Chuck Grassley: “we simply, then, have an honest disagreement on whether we want to cover additional low-income kids. Some Members do…”

“we simply, then, have an honest disagreement on whether we want to cover additional low-income kids. Some Members do; some Members do not. I am on the side that wants to cover additional low-income children who are eligible for coverage. It is as simple as that. The other main difference is the income eligibility for children. Right now, 91 percent of the SCHIP funds are being spent on kids at or below 200 percent of poverty. Under current law, States have the flexibility to adjust their income eligibility to respond to rising health care costs and the cost of living within a particular State because it differs so much between California and Iowa, to name two States. The Lott amendment imposes a 'Washington knows best' mentality regarding a State's ability to determine what income within that State is most appropriate. And then it goes one step further: It reduces the Federal match for covering kids above 200 percent of poverty. There are 18 States that currently cover kids above 200 percent of poverty. Under this proposal, a State currently receiving the enhanced match under SCHIP for coverage of eligible children would see that match reduced for those very same children. While I would prefer that all States focus on children at or below 200 percent of poverty, the fact remains that $42,000 a year for a family of four is a lot harder to get by on in some States than in other States.”