Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on October 9, 2007, to urge Congress to override the President's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) expansion

The vote was 71 in favor, 36 opposed and 3 not voting

(House Roll Call 462 at House Journal 107)

Click here to view bill details.

52% of Americans need some form of government. This entiltiment will only increae that number. It will soak anyone with a paycheck. The top 1% of tax payers pay 37% of all taxes. The top 25% (anyone making over 62,300) pay 95% off all taxes. The bottom 50% pay nothing. So the rich are really pulling the cart!!

-SCHIP does a bad job of targeting assistance. About 60 percent of children currently eligible for SCHIP already have private health insurance, while 77 percent of those targeted by this expansion (i.e., children between 200-300 percent of the federal poverty level) already have private health insurance. - SCHIP covers four uninsured children for the price of ten. Economists Jonathan Gruber and Kosali Simon estimate that, in effect, 60 percent of children covered by SCHIP expansions already had private coverage. - There is no evidence that SCHIP is the best way to improve the health of targeted children. Economists have found no evidence that SCHIP is a cost-effective way of improving health. Discrete health programs or policies that improve incomes or education could deliver as much or more health for the money. - SCHIP discourages families from climbing the economic ladder. If a single mother of two earning minimum wage in New Mexico increases her annual earnings by $30,000, she pays an additional $4,000 in taxes and loses $26,000 in SCHIP and other government benefits. In other words, her net income would not change, therefore she has no financial incentive to climb the economic ladder. Expanding SCHIP would put downward pressure on even more families’ incomes, which could harm child health. - Like Medicaid, SCHIP makes private coverage less affordable for people outside the program. Under Medicaid (and therefore SCHIP) rules, the government agrees to pay a percentage of what drug makers charge private payers. Economists have found that manufacturers respond by raising prices for private purchasers an estimated 15 percent. - SCHIP would do nothing to address systemic quality problems. According to a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Expansion of access to care through insurance coverage, which is the focus of national health care policy related to children, will not, by itself, eliminate the deficits in the quality of care.” SCHIP’s self-interested advocates. Why do you suppose the physician, pharmaceutical, and health insurance lobbies are agitating for health care subsidies that lack any evidence of cost-effectiveness? - This SCHIP expansion taxes the poor to benefit the middle class. Isn’t that just cruel? Eliminating SCHIP and letting people purchase coverage from out-of-state is a better alternative. The latter would enable families to avoid unnecessary regulatory costs, which the Congressional Budget Office puts at about 15 percent of health premiums. That would benefit SCHIP-targeted families most of all. And it would do so without raising anyone’s taxes, showering subsidies on non-needy families, pulling families into a low-wage trap, or increasing the cost of private insurance. As for eliminating SCHIP, when Congress cut non-citizen immigrants from the Medicaid rolls, contrary to all predictions the number of uninsured non-citizen immigrants actually fell. Why wouldn’t SCHIP families, who are more affluent, fare even better? If you’re not interested in the best way to promote child health, not interested in targeting government assistance to the needy, and not concerned about trapping families in low-wage jobs…exactly what is it you are hoping to accomplish?

Senator Whitmer's statement, in which Senators Cherry and Brater concurred, is as follows: Mr.President, discharge was not only timely, it was absolutely critical for us to take action just a moment ago--an action that we put off indefinitely. I'm disheartened that our State Senate would sit on its hands in a time that is so critical in Washington, D.C. There is a vote today that is going to impact the MIChild program here in the state of Michigan. We are talking about children who are the very poorest among us who need health care. Now you know what's going on in Washington. You know the priorities that they've set. Right now the federal government is spending $12 billion a month in Iraq--$12 billion a month--fighting a war in Iraq. What we are asking for is the SCHIP program be funded to the tune of $9 billion a year for the poorest kids in our country, not just the state of Michigan, all 50 states--$9 billion for a year to fund this program when they are spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. It's unconscionable that we're not taking action today, and it's unconscionable that the threat that Congress may not override the veto may happen yet later today. I want to take this moment to applaud some of the members of our congressional delegation who are standing firm and have said the SCHIP program is something we should be funding: Congresspeople like Candice Miller, Vern Ehlers, and Fred Upton. I want to applaud them because it takes courage to stand up against a regime like the Bush regime who want to make these cuts, who doesn't want to fund health care for the poorest among us--children. It's unconscionable and we should have discharged that resolution today and I'm sick that we didn't. I use this as my "no" vote explanation for postponing it indefinitely.

