Editorials, Opinion Pieces Discuss SCHIP Reauthorization Bill

Main Category: Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIP
Article Date: 02 Oct 2007 - 10:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions

Summaries of editorials, opinion pieces and a letter to the editor that examine the debate over compromise legislation to reauthorize and expand SCHIP, as well as related issues, appear below.

Editorials

• Akron Beacon Journal: The compromise bill "takes long strides toward the goal of reducing responsibly the rate of uninsurance among children, a goal the president insists he supports," despite his promise to veto the legislation, according to a Beacon Journal editorial. The editorial states, "If Bush keeps his veto pledge, Congress must seek to override, and if it fails, as is likely, consider temporary steps to keep SCHIP and the battles running" (Akron Beacon Journal, 9/28).
  
  
• Charleston Gazette: "It's shameful that ... the White House may cold-heartedly reject this attempt to protect more kids" with a veto of the compromise bill, according to a Gazette editorial. "There has never been a better time to override a veto," and lawmakers "who do so would be showing kindness both to children and to business," the editorial concludes (Charleston Gazette, 9/27).
  
  
• Connecticut Post: "Too many children might get health insurance" -- that "apparently dire outcome is the reasoning behind President Bush's promised veto" of the compromise bill, according to a Post editorial. The editorial concludes, "If the president does in fact decide that health insurance for children in need is somehow a bad thing, Congress must override his veto. Let the president know where our priorities lie" (Connecticut Post, 9/26).
  
  
• Houston Chronicle: "Championing the right of the poor to cheap cigarettes while opposing affordable medical insurance for their children is not a rational public health policy," according to a Chronicle editorial. The editorial adds that Texas "desperately needs the additional dollars SCHIP expansion would bring to cover more than 1 million eligible youngsters here" and that "Bush should consider their welfare and the program's bipartisan support and refrain from vetoing this much-needed legislation" (Houston Chronicle, 9/27).
  
  
• Jackson Clarion-Ledger: Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) "could be the voice of reason in the debate over federal funding for" SCHIP because he introduced the SCHIP Extension Act, according to the Clarion-Ledger. The legislation would "overcome a veto by extending and modestly boosting" funds for SCHIP and would "ensure the program continues," the editorial states (Jackson Clarion-Ledger, 9/27).
  
  
• New York Times: "Bush seems determined to use the children's program to take a stand against what he calls 'an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American,'" and he "would rather sacrifice the health of uninsured children than yield an inch of ideological ground," according to a Times editorial. If Bush vetoes the bill, "it will be incumbent on all Republicans in the House who value health care over ideological warfare to summon the courage and vote to override him," according to the editorial (New York Times, 9/29).
  
  
• Sacramento Bee: "Americans will have to prevail upon President Bush to sign" the compromise bill, according to a Bee editorial. The editorial states, "The 10th anniversary of SCHIP should be a cause for celebration," adding, "This successful, bipartisan program has improved the nation's health insurance coverage of children," and "Bush could have a part in this shared success story by signing" the legislation (Sacramento Bee, 9/28).
  
  
• Tennessean: The threat by Bush to veto the compromise bill represents "politics at its worst" because the "White House knows health care costs are increasing at a rate greater than federal assistance but appears dead-set on forcing Americans into private health coverage they cannot afford," according to a Tennessean editorial. The editorial states, "Whether the goal is to score ideological points, make the rich in the health care industry richer or both, the result is shortchanging children's well-being" (Tennessean, 9/28).
  
  
• Washington Post: Bush "appears determined to veto the $35 billion expansion of" SCHIP, and "there's scant hope of changing the president's mind," according to a Post editorial. It concludes that the administration's SCHIP proposal, "to increase spending by less than $5 billion over five years, would fall $14 billion short of what's needed to maintain existing coverage in SCHIP alone -- never mind adding the millions of eligible but uncovered children the president once said he was determined to sign up," adding, "Where's the commitment in that?" (Washington Post, 10/1).
  

Opinion Pieces

• Martin Kady, The Politico: "The way Democrats see it, President Bush's promised veto of the children's health insurance bill is a gift from the political gods," columnist Kady writes in an opinion piece in The Politico. According to Kady, "Democrats are planning to slowly play out their hand on this issue, taking their time with a veto override vote while vowing more votes on" the compromise bill in future weeks, a move that will allow them "until at least mid-November to keep children's health front and center" (Kady, The Politico, 9/26).
  
  
• Stuart Rothenberg, Roll Call: Bush "has no political capital left, no reservoir of goodwill either on Capitol Hill or in the country at large with which to rally opposition" to the compromise bill, and his "political capital has morphed into political baggage," Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, writes in a Roll Call opinion piece. Rothenberg adds, "Individuals can decide for themselves whether the final bill deserves passage, but one thing is crystal clear: The combination of considerable Republican support for the proposal combined with the president's and the Republican Party's weak standing means that opponents of reauthorization of SCHIP are shooting themselves in the foot" (Rothenberg, Roll Call, 9/27).
  
  
• Mary Nell Bryan, Tennessean: "No one in America, and especially not our children, should suffer because they are uninsured," Bryan, president of the Children's Hospital Alliance of Tennessee, writes in a Tennessean opinion piece. Bryan adds, "When the patient is a child and uninsured, it's evidence of society gone awry. Leaders need to reauthorize and fund SCHIP appropriately or risk the health and future of millions of children" (Bryan, Tennessean, 9/28).
  
  
• Jerry Lee, Tennessean: The "fiscal realities" of the proposed expansion of SCHIP "beg the question of why President Bush is holding fast to his veto threat while millions of working families live one broken bone or asthma attack away from financial ruin or worse," Lee, president of the Tennessee State Federation, writes in a Tennessean opinion piece. Lee writes that "it's time for the president to get his priorities straight" because "children are our future" and more of them lack health insurance "than ever" (Lee, Tennessean, 9/28).
  
  
• Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), Tennessean: "No child should be without health insurance coverage because congressional leaders cannot reach a consensus," and, as a result, lawmakers should pass the SCHIP Extension Act, which would "extend and fully fund SCHIP an additional 18 months and increase federal funding" by 33%, Wamp writes in a Tennessean opinion piece. Wamp concludes, "While this is not a permanent solution, it would provide an opportunity for Congress to work together and agree on a final bill worthy of becoming law, which the current bill clearly is not" (Wamp, Tennessean, 9/28).
  
  
• Sebastian Mallaby, Washington Post: Bush's SCHIP veto threat "is crazy" politically and "in policy terms, the veto looks a little crazy, too," columnist Mallaby writes in a Post opinion piece. Mallaby writes that the "veto would be based on misleading statistics and an exaggerated faith in markets," ignoring that "there are limits to how well a private health market can function" because "there are limits to the empowerment of consumers" (Mallaby, Washington Post, 10/1).
  

Letter to the Editor
"Why must a government program, designed to provide health insurance to all children in 'poor' households, be expanded instead to give flexibility to cover more adults and children in households making up to four times the poverty level?" Richard Ralston, executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine, asks in a USA Today letter to the editor. Ralston concludes, "Is that an accident, or is making children dependent on politicians the express purpose of this legislation?" (Ralston, USA Today, 9/28).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.