Rep. Fishbein Voted Against Bills That Reduce College Aid to Legal Connecticut Residents, Directly Mirror Current Federal Healthcare Law

State Representative Craig Fishbein (R-90) this week voted against legislation that would provide substantial college financial benefits to undocumented immigrants to the detriment of legal residents, and also against legislation that would mandate Connecticut insurers cover specific medical issues already enacted under federal Obamacare law.

The first bill, S.B. 4 – An Act Assisting Students Without Legal Immigration Status with the Cost of College – extends eligibility for institutional financial aid to attend a state public higher education institution to certain students, including those who lack legal immigration status. The bill extends eligibility for aid to these students, to the extent allowed by federal law, if they meet certain residency, age, and criminal history requirements and file an affidavit about their intent to legalize their immigration status with the institution they are attending.

“Opening up these limited institutional aid funds to undocumented students dilutes the pool of available resources for legal residents and effectively increases their overall college costs, and I could not support it,” Rep. Fishbein said. “Adding even more financial burden to legal Connecticut students who are already paying high college tuition and fees is unfair and does nothing to help our state move forward, attract business, reduce the deficit or create jobs. Passing policies that take away from one group to give to others is shortsighted and detrimental to the future health of our state.”

The second piece of legislation, H.B. 5210 – An Act Mandating Insurance Coverage of Essential Health Benefits and Expanding Mandated Health Benefits for Women, Children and Adolescents – requires certain health insurance policies cover ten essential health benefits, which are the same benefits the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires policies to cover.

During floor debate, many legislators shared concerns that certain parts of the legislation specifically provided protections for women but excluded men, including smoking cessation and domestic violence programs. Legislators also wondered whether those exclusions could run afoul of federal equal access protections. It was also noted that while the legislation was almost a direct copy of current, established federal healthcare law some potentially controversial parts were removed, including pieces related to abortion rights.  When concerns were raised about the state passing legislation already enshrined in federal law, proponents remarked that it was generally considered to be in anticipation of a repeal of the ACA.

“Once again, the Connecticut legislature promoted and passed a bill that does little more than create political, feel-good headlines while doing almost nothing to address the pressing concerns facing our residents,” Rep. Fishbein said. “If signed into law, this legislation will create a new state statute that is virtually identical to current federal legislation, potentially discriminates against a large population, will undoubtedly increase insurance costs statewide and possibly reduce available choice in healthcare plans being offered to our state.”