Senator Hunter's statement is as follows: Mr.President and colleagues, I voted "no" to postpone the discharge of House Concurrent Resolution No.51. Colleagues, for once, let us put our love and devotion for the health care needs and the welfare of the children of this great country over the blind partisan loyalty to this cold, cold, heartless President. And to President Bush, President Cherry, I humbly say this: There's no limit to the money you are willing to spend for your lust for war and nation building. Why can't you invest in this war we have right here at home and that's to bring health care to this nation's children. For once, let's do the right thing.

Senator Jacobs' statement, in which Senator Brater concurred, is as follows: Just very briefly, just sometimes I just don't get it. I'm just going to say that some days I just don't get it. I just don't get it. We have been waiting for months and months and months to get a waiver from the feds for the Governor's program to insure more of the uninsured folks we have in Michigan, including tens of thousands of children. Here's our chance while we're waiting for the feds to give us permission for a program that we all so desperately need. Here we have an opportunity to make sure some of those kids we need to cover would continue to be covered and we're taking inaction today. We're not doing anything. I just don't get it.

Senator Gleason's statement is as follows: None of us in this room or in the adjoining chamber ever understand what our family or personal situations might lead to. We are having difficult times here in the state of Michigan. We see plant closings and job losses across this state. People are trying to do the responsible thing and go back to work. This MIChild, and I'd suggest we probably have the best name for it of all the federal policies, is a great name for this program because they are mine and your children we are talking about. We are seeing working men and women trying to do the best they can. We say they must go back to work. We've reformed welfare, and we've put more personal responsibility on these families. We've recently seen a General Motors and Delphi agreement saying that the workers who show up to work every single day and do what they are asked to do will see their future generation of workers. We've recently seen a new generation of contracts that we're going to be slashing the wages from $28.00-$32.00 an hour down to $14.00 an hour. Now, if you are any good at math, you'll know that if you're a full-time worker at $14 an hour and working in an industry that traditionally paid health care, who you would qualify now as a full-time Delphi worker. With the monetary payments you will get in regard to your work, you would qualify for MIChild. Being a full-time worker, working full-time, working 2,000 hours a year at $14.00 an hour, which our Michigan workers are going to be earning now in many of the factories, that $14.00 an hour would qualify you for MIChild. Yet, we're seeing these folks who are going to work every single day trying to take care of their families cannot afford health care now due to the reduction in wages; that we're not going to stand up and help them. Now you and I know that the best form of medicine is preventative medicine, and that's kind of what MIChild is about, making sure those children get the checkups and the care that they need in a timely fashion so that we can stop the surge and the killings of those who have contracted sugar diabetes or hypertension; to make sure we can stop these illnesses and diseases before they become a crisis and, ultimately, in many cases, death for these young children. Mr.President and Senators, I always thought Michigan took better care of its kids than this. I think it is unfortunate that we will sit on the sidelines now and not say that we're going to step up and help Michigan families take care of Michigan kids. I thought it was pretty easy today to vote that we were going to support these families. To put a lot of pressure on these folks the last few weeks raising sales tax and service taxes that are going to be coming out of these folks' pockets too, that will be impacting their ability to pay for health care. And yet, we will say that we won't even offer a token of support by supporting this resolution.

