SCHIP and Illegals
Posted By: Observer on 2007-10-01
In Reply to: Did Bush actually say he was against this bill - because of illegal immigrants? (sm) kam
I do not have an article where Bush himself said it; I heard him on TV on one of those blurbs talking about it. The opposition of the Republicans is that the present bill is an expansion of SCHIP (to the tune fo 6 billion dollars) and opens the door to make it easy for illegals to get on the program legally...although some states who administer SCHIP already do it on the "honor system" and don't ask for proof of citizenship, so you tell me how many are already on it.
This is from an article that sums up what I have read:
Democratic SCHIP Bill Benefits Illegal Immigrants, GOP Charges
(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."
As to pandering to get the Hispanic ILLEGAL vote, why do you think this bill is crafted this way from the Dems to make sure they can get their kids on SCHIP? Dems have been chasing the illegal immigrant vote even more so than Republicans...in fact, they COUNT on it. I have heard Bush talk about amnesty and that is one of the places that he and I disagree. Although, I don't think he is courting the Hispanic vote or he would not be vetoing a program that puts them right on the SCHIP rolls no questions asked...now would he??
I think it is more important to let the bill stay as-is for 6 months than to open it up as a freeforall for illegals to get their kids on it. YES, I think it is more important. I am not a Republican, but I am a fiscal conservative, and I certainly agree in this case.
And yes, before you ask, I have children. I may not have everything I want, but I can insure my kids. And I don't make $80,000 a year either...about expanding SCHIP to cover "middle income" families. They are talking about a family of 4 with total income of $80,000 a year (2 adults 2 kids) being eligible for a program that was designed to cover low income kids. THat is what...400% of the poverty level and how much higher than the median income in the US? I'm sorry, but an annual income of $80,000...there should be a way for those folks to cover their children. They are not talking about cancelling any other programs or any way to pay for this 6 billion dollar expansion other than a cigarette tax, which everyone knows will not cover it all. Yes, I think kids should have health care... but if they are going to pay for it for an annual income of $80,000 they might as well pay for it for ALL kids, period. And that is the first step toward socialized medicine, and I don't need a Democrat or a Republican to tell me that. I can see the handwriting on the wall. Do some research on socialized medicine in Canada...the pros and the cons...and see if you really want that happening here.
And if they are going to do that, they might as well pay it for everyone = socialized medicine. Be careful what you ask for. Government run medical care...I don't think you want to go there.
And, frankly, if they want to expand it to cover a family of 4 making $80,000 a year, I don't think it should be a freebie. Maybe offered at a lower rate than families who make more than that...but come on. A family making $80,000 a year should be able to insure their children. Insuring their children should be their FIRST priority. You tell me what would keep a family of 4 with annual income of $80,000 from being able to insure their children? If anything, it is because 35-40% of their income comes off the top in TAXES right now to pay for all the social programs in this country. Why not LOWER taxes to help them pay their premiums instead of taxing us all MORE to give them health care? Why not do that? But you say tax cut to a Democrat and they get apoplectic.
Perhaps it is because people don't want to prioritize and don't want to do without anything in order to insure their children, would rather spend it on something else. There ARE families who choose to do that. You are naive if you think there are not.
