Pete Sessions: “Well, reclaiming the floor, the GAO did a study that criticized this aspect of Medicaid some time ago, and it made some…”

“Well, reclaiming the floor, the GAO did a study that criticized this aspect of Medicaid some time ago, and it made some news; that the net effect of all this is that, on a percapita basis, people in higher income States are getting more out of Medicaid than they are in poorer States, on a fairly substantial basis. They have criticized that policy. Some of those same policies based on that unprincipled approach to health care are at work in this bill. Again, the Federal Government would pick up a substantial percentage of what New York may get if they go to 400 percent. But 350 and 300 percent is, I think, a bit much anyway. For example, about 70,000 upper-middle-class-income families who pay the alternative minimum tax would also qualify for SCHIP under this bill. The program, I think, as a matter of policy, encourages irresponsible spending. Think about this: States who use up all their allotment, many of which obviously are those giving out their richest benefits, profit from States such as Alabama, who are very careful with their spending and stay within their allotments. In years past, if Alabama didn't use all the allotment given to them--and they have to match a portion of it to get that money--that money was redistributed to States who spent more. This is, I think, unfair and not good, sound policy. It has encouraged States to overspend while punishing States who have been conscientious about controlling spending.”