Senator Scott's statement is as follows: We have the opportunity to be proactive here. In Congress, the Republicans and Democrats have come together. I would hope that we would think the very same of our children here, that we would encourage President Bush to help our children be proactive. You know, we always find the dollars after the fact, and we find it after the fact when it's not helpful to us or to the individuals or to their families. Children are our most precious resources. We have to leave this world better than we found it. That's our mission for all of us and certainly we ought to take care of our children. All of these children belong to us and this is something very small that we can do, because when they come down with the number of diseases and things, we spend more money. So why can't we just, for once, have some vision? Without vision, the people perish. We're talking about our most vulnerable citizens we have and we say we care about them?

Senator Schauer's statement is as follows: Unfortunately, this issue here has failed along partisan lines, and I want to point out that that is really not reflective of Washington, D.C.; that is not reflective of the country, and it is certainly not reflective of the Michigan House of Representatives. I hope the press is listening because a lot of myths have been disseminated through the media and I want to dispel some of those. Maybe some of you, colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as you're speaking to the press, you may be using some of these myths, so I wanted to straighten them out because I know that several of our members of Congress--the Republican members have been mentioned--have supported this legislation and rejected those myths. So first of all, it is perpetuated by those who oppose this that this bill the President vetoed would somehow open the doors to illegal immigrants to use these precious federal and state resources to provide health insurance to children. That's not true. In fact, the bill specifically says "no federal funding for illegal aliens." That's a quote, period. Secondly, one of the myths out there is that wealthy families would somehow be benefiting from this program. There is an income figure that's given: families that earn $83,000.00 per year would be eligible. Well, New York once applied for a waiver for families at that level. It was rejected by this very administration. The fact is, colleagues, the bill that was vetoed by the President that will be voted on for an override possibly within an hour--that's why this is so urgent; why postponement was such a major disappointment and a mistake--this bill maintains current eligibility requirements which means that Michigan children from families earning less that $41,000 per year--that's a family of four; that is 200 percent of the federal poverty level--those are the children who qualify. These are children who aren't so poor they qualify for Medicaid; their parents work but don't earn enough to afford health care coverage. Health premiums for those families cost about $12,000.00. Colleagues, you tell me how a family of four earning $41,000.00 is able to pay their rent or mortgage, pay for food, pay for transportation, and pay $12,000.00 per year for health insurance. Don't take my word for it. You can go to the nonpartisan factcheck.org to verify this. A third myth is that this bill would somehow result in socialized medicine in this county. That also doesn't hold water. In Michigan, our MIChild program is run by a network of private health care providers. By extending--not changing--the benefits, but by adding additional money to this program, we would cover up to another 80,000 children in this country who don't have health insurance. Fourth, it's talked about by opponents that this is somehow a Democratic or partisan proposal. But this is a very bipartisan measure. You may remember that the original children's health insurance program that was enacted in 1997 passed with broad bipartisan support. This bill did as well. In fact, in the U.S. Senate, 19 Republicans joined Democrats and Independents for a total of 69 votes. That's, by the way, enough to override the President's veto. In the U.S.House of Representatives, there were 45 Republicans who voted for this measure, and as it was stated earlier, one-third of Michigan's Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted for this measure. Governors across the country support this measure. In fact, 43 Governors, including 16 Republican Governors, support the bill that was, unfortunately, vetoed by our President. Other nonpartisan groups such as AARP, National Rural Health Association, Children's Defense Fund, and even a new group called Catholics United support this measure. Colleagues, I wish that we could have spoken with one bipartisan vote to urge our members of the U.S. House of Representatives to put children first. Unfortunately, too many are seeming to support a President who is just wrong on this measure. Don't take my word for it. Our own Vern Ehlers from west Michigan, in supporting the measure said, "I grew up with acute asthma and I know personally how important it is for kids to have access to affordable health insurance. This bill will continue to provide health care coverage to millions of children who otherwise would be uninsured." Or how about Republican U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, known as a fiscal conservative who said, "I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of health care, and if the administration's concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, bluntly put, they are not." Colleagues, if there was ever a time to put facts in front of partisanship, it would be now on behalf of our children; the tens of thousands of children with no health insurance in our state who must turn to the emergency room for primary care. And also it is very critical to know that some would argue for just extending the current law, or, as President Bush actually proposed, a small increase of funding. Either of those measures would result in children in our state who are currently covered from losing that coverage. That is not acceptable. My priorities are our children and that is why I voted "no" on the motion to postpone House Concurrent Resolution No.51.