Honestly, if we do not control spending, and we give more and more entitlements and extend those entitlements higher and higher up the income level...can you not see the vicious circle? Are we going to extend it in another 5 years for families of 4 who make $120,000 a year because we have taxed everyone so much that now THEY can't afford to insure their children? Come on! Why not prioritize? Take all the money earmarked for social programs, put insuring children at the top, insure all the children if that is what the american people think is most important, and whatever is left, dole out to the remaining programs. Try prioritizing instead of more programs, more taxes, more programs, more taxes. I personally think that 35-40% in taxes off the top of our incomes is ENOUGH.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
SCHIP program
First, let's get the story straight. Republicans are not voting against Childrens Health Care. The SCHIP program has been in effect for several years, and Republicans DID vote to start the program. And like most government-run programs it is wasteful and was not administered properly. Millions of illegals' children are enrolled in the program, taking funds that should go to American children. That is one of the things Republicans want watched before expanding the program. Expansion might not be necessary to the tune of 6 billion if the illegals got taken off. All the Republicans asked was that the Democrats extend the program for another 6 months as it stands now (they NEVER voted to stop it completely) and work on a solution to remove illegals and make sure no more illegals get on, etc. This has never been about voting against health care for children. They are not voting to stop SCHIP, just tighten it up. Of course, because of the liberal bias of media, all you see are headlines saying BUSH TO VETO CHILDRENS HEALTH CARE PLAN and REPUBLICANS WANT TO STOP CHILDRENS HEALTH CARE PLAN. Both of these are lies. The 'socialized medicine' comment, I believe, was directed toward the Democrat plan to stop all private health care and make the whole thing government run. And when they do that, the quality of health care will tank and the ability to get superior medical care for catastrophic incidents, high-risk surgery, etc., will drop dramatically. Ask Canada. Ask why Canadians come to the US for that kind of care? Because they don't want to be on government waiting lists for months/years. Do some research. It HAPPENS. Socialized medicine hurts the middle class and poor, because richer folks can still pay cash and get the higher standard of care. Believe me, folks, we don't need socialized medicine in this country.
As I have stated in other posts, tighten up the SCHIP program to exclude illegals and monitor the program properly so that it does what it is designed to do...provide health care for American children whose parents cannot afford to buy it. Look at all social programs here (fraught with waste), tighten them up, and prioritize. Put Childrens Health care at the top of the pile. Use common sense, like American families have to do inidividually. We know we can't provide everything for our families we would like to, so we have to prioritize, to make sure the most important things are taken care of first. Government should run the same way. If government is going to provide health care for kids (and I believe if we are going to have social programs that one should be FIRST), then do so, and make that the FIRST priority of social spending. If that cuts into lesser needed programs, so be it. First things first. If we do not start being fiscally responsible with spending, we are going to dig ourselves into a hole. The more people who get on assistance and do not pay into the tax system, the bigger the burden is on the rest of us who do have to work and pay taxes. Personally I think 35-40% off the top of my wages is enough. I think the government just has to prioritize and be more careful about the way they spend it.
Just my two cents.
Sorry to keep bringing it up - SCHIP
I found this website while trying to look up some more info and thought I'd share it.
http://www.ncsl.org/print/health/CRSSbyS0807.pdf
I'm now thoroughly confused on the arguments against expanding it. It does require proof of citizenship (states responsibility to document), so I'm not quite sure how that means it will allow illegal immigrants access - at least any more access than they already have to medicaid - however they get it. It also seems to state that the limit on income will be determined by the states - which would somewhat answer the question I posted below. I've heard interviews on television with those against the expansion quoting the $88,000 limit. (which I did not see mentioned, but I certainly have no idea what's discussed in Congress). As I said below, for a family whose living expenses are relatively low, $88,000 is a lot of money, but for a family who lives where the living expenses are insanely high, $88,000 does not go as far.
Observer, or any others, have you found a site that explains why some are against it?
SCHIP Passed
11,000 million children will be covered.
The only problem is...they are raising the cigarette tax to $.61 a pack. According to Glenn Beck, we will need 21,000,000 NEW smokers to cover the program. Kinda ironic....use something that is unhealthy to give coverage to keep the kids healthy.
I don't know what they are thinking. I think the government has their heads in the sand. Every time they tie a new program to smokers, more smokers quit. How are they ever going to cover all these children if another couple thousand people quit smoking?
I absolutely think this program will not work like they think and in a couple years, if not next year, they will be raising taxes on everyone because of the shortfall in the planned coverage.
Sheesh! How did these people ever complete college????? They have no sense.
SCHIP and pre-existing conditions....
Found this on the CMS website:
Other rules that affect which services are to be covered under SCHIP:
Abortion services may only be provided to save the life of the mother, or to terminate a pregnancy resulting from an act of rape or incest.
