nothing and has no enforcement mechanism. It is a joke! Now, your argument that adults do receive benefits is flat out wrong according to the State Department of Human Services. In one county in NJ, 3,536 children and 2,002 adults are registered. According to statistics taken from the state Department of Human Services and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 43% of the grants provided by SCHIP to the State of NJ is used to provide services for adults - not children. You are completely wrong. And your cite from the NY Times fails to mention that while 123,000 children are covered (which means according to state and federal statistics, 52,890 adults are covered too), the state has failed to register 119,000 kids eligible. So the State of New Jersey has failed in its responsibility to ensure that the program reaches all of the children who need coverage. But I love how you liberals claim that only the truly needy will benefit from the program. Let's take the literal poster children the Democrats tout as beneficiaries of SCHIP, the Frost family. The Democrats paraded this family around the airwaves claiming this impoverished family can't afford health care for their four children because the parents only held part time jobs. I wonder which of the three cars they used to get to the press conference? The Volvo SUV, the Chevy Suburban, or the Ford F250 pick up truck? Did they take their four children out of their private school to attend the press conference? Yes, I said private school - their children are so poor they have to attend private school. And from which locale did they arrive from? What I mean is, which property that they own did they begin their journey? They own two properties - a large home and a commercial property. Now if that is poor, I want in! They can afford all of that but need government assistance to pay for health care? Facts Marty - FACTS. Not polls and half truths that you have thrown up as evidence. Read the bill and then get back to me.  And I am sorry you don't like the author.  We don't care for you yet we allow you to post here.

Naturally, consistency means nothing to Martin, or any of the screaming mimis who didn't get their way.

The problem with this latest attempted Democrat hijack of the SCHIP program (created by the Republicans back in 1997 to provide health insurance coverage for children whose families were making too much to qualify them for Medicaid, but who were economically hard-pressed) is that the Democrats continue to insist on opening it up as an entitlement program for everyone, including childless couples!

The threshold for eligibility was supposed to be 200% of the poverty level. The Democrats wanted to change that, and they also wanted to change the definition of child to include 25 year olds. But, they want the federal government to pay for it all.

If the Democrats in this State had any idea at all how to responsibly handle the taxpayers’ money, they would be able to boost the State's share and get the additional coverage they want.

But they do not. In fact, if they had not turned a blind eye to their gang of thieves, like Wayne Bryant, who were outright stealing from the taxpayers right under their noses lo these past years, or engaged in tossing away resources on unintended recipients (obviously in a blatant attempt to buy their votes), they might not have to spend their time now squawking about the lack of resources.

Just remember, the Democrat legislative leadership made Wayne Bryant the Chairman of the Budget and Appropriations Committees, though he had previously been found guilty (Woodcrest Pavillion) of unethically converting State resources to his own benefit.

As for SCHIP, many states have used the flexibility inherent in the way they were allowed to set up their programs, to create instead an almost open-ended entitlement, thus making federal spending exceed allotments in every single year since 2002. They also want to minimize state participation, and maximize the federal share.

Local rules to get around thresholds abound. New Jersey, for example, implemented an eligibility rule "disregarding" all income between 200% and 350% of the poverty level, effectively making the eligibility threshold nearly double the intended amount. But the state didn’t want to pay any of the difference.

And in 2005 – back when the Republicans controlled Congress -- they had to specifically include a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act to stop more State generated "waivers" from including childless couples as recipients. Certain states, most notably Michigan, were turning SCHIP into a free ticket for a busload of spongers without any kids!

Just because they’re irresponsible wanna-be freelaoders, doesn’t make them children!

In many states, therefore, the Democrats have turned SCHIP into something it was never intended to be. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, who has always been a strong advocate for children, accurately notes a very strong basis for his vote to sustain the veto:

"It should be unacceptable to any New Jerseyan that forty-three percent of SCHIP grants in New Jersey are used to insure adults, while approximately 119,000 children living in households with incomes below $41,000 remain completely uninsured in New Jersey!"

He is 100% right.  Neither he, nor Jim Saxon nor Scott Garrett were voting against children at all – Republicans created SCHIP to benefit poor children – what they were voting for yesterday was to forestall another open-ended raid on the federal treasury by Democrats, and to try to help return the program to what it was intended to be, a program to help poor children.

by Trochilus

Marty - do you read the bs you write? You wrote "the majority of recipients are indeed children from impoverished families, not adults." One post later you make a feable attempt to back up your own statistics by claiming that "New Jersey uses SCHIP funding to buy private insurance for 128,000 kids and 85,000 adults through the state's FamilyCare program." Yes 128k is a majority of the kids in the program - designed for children, hence the name State Children's Health Insurance Program - but it is disingenuous of you to criticize Republicans who voted against the bill. Yet, you seem to find it ok that adults are taking health care funds away from the poor children you claim are left behind here. 40 percent of those individuals receiving benefits are adults and not children. Again, the original intent of the bill was to ensure that the children living in poverty are covered by health insurance. Yet using your cite, all of those covered are not impoverished - "Most of New Jersey’s 124,000 enrolled children are from families in lower income brackets." Furthermore, it does not matter that the State of NY was turned down when trying to cover a family making 83k a year. The problem is that a family making 83k a year has the ability to be covered at the expense of those in real need. And Mikey - I have given you facts from the Commissioner of the SSA to the statistics from the State of NJ and DHHS to the actual language from the bill in question. You have given us nothing but quotes from the NYT and the Detroit Free Press. What a joke. You claimed illegals weren't going to get benefits; you got called on that. You claimed adults would not receive benefits; you got exposed on that. You claimed the poor would be the only recipients of the program; you got that thrown back in your face. Read the bill instead of your liberal websites. Lastly, don't get your panties in a bunch and get a sense of humor.