Senator Sanborn’s statement is as follows. I rise to make a statement as to the outrageous display by the Democrats with regard to House Concurrent Resolution No. 51 earlier today. This state has enough economic problems since Hurricane Jenny blew through, and yet, the Democrats in this chamber would rather create a smokescreen to hide the fact that our Governor has failed to lead Michigan out of its economic woes and fix the problems that she has caused—problems like her tax increases, Michigan’s nation-leading unemployment, and the administration that is currently in turmoil. The casualties in this week alone include her insurance commissioner and her chief of staff who have defected. The Democrats are creating a smokescreen to divert the public’s attention away from the fact that they control two-thirds of the state government as well as both seats in the U.S. Senate. They tried to divert the attention away from their own failings by attacking the President rather than fixing the damage that they have caused. They would rather blame President George Bush. They would rather blame Governor John Engler for the struggles Michigan currently faces rather than honest with the people of the state of Michigan about their role in the problems which Michigan currently faces. Whatever happened to the days of Democrat leadership like Harry Truman? President Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here.” The focus of this chamber should be on Michigan’s economic woes and the challenges which we face, not a resolution that is largely symbolic and purely political. I find it ironic to think that this was disparaging compared to what I’ve heard about President Bush and former Governor John Engler, who’s been blamed for many of Michigan’s economic woes, which I find hard to believe that they are still doing it five years later. I appreciate that our colleague from the 19th District wants to leave behind the problems of the state of Michigan, problems created largely by his own party and Hurricane Jenny, for Washington, D.C., but this is not the place to run for Congress. Let’s fix Michigan’s blown-away economy first. Certainly, I will and certainly I have not named an individual member, but I think that it’s inappropriate for any member of this chamber to use this chamber as a springboard to run for higher office, including, in this case, in Congress. Let’s fix Michigan’s blown-away economy, and then Senators can turn their attention to running for Congress or any other campaign.

Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows. What a sad, sad, sorry day. The other side of the aisle chose to use children, our children, in a political ploy, a political stunt, seemingly orchestrated by their minority leader running for Congress himself. I’m afraid the other side of the aisle, who so advocated for freedom earlier today, now is trying to censor our remarks. That is a terrible, terrible thing. Let me say again that this filibuster for all practical purposes is used to divert attention away from their failed economic policies and those of the current sitting Governor and the fallout of their disastrous tax increases directly undermining job providers throughout our state. You know, our citizens, I believe, are a lot smarter than the other side gives them credit for. They can see through this. They see it for what it is. This is not about keeping dollars from low-income kids. It’s about extending the program to those who can afford health care. This is a federal issue and we’ve wasted almost an hour, again, to distract attention away from legitimate Senate business—business that we do have control over. 1693 Let me point out, many eligible Michigan children, it’s been documented, many eligible Michigan children eligible for health care aid never get signed up by their parent or parents or guardians. And, thus, it wrongly, inflates the number of uninsured children in this state. It is a sad day indeed when we allow a purely political forum, political grandstanding, to undermine the sanctity of this body. Shame.

Senator Scott’s statement is as follows. This is another sad day in this Legislature. You know, how our priorities are—now we want to filibuster about our children. Well, I’ve had a bill here that deals with families—insurance—that’s been sitting on the other side for some time and nothing has been done about it. So I offer to yet another recent quote: “Legislators should not permit a system to continue that practically forces hundreds of thousands of people to drive with no protection at all. Again, these are not my words but an excerpt from last Sunday’s Detroit Free Press editorial. Here again, “Legislators should not permit a system to continue that practically forces hundreds of thousands of people to drive with no protection at all.” There are various ways to solve this problem. I’ve offered several, with still more solutions on the way, but until we are ready to discuss these alternatives, the crisis will continue. Hundreds of thousands of people will continue to drive without insurance. That endangers you and your families. It endangers me, and it continues to financially bleed those who can least afford it. We have the means to solve this problem. Let’s not wait.