In general, states can not permit the implementation of preexisting condition exclusions.
If SCHIP plans provide coverage through group health plans, preexisting condition exclusions are permitted only in so far as HIPAA rules allow.
This is what I found about HIPAA and preexisting conditions:
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), effective July 1, 1997, provides certain protections for people who have preexisting medical conditions. A preexisting condition is any medical condition that a person has before being enrolled in an insurance plan.
This law helps protect your health insurance benefits by:
limiting exclusion periods for preexisting conditions;
lowering your chances of losing your existing coverage or of being discriminated against because of your health;
providing protections for you when you change jobs;
allowing you and your dependents special enrollment rights under your employer's health plan under certain circumstances.
I cannot find anything relating to the cost of covering a child with a pre-existing condition in private insurance.......there are a multitude of sites where you can do the "get a quote" thing...but I don't find anything that gives cost or even estimated cost up front. I will look around some more when I have more time.
Point taken, although I was not talking just about SCHIP...
I was talking about any government administered health plan. You can choose to ignore the VA system or Canada's government controlled health plan if you want to....I choose not to. With that being said...no more on government health care.
SCHIP Program. Venting again.
 Sorry, I'm still venting from the SCHIP garbage that was on today. They absolutely want to pass this immediately without looking at amendments, etc. They want an additional 11 million children covered ( nothing wrong with that) EXCEPT they want to put it on the smokers to pay for it. Now, with the way they are trying to get smokers to quit, I would think that's a stupid and absolutely wrong idea.
Like James Webb (NC) stated, "Do we really want an unhealthy habit to pay for a healthy habit?"What happens when the smokers quit because of all the taxes they have to pay to keep these programs going? Who is going to pay for it if every smoker quits? You have nothing to back it up. There would be a black hole and eventually, every citizen would have to pay for it.
I agree totally with his statements. Why is it they expect an unhealthy habit to cover healthy habits? It makes no sense. At least this rep has his head together, yet the others don't think about the future costs.
When are the American citizens going to wake up and start thinking for themselves? Why, oh why, do we keep voting in people who don't even think for themselves, just vote by party affiliation?
Glenn Beck stated we have to keep the phone lines to Washington and keep calling in to our reps to stop the nonsense (sp). I agree.
I watched the jerk put in the Senate by fellow voters from my state today and I had to turn him off (I didn't vote for him-he knows nothing). I am going to write to the newspapers in that area and ask them WHY did they vote for him? Betcha my answer will be "He gave us so much money to get our projects done." "He's the son of our late governor." "He's from our area." That's no reason to vote for somebody. If it is, then I must be totally wrong for voting the way I do. I vote who I think will do the best job, not if he's from our area. That's part of the problem with politics today.
I'll get off my now. Thanks for reading. I promise no more venting today. 
McConnell Amendment to H.R. 2 (SCHIP)
did not pass.It was 32 ayes to 65 nays.
benefits for illegals...
Alright which party is for doing something about the illegals that are crossing our border and not just to work but to take advantage of goverment benefits. More specific which person who is running? Has this been mentioned by any of them? Let me enlighten everyone on some things. Let everyone see just how messed up this country is becoming. I live near an illegal immigrant who has found out she is pregnant. Well she went to the office where you apply for Medicaid to pay for the baby and they told her unless she could prove she was a US citizen no help. Well that is the way it should be. She goes to Georgia. They say same thing. She has now gone to Louisiana, which is not the state where she even lives either. They are going to give her benefits. They don't even check. What is the deal? She is illegal, has a job that she said wanted proof she could work in the US legally. She got around that somehow. I don't know how. She pays no taxes here. But yet she can get Medicaid? What the heck is going on here? She doesn't even live in Louisiana. She gave them someone elses address. How can the country let this continue?
Stimulating Illegals
Investor's Business Daily 03/12/09
Economy: At least 300,000 of those stimulus jobs will go to illegal aliens who are likely to send that money home to their native countries. Just whose economy are we stimulating?
