SCHIP
Floor Speech
SCHIP -- (Senate - October 18, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to join my distinguished colleague from Florida and many of my other colleagues in urging the sort of consensus building, practical problem solving Senator Martinez is talking about.
It is clear we are at a current impasse on the SCHIP debate. The version that passed the Senate and passed the Congress has been vetoed by the President. It will be made even more clear in the next day or so that veto will not be overridden.
I think what the American people want us to do is not talk endlessly, debate endlessly, and simply try to score political points, but to come together around a practical compromise, a practical resolution that advances health care, particularly for poor children.
So I join my colleague from Florida in urging us to do that. My ideas about what that reasonable, practical compromise would be are very much like his. I applaud Senator Martinez in terms of the ideas he has put forward to resolve this SCHIP debate.
I could not support the Senate Finance Committee version of the SCHIP bill.
I could not support it for a very simple reason: I am all for the SCHIP program. I am all for covering poor children. I am not for expanding that program well beyond the boundaries of poor kids so that it is a precursor, quite frankly, to government-run, government-dominated health care. I think that is a mistake. I think expanding a program such as this and actively pushing people off private insurance, which the Finance Committee version would do, is a big mistake and moves us in the opposite direction of where we should be moving with regard to health care reform in this country.
Why do I say that about the Finance Committee bill? Well, for a simple reason: It goes well beyond the original intent of SCHIP, which is to cover poor kids. It goes beyond that in several ways. First of all, it raises the general limit of eligibility from 200 percent of poverty to 300 percent of poverty. In the United States today, 300 percent of poverty is $62,000, a family income of $62,000. But, in fact, that limit is well above that in most cases. Why? Because under the Finance Committee bill, States can define family income in innovative ways. They can take out large expenditures such as tuition from family income, so we are not talking about gross family income of $62,000. Once you take out those major components, those major sources of spending of a family, you could easily be talking about a family income of $80,000.
In addition to that, under the bill the administration--any administration--would be urged, if not mandated, to grant waivers to States in many cases to go well above even that 300-percent-plus line. So clearly, you would dramatically expand the children and the families covered under the program, and you would go well beyond what any reasonable person would define as the truly poor.
Now, why is this bad? Well, for one thing, you are crowding out folks--pushing folks off--of private insurance. There have been several analyses done of the Finance Committee bill which passed the Congress and which the President vetoed. Under those analyses of new enrollees, it is estimated that between 45 and 51 percent would be dropping private insurance to enroll in SCHIP. Now, is that the direction we want to move in, encouraging folks who have private insurance to drop it, to flee private insurance to come under the care of the Government? I think that is the wrong direction to move in.
Beyond that, if you look at new eligibility groups--in other words, not all new enrollees, but the new groups of people who would become eligible under the bill--there is a 100-percent crowd-out effect. Everybody in those new groups would be dropping private insurance to enroll in SCHIP. Is that the direction we want to move in? I think not. We talk about the problem of the uninsured in this country. Why do we want to grow that problem versus solve it by encouraging people and helping people keep their private insurance or get onto private coverage? That is not the direction we want to move in.
I believe the direction we want to move in is to encourage coverage, to make it more available, to make it more affordable. That is the sort of solution that Senator Martinez and myself and others have been talking about. That is why I support the McConnell-Lott SCHIP bill and support furthering the goal of health care for all American families with tax credits that can make private coverage available and affordable.
Step 1: A real SCHIP reauthorization focused on poor kids. That is what the legislation I support does. That bill costs $8 billion in new costs over 5 years, but those new costs are fully offset. That bill would keep eligibility at 200 percent of the poverty line, but it would enroll many more new kids: 1.3 million by 2012 and 1.5 million new kids by 2017. It would also extend coverage to pregnant women and their children in the womb. That is important as well. That is a real reauthorization of the SCHIP program as it was originally designed and intended.
Now, is that good enough with regard to children's health care needs and families' health care needs? Absolutely not. There are other needs out there which we must address. Health care insurance isn't available, isn't affordable to enough folks. But rather than encouraging them to get on a government program and in half the cases actively pushing them off private insurance, why don't we help them stay on private insurance or obtain private insurance? That is the additional step we need to take through tax credit or other legislation.
So again, I urge us to do what the American people want, which is not to simply argue, talk, debate, and try to score political points endlessly, but to come together around a real and valid and commonsense compromise. That is what the American people want, so let's do it. That compromise is clearly within striking distance if we have the political will to come together around those ideas. Again, I believe the principle we should look at is a real reauthorization of SCHIP for poor children, supplemented with some additional help for those families that need the help to stay on or to get on private insurance. I don't believe the path of the current SCHIP bill, which actively pushes families off private insurance in so many cases, is the way to do it.
The proponents of that bill laud it because it would sign up 4.4 million new enrollees. Well, guess what: 4.4 million of that 2.4 million currently could have private insurance. Is that progress? Is that a great accomplishment, to push off of private insurance 2.4 million and get them on a government program at the expense of the taxpayer, when there is a better, cheaper alternative to help them stay on private insurance, to help them have more choice and control and autonomy of their health care future? That is what the American people want: More control, more choice, more autonomy, making good health insurance available and affordable. Let's reauthorize SCHIP for the truly poor and let's give them ways to make health care insurance available and affordable through instruments such as tax credits.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source