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows. There’s been a lot of talk the last few minutes in regard to what might or might not happen to Michigan’s children. Let me tell you a story about that. We’ve had this program for about a decade. I’d ask any Senator since the inception of that program who would qualify for that program to stand up. That’s just about what I figured. I figured I’d be the only one standing. I qualified for that program and so did my kids. I was deathly sick, and many of you know and I’ve said it many times that I had an organ transplant. I did not go on public assistance, but I made not enough money to qualify for that program and my kids did too. Now there are a lot of families out there just like mine in the last decade who can use that support. I know a little bit about it because I could have been in it and chose not to be. I had a new baby and two years later had another new baby and a wife. Now today we get to talking about somebody running for Congress and about what’s important and what’s not important, but I’m going to tell you that I lived it every single second til I got my transplant. So before we really start talking about how these programs affect individuals and families, we ought to be like the old Indian said and maybe walk a mile in their moccasins. I walked that mile. When I hear this talk about what’s important and what’s not important, I’m reminded about what my wife and my two kids went through. I chose not to go on assistance. I could have. There are a lot of people who are a lot worse off than I was, and my family and the strength of my wife helped us get through that. They need that insurance. Now there’s a misconception out there that these kids who are on it today are going to stay on it, but the facts are that they’re coming up about a million and a half short over those who they covered last year—kids just like my kids. Now this is not a filibuster coming from me. This is a fact of life, so before we start getting sidetracked about what’s important and what’s not important, you remember when we are talking about the resolution, I said it was appropriately named: “MI Kids”—more than any other state—“MI Kids.” Well, maybe a thing that’s just slightly different that my kids would be a portion of the 1.6 million we covered last year who we’re not going to cover this year, but that’s done with now. I just hope in the future that when we start running off that maybe we try to put ourselves in other peoples’ positions. We all have a pretty comfortable living now, and I can say as one who didn’t a few years ago that a lot of times people say things that they don’t have any idea what they’re talking about. But I always think we should put a premium on our kids. The best thing we can do for our kids is make sure they’re insured. Let’s not get sidetracked, folks. Let’s not start tearing each other up about what’s important and what’s not important, about whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, or whether you’re running for Congress or not. I hope we do better in the future when we’re talking about and dealing with Michigan’s children.

Senator Jansen’s statement is as follows. I would like to respond to a few words that were spoken earlier by some of our colleagues here today. Everybody has been offended by something and I was also. As I was listening, I believe in free speech. I believe all of us here have the right to say a lot of things, but we have to agree to disagree. But in one of the comments, our President was talked about as having a regime. Well, excuse me, but I don’t live in a communist country. We have the right to stand up for whatever we believe in, and we have to respect those who are leading. I happen to do that. Now maybe everybody doesn’t, but I think those who want to call our President the leader of a regime ought to rethink that. I look at our budget—I’ve been gone four years—and when I left, we had about 25 percent of our budget as federal money. And today, with that President that we’re calling a regime, we’re up to 31 percent federal money. Now it seems to me that we’re being taken care of by the federal government in ways that you have forgotten. I would ask my colleagues who are going to call names to people who are leaders, maybe you ought to rethink that because we have been saved by the federal government in our budget over the last four years. Yes, we’ve patched; yes, we’ve taken out different funds from different places, but the federal government has been very helpful to Michigan and to all of us here. As you want to pontificate about our leaders and leadership, please rethink that and call a President a President and respect that person in leadership.