The stimulus package is supposed to stimulate the American economy and create American jobs, but missing from it are measures to guarantee that. As a result, say both the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Immigration Studies, hundreds of thousands of these jobs will go to illegal aliens, and much of the money they earn will not be spent here.
The original House version included a provision requiring employers to check registration status with the E-Verify system before hiring. This provision was missing from the Senate bill and was not in the final version sent to President Obama.
The Obama administration has also delayed at least until May 21 a Bush administration executive order requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify. It was supposed to take effect in January.
Last Tuesday, 75 representatives of both parties sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner urging them "to protect taxpayers and legal workers by including these critical jobs protection provisions in any future economic recovery legislation."
In a February report by the Heritage Foundation, senior research fellow Robert Rector looked at the 2 million construction jobs the stimulus is supposed to create. "Without specific mechanisms to ensure that workers are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants authorized to work," he concluded, "it is likely that 15% of these workers, or 300,000, would be illegal immigrants."
Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, comes up with the same figure for construction jobs based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and other independent findings that 15% of all construction workers in the U.S. are illegal aliens.
Camarota says the total number of stimulus jobs going to illegals may be higher. At least a million more jobs are said to be created by the stimulus, and with 5% of the overall U.S. work force consisting of illegals, they could get another 50,000 non-construction jobs.
Rector sees another downside. "The fact that illegal aliens send a substantial portion of their earnings abroad reduces the stimulus effect that their employment has in the United States," he says.
Remittances, Mexico's second-largest source of foreign income after oil, dipped 3.6% to $25 billion in 2008, compared with $26 billion the previous year, according to Mexico's central bank. Will our stimulus improve Mexico's economy?
"It's outrageous that in a bill designed to provide employment for Americans, Congress has deliberately chosen to allow jobs to be given to illegal immigrants," Rector adds.
We think so too.
He wants amnesty for illegals. How is that
How is amnesty for illegals GOOD for Americans? It's NOT! Cut off the ability for them to work here. Every time they are picked up by police, ship them home. Secure the border. Compared to all the spending Obama wants to do, these are CHEAP solutions that will free up jobs for hard-working Americans. Not great jobs, no, but jobs that can help make ends meet in hard times! Jobs for the ones first laid off! Spending money on "good" causes is not what is needed during a crisis like this. Saving money and very careful spending that promotes private enterprise and hiring are what will rescue us.
I completely disagree with the Republicans who stopped the 95% taxing of the bonuses to AIG employees. That was one obviously smart thing the Dems were trying to do, and I'm furious the Reps stopped it.
I've been sending faxes to my reps on these important issues. You can too, through the Numbers USA website. Let our elected leaders know we aren't falling for their propaganda, and we know there are smarter, cheaper solutions to our country's problems. www.numbersusa.com/
Amnesty for illegals
I am amazed nearly everyday with the idiotic things that come from our government. This one about made me spit out my beverage when I heard it. Amnesty for illegals is a horribly bad idea. What message does that send to the ones who are trying to become citizens the right way. This also sends a message for more and more illegals to come our way. This is an outrage. Absolutely ridiculous! We spend billions of dollars on illegals the way that it is.
This wouldn't have anything to do with Obama's aunt or anything.....now would it? Or maybe this is just his ploy to get more votes by turning them into legal citizens. Either way.....it is an ignorant thing to do. This is one area I truly 100% disagreed with McCain on. He wanted amnesty too.
BAD IDEA!!!
Backers of vetoed SCHIP bill say it is
All Things Considered, October 3, 2007 · President Bush has made good on his promise to veto a bill to expand a popular children's health insurance program, saying the bill could lead the nation toward a system of socialized medicine.
But backers of the measure, who are working to override the veto, say the president doesn't understand how the bill would actually work.
At issue is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP. It currently covers about 6 million children in families that earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid program for the poor, but not enough to afford their own, private health insurance. The bill the president vetoed would have added $35 billion to the program over the next five years — enough to cover about 10 million children total.
