Posted on 07/29/2007 4:32:15 AM PDT by Man50D
(CNSNews.com) - House Republicans said Thursday they hope to block provisions of a Democratic bill to expand health care coverage for poor children that could open up the coverage to illegal immigrants.
The Children's Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act would expand the existing State Children's Health Insurance Program - more than doubling it in size - and "improve beneficiary protections under the Medicare, Medicaid and the [SCHIP] program."
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the bill has come under fire from Republicans who view its expansions in coverage as a step toward nationalized health care. Republicans are now also attacking the bill because of three sections dealing with immigration issues.
"Illegal immigrants are about to get an unexpected boost thanks to the Democratic Congress," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement Thursday.
"The Democrats have a proposal that not only raises taxes on middle class families and slashes funding for a popular Medicare program ... it eliminates the requirement that persons applying for Medicaid or SCHIP service show proof of citizenship or nationality."
Calling the bill "poorly crafted," Boehner said the proposal would "dole out billions of dollars to states who then have the option of whether or not to verify that a person is an American citizen before providing taxpayer-funded health benefits like Medicaid and SCHIP. The bill also eliminates the current five-year waiting period required for legal immigrants to receive government health benefits."
One provision, Section 132, would remove a requirement that legal immigrants wait five years before being eligible for government-funded health care coverage, according to Republican opponents.
The other two sections have potential applicability to illegal residents. Section 143 would give states the option of requiring proof of citizenship for enrollment in the programs. Opponents say the provision allows states to "return to a system of blind trust."
The third section highlighted by the Republicans, Section 233, provides grants for translation services.
Critics argue that this could enable illegal residents with a weak grasp of English to take advantage of the provision allowing states to not require proof of citizenship. Opponents also argue that it rejects efforts to "encourage national unity around the English language."
A spokesman for Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the bill's main sponsor, referred questions to the Democratic staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. The committee spent much of the day discussing the various proposals, but the immigration provisions were not a major focus of discussion.
Spokesmen for the three Democratic cosponsors of the bill - Frank Pallone of New Jersey, Charles Rangel of New York and Pete Stark of California - also either referred questions to the Energy and Commerce Committee or did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) mentioned one of the disputed provisions during her opening statement during the committee's markup Thursday. She praised Section 143, which grants states flexibility in determining proof of citizenship for applicants.
"As of April 2007, more than 21,000 Wisconsinites lost Medicaid or were denied coverage simply because they did not satisfy federal documentation requirements," Baldwin said, adding that "about two-thirds of these were known by the state to be U.S. citizens and most of the remainder are reported to be likely citizens but have yet to prove it."
She said that "giving the states more flexibility in verifying citizenship will ensure that people receive necessary healthcare."
Boehner's statement criticized the Democratic proposal but did not mention the Republican alternative proposed Wednesday and did not outline ways that Republicans would oppose the immigration provisions of the bill.
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, GOP members on Wednesday introduced an alternative to the Democratic proposal.
The Republican bill would cost $6-7 billion per year and would place tighter restrictions on how states can use the money, limiting benefits to children and requiring proof of citizenship to enroll.
Congress critter ping!
Better yet, get rid of this socialist program.
And the GOP will do what about it? Bring back Immigration Reform? The cockroaches are scrambling now to find a coherent position. Yawn.
lib/dems...just throw more money at illegals....
more child health care....that will stop the anchor babies!!!
yeah... that will stop them from not crossing the border and coming to the US for everything free or ever going back to mexico!!!
The aliens and their jackpot babies are already breaking the bank!
Please contact your congresscritters on this one!
www.house.gov
free faxes www.numberusa.com
Please read about the cost just for delivery of anchor babies!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp
Parkland Hospital Anchor babies
“A recent patient survey indicated that 70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.
Crikey, that’s 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas!”
Schip has been providing health coverage for single women for some time. Will that be removed so that more children of illegals will have coverage? Or will we still be providing health care for single parents? We are told that the money from this expanded program will come from smokers, how long will it before people who are overweight will have a tax added to their food? Once we allowed government into our bedrooms we lost all control of privacy.
Seems to me that these massive ad. campaigns are usually only needed when folks are not easily persuaded by the simple facts of the issue...if it's such a good idea, it should be obvious, right? and no "persuasion" necessary!
Furthermore, there was a Congresscritter from Michigan (I think? anyway, a GOP'er) on C-Span the other morning who said that in some states, over 60% of the SCHIP benefits were going to adults and a large percentage of the adult recipients didn't even have kids!
So, why "hype" this as "for the children"?? It seems more like a reprise of Hillary-care...
Any further info. would be appreciated, fellow FReepers, and I think we should call our Congresspeople, not that it's likely to do me much good considering Kucinich, Brown and Voinovich...but keep rallying the home troops, and hopefully things can improve in 2008!!
It used to be ten years until it was changed to five under Bush. Now they want to eliminate it altogether. Unbelievable.
They sure like to throw our money around to unsavories...and then knife us in the back for even more dough! Wonder if they'd take pesos????
thanks for the ping!
This should render the bill DOA in the House. The traitors in the U.S. Senate, at least 46 of them, will of course love this feature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.