Senator Kahn’s statement is as follows. In April, I introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 5, authorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to be reauthorized. It was supported by virtually every one of us. The President supports and supported reauthorization of that program, and not only supports and supported reauthorization of that program, but the expansion of its funding by 20 percent. This program was—as pointed out by the Senator from the 27th District—oriented towards the poor and those in need. The bill that is being debated in Congress now from the point of view of a budget override has expanded way beyond the initial intent of SCHIP, in Michigan MIChild, and expanded way beyond what the President was willing, in fact, also to expand it to. Months ago, the President made clear that he would veto a SCHIP bill that takes the program beyond the original intent, beyond the intent of covering poor children. He made it clear that he would veto a bill that moves children who now have private health care insurance into a government-run program and a program that is an incremental step towards a government run health care system, like those that we see in Europe that ration care by the month and sometimes for some procedures or treatments by the year. The bill that we’ve been debating today or speaking about today that is before the federal government today includes additional spending funded with a tax increase, an issue that we here, in speaking about Michigan, the Michigan tax increases certainly found bruising enough. Once this bill and the override at the federal level is through, the President looks forward to working with Congress to pass a SCHIP reauthorization that he can sign and that bill that he has stated that he can sign will include an increase in funding. And so, Mr. President, I look forward to getting beyond today’s discussion both here and in Washington to a bill that Congress can pass that is clean and extends the SCHIP at least on a temporary basis until the disagreements are worked out and a bill that prevents families who rely on SCHIP from suffering in the interval. Senator Cropsey’s statement is as follows: Some of the things that were said on the floor today by the party on the other side of the aisle were particularly offensive. I can’t think that our President would go in the war because he has a lust for war or words to that effect. If I recall correctly, when we entered into the war in Iraq, it was done by a congressional resolution which had tremendous bipartisan support because of the Hitler who was there in the Middle East who was threatening world security. And I think a President who stands up for our national interest and goes into war with bipartisan congressional support is looking out for out best interest. And as a father of two soldiers, I find that particularly offensive for people to say that our Commander-in-Chief has a lust for that type of thing. I’d like to now speak to the issue that brought this about and, by the way, if you don’t have a strong national defense, all your other social programs aren’t worth anything at all. And consider that. We take a look at the SCHIP program, what was being spouted here earlier was that is everybody aware that this was a massive expansion of the program and that 5.8 million children who had gained public coverage because of the bill, and this is congressional budget estimate, 35 percent of them already had private health insurance. I’d like to ask the other side of the aisle, why are you encouraging people to give up private health insurance to go onto a federal government-sponsored program? Furthermore, the Senate version of the SCHIP bill grandfathers in New York, which has a higher match rate than the rest of the country, allowing the SCHIP children of some households in the state of New York to have up to $83,000 and they qualify. In New Jersey, which would also have been grandfathered in, we’re talking about families with incomes No. 108] [October 18, 2007] JOURNAL OF THE SENATE 1695 up to $72,000. I’m not particularly interested in having the federal government be raising taxes on us to finance families of $72,000 in New Jersey or $83,000 in New York when families in my district already have enough problems trying to get insurance. Another thing, I found it very interesting that Congressman McCotter, former State Senator in this body, has written a letter to this Governor. This Governor has made public comments on this program and he has asked her several questions. I’d just like to read some of those questions and say if the Governor won’t respond, perhaps the verbosity of people on the other side of the aisle will come up with a response. First question he asked was, “According to the state of Michigan’s own budget projections as submitted to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services in 2008, the state of Michigan will be spending 71.6 percent of Michigan kids’ SCHIP funding on childless adults.” Now this is interesting; we hide behind the kids to give adults coverage? The second question, “According to the congressional research service in 2006, approximately 46 percent of all Michigan SCHIP children were enrollees, not kids.” And Congressman McCotter asked, “Is this true? If so, will this percentage of adults increase under the proposed SCHIP expansion?” Another question, the third question he asked, “According to the congressional budget office, the proposed SCHIP that builds a new sin tax on tobacco requires at least 22 million new smokers to fund its promised expansion. How many new smokers do you believe Michigan is going to contribute to this number and how are you going to encourage nonsmoking Michiganders to pick the habit?” You know, I think when I take a look at this, I’m wondering why the other side of the aisle is hiding behind kids in order to increase smoking in this state and get people off of private insurance onto the public dole.