"I believe in private medicine," Bush told an audience in Lancaster, Penn., on Wednesday morning. "I believe in helping poor people, which was the intent of SCHIP, now being expanded beyond its initial intent. I also believe that the federal government should make it easier for people to afford private insurance. I don't want the federal government making decisions for doctors and customers."
Not Administered by the Government
But SCHIP isn't the kind of program where government officials make medical decisions. Under SCHIP, children are enrolled in private health insurance.
"Typically, children have a choice from among competing private health-insurance companies," says Stan Dorn, a senior research associate with the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank. "There's no federally specified benefits package. There's no individual entitlement."
The president also complained that the bill would cover too many children who don't need federal help. "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.
Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.
Health Care Confusion for All
Still, Dorn says the real irony is that the bill, which was negotiated largely by Republicans in the Senate, goes a long way toward meeting the goals that Bush said he wanted for the program.
"It's limited the ability to go up the income scale. It's focused resources on the poorest uninsured kids. It's imposed new duties on states to prevent government funds from crowding out employer coverage," Dorn says.
In other words, the bill addresses all of the president's complaints, including his concern that families with private coverage now will drop it in favor of government-subsidized care.
But it's not just the president who is confused; Democrats are, too. Last week, at a news conference, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told the story of 12-year-old Deamonte Driver, the Maryland boy who died earlier this year after an untreated abscessed tooth turned into a brain infection.
"He had a toothache," Hoyer said, "but he didn't have health insurance, and his folks could not access dental care."
Actually, Deamonte Driver did have health insurance. He had Medicaid. His mother just couldn't find a dentist who would accept that Medicaid coverage — which is a whole different problem.
Meanwhile, Congress has continued funding for the SCHIP program through mid-November while the bigger battle plays out. A House override vote on the president's veto is now scheduled for Oct. 18.
Link to article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685
The $83,000 question. SCHIP income guidelines
I agree that the bill is a bit confusing, but I think it's great so many of us are actually looking into it to find out what it is really about. I think the New York Times article below clarifies the income guidelines pretty well. I also want to say that I heard that if we go with Bush's $5 billion plan for SCHIP it will be grossly underfunded, as apparently, it is already underfunded and many kids who qualify with the current income guidelines cannot get on SCHIP, so I hope he is willing to at least compromise and give more money to the program if his veto isn't overridden. It's for a good cause, darn it!
"Oct. 16 — It is the $83,000 question: Could children with that amount of family income qualify for subsidized health insurance under the bipartisan bill passed by Congress and vetoed by President Bush?
When the House votes Thursday on whether to override the veto, Republicans will insist that the answer is yes. They will express outrage that rich children could get coverage from the government while hundreds of thousands of poor children still go uninsured.
Democrats say it is a total distortion for Mr. Bush and his Republican allies to say that the bill allows coverage with family incomes up to $83,000 a year.
Who is right? Each side appears to overstate its case. The bill does not encourage or prohibit coverage of children with family incomes at that level.
Of the 6.6 million children now covered by the program, most come from families with incomes well below $83,000, and the bill would give states financial incentives to sign up low-income children who are eligible but not enrolled.
In general, children with family incomes below the poverty level ($20,650 for a family of four) are eligible for Medicaid. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is meant for families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.
Mr. Bush said Monday that the bill would expand eligibility for the program up to $83,000.
But Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and an architect of the bill, said Tuesday that the president’s argument was specious. “About 92 percent of the kids will be under 200 percent of the poverty level,” Mr. Hatch said at a news conference with supporters of the bill, including the singer Paul Simon.
Another Republican author of the bill, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said the White House claims were “flatly incorrect.”
States establish income limits for the child health program. A recent survey by the Congressional Research Service found that 32 states had set limits at twice the poverty level or less, while 17 states had limits from 220 percent to 300 percent of the poverty level. Only one state, New Jersey, has a higher limit. It offers coverage to children with family incomes up to 350 percent of the poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four.
In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature this year passed a bill that would have raised the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. The Bush administration rejected the proposal, saying it would have allowed the substitution of public coverage for private insurance.
States that cover middle-income children often charge premiums and co-payments on a sliding scale, so the coverage is not free.
While the bill passed by Congress would not prohibit states from setting the income limit at $82,600, it would set stringent new standards for such coverage.
In general, after Oct. 1, 2010, a state could not receive any federal money to cover children above 300 percent of the poverty level unless a vast majority of its low-income children — those at or below 200 percent of the poverty level — were already covered. To meet this test, a state would have to show that the proportion of its low-income children with insurance was at least equal to the average for the 10 states with the highest rates of coverage of low-income children.
Moreover, if a state was allowed to cover children over 300 percent of the poverty level, the federal payment for those children would, in most cases, be reduced. New Jersey and New York would be exempt from the cuts if they met the bill’s other requirements.
Citing that provision, the White House said Oct. 6 that the bill included a “grandfather clause” allowing higher payment rates for children above 300 percent of the poverty level in New Jersey and New York.
Jocelyn A. Guyer, a researcher at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University, said: “This is a wildly contentious political issue, but it’s largely a theoretical question. More than 99 percent of children in the program are below three times the poverty level, and New York is the only state that has expressed any interest in going to four times the poverty level.”
Suzanne Esterman, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Department of Human Services, said that 3,000 of the 124,000 children in the state program — about 2.4 percent — had family incomes exceeding three times the poverty level.
Some of the current confusion can be traced back to a bill introduced in March by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, both Democrats. They would have explicitly allowed all states to expand eligibility to families making four times the poverty level. But the bill passed by Congress did not go that far." -by Robert Pear
Well, for SCHIP I posted from the Library of Congress....
and for Bush's transcript I posted a copy of the real thing. Now if you want to delve into conspiracy theories ala Dan Rather and think I cooked the Yale transcript, more power to you. Liberals post from the New York Times all the time....a more partisan source as far as print media does not exist...unless it is the moveon.org site. You know that as well as I do. This really has become a Bush bash-a-thon...and it is somewhat surprising that you join in that...when you purport to be above that sort of thing. However, to each his own. Takes all kinds to make the world go round.
EXACTLY. Bush didn't want SCHIP but he darn
healthcare for children is socialism but this is not. He is about 5 beers short of a 6 pack!!
My biggest concern is how many illegals are
+
1 MILLION ILLEGALS have mortgages!!
nm
This thread is about bailing out illegals,
but I don't agree with bailing out the banks and CEOs either.
Question about SCHIP and children with pre-existing conditions
I don't have children, but do have pre-existing conditions and pay an obscene amount for health insurance coverage. My questions are these: 1. Does SCHIP cover children with pre-existing conditions? 2. Can a person/family secure private sector insurance if their child has pre-existing conditions, and if so the approximate cost of coverage?
Bullhockey, illegals are paid in cash, there is NO tax being taken out. nm
x
Illegals voting???? One word ACORN. nm
nm
I want secure borders to keep out terrorists and illegals...
Having lived in a border state and, now, even further north, it is evident that illegal immigrants are taking over our country. We are in a financial crisis and yet, much of a social service money goes to those who do not even pay taxes on the money they earn. They sure as heck spend our taxes, though. I am not against immigrants, just those who do not do it legally. There are certain hoops that need to be jumped through and, I bleieve, are well worth it to live in this great country.
By law he can detain illegals......unfoturtunately our laws
nm
And yet MILLIONS of illegals are taking jobs in this
nm
you're wrong, S. FLA the illegals paid on the books
at least the ones I know.....the ones who did arrive with at least a visa.....and who get paid off a company payroll and not off the books or in cash is what I mean....
we'd be better off without illegals..he deserves a commendation, not a civil suit...
++
heck I wouldn't mind giving illegals benefits if I could
and i'm nervous about my 3 month waiting period at my new job for health insurance!
Hey, if they're smoking cigs, they're paying for SCHIP.
xx
|
