Editorials, Opinion Pieces, Letters Examine Veto Of SCHIP Reauthorization Bill

Main Category: Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIP
Article Date: 10 Oct 2007 - 8:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

Summaries of several recent editorials that address the recent presidential veto of legislation to reauthorize and expand SCHIP, as well as related issues, appear below.

Editorials

• Charleston Daily Mail: "The Democratic plan to double [SCHIP] shows that government will be just as inefficient in providing universal health insurance as it has been in rebuilding New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina," a Daily Mail editorial states. Although subsidized coverage for low-incomes families is a "good idea," the proposed plan of "[s]ubsidizing the middle class who already have private health insurance" is "nonsensical" and could result in a "nation of dependents," according to the Daily Mail. The editorial concludes that a presidential veto was appropriate, adding, "Taxpayers have enough on their plates without having to pay for the health insurance of children in middle-class homes. Parents have some responsibilities the U.S. government should not assume" (Charleston Daily Mail, 10/1).
  
  
• Charleston Gazette: President Bush's "'compassionate conservatism' hid behind closed doors" last week when he vetoed the SCHIP bill -- "one of the most cold-blooded political actions within memory," a Gazette editorial states. "Concerned people" should view the veto "with contempt," the editorial says. The Gazette continues, "His unnecessary Iraq war is costing taxpayers many, many times" the amount that SCHIP expansion would cost, "yet he never frets over the expense." The editorial adds, "His tax giveaways to the wealthy likewise drain enormous sums from the U.S. Treasury, but he merely shrugs. Yet he vetoes medical care for children. That's disgusting" (Charleston Gazette, 10/4).
  
  
• Chicago Tribune: "The president is concerned that the expansion is too costly and would push people who could afford private insurance onto the government rolls. He and other opponents have painted the bill as a back-door move toward universal, government-sponsored health coverage," a Tribune editorial states. It continues, "We share those concerns. But they're misplaced when it comes to this bill. The legislation focuses on lower-income kids whose families make too much to qualify for Medicaid but have few alternatives for health insurance coverage" (Chicago Tribune, 10/5).
  
  
• Jackson Clarion-Ledger: Bush's veto of SCHIP "provides a mom-and-apple-pie basis for the debate," a Clarion-Ledger editorial states. The editorial continues, "Health care for children? Of course! But where do you draw the line? Where does health care for children become an 'entitlement' of all Americans? After all, if the lower middle class, 'working poor,' and poor are entitled to federal health insurance, why not the rest of the people?" The editorial continues, "Mississippi's Sen. Trent Lott (R) has been working to craft a compromise that should be palatable, for now, at least, to continue CHIP funding and slightly expand it." It concludes, "That's the best approach. The politics will continue, and so should CHIP funding while it does" (Jackson Clarion-Ledger, 10/4).
  
  
• Denver Post: The House "should vote to override President Bush's veto of [SCHIP] when it takes up the issue Oct. 18," a Post editorial states. The Post continues, "President Bush, who pushed the federal deficit to staggering levels with his Iraq war spending and also by promoting new entitlement programs such as prescription drug coverage under Medicare, picked the wrong bill to veto in his belated quest to pose as a fiscal conservative" (Denver Post, 10/4).
  
  
• Hartford Courant: "The president is out of touch with the struggle of working families to afford decent health care coverage," a Courant editorial states. The editorial continues, "This program is not a giveaway. Enrollees pay premiums and copays based on income, and states subsidize them. They are in turn reimbursed 65% by the federal government." In addition, with "47 million uninsured Americans and counting," it costs "far less for the government to subsidize insurance premiums than to watch the cost of health care for everyone increase because emergency rooms are crowded with the uninsured," according to the Courant (Hartford Courant, 10/8).
  
  
• Kansas City Star: The "recalcitrant lawmakers" who voted against SCHIP and are disinclined to vote in favor of overriding the president's veto "need to realize that the program reduces health care costs because children can get medical attention before their problems are more serious and costly to treat," a Star editorial states. The editorial concludes that arguments against SCHIP are "designed to appeal to a minority of Americans who believe, like Bush, that tax cuts for the wealthy are a better use of federal dollars than health care for poor children. It's a sad way to think" (Kansas City Star, 10/4).
  
  
• Los Angeles Times: "In purporting to defend against a government takeover of the insurance industry," Bush with his SCHIP veto "blocked one of the best options for lifting families from wholly government-paid entitlements like Medicaid and into private insurance paid for in part by parents," the Times states in an editorial. It notes that SCHIP programs such as California's Healthy Families "entic[e] parents to obtain and contribute to health coverage for their kids." The editorial concludes that if a "few more" members of Congress "get clued in to the wisdom of using government help to introduce families to private health insurance, they will do a world of good for thousands of children" by overriding Bush's veto (Los Angeles Times, 10/8).
  
  
• Lexington Herald-Leader: "We would all be better off in the long run if all children had access to regular care that prevents serious medical problems down the road," a Herald-Leader editorial says, adding, "Insuring kids is smart policy and good public health." The editorial continues, "Is the gain from covering more children worth the loss to the private insurance market? A majority of both the Senate and House (though not a veto-proof majority of the House) wisely said yes" (Lexington Herald-Leader, 10/7).
  
  
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) "is right" in saying that "Bush's veto of a bipartisan bill to dramatically expand children's health insurance clearly shows 'how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people,'" a Journal Sentinel editorial states. The editorial concludes, "The Republicans who believe that the president is just dead wrong on this issue must work to convince others in their party that for the good of the nation and its children they must work with Democrats to override the veto" (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/4).
  
  
• Minneapolis Star Tribune: "The number of uninsured children in the United States is a national disgrace," according to a Star Tribune editorial. The editorial continues, "We understand why conservatives balk at the expansion of subsidized health care. But the president's objections are simply inaccurate." The Star Tribune adds, "This bill does not break with the program's original intent -- serving poor children -- and reach far into middle class" (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 10/5).
  
  
• New York Daily News: Directly following his veto, Bush was "disingenuous" when he "delivered a whopper of a statement: 'I do want Republicans and Democrats to come together to support a bill that focuses on the poor children,'" a Daily News editorial says. It continues, "Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate had done just that when they sent Bush" the bipartisan SCHIP bill, the Daily News continues. The editorial concludes, "Now the question is: What's your plan, Mr. President? And Congress' challenge is finding enough GOP votes to override Bush's ideological naysaying" (New York Daily News, 10/6).
  
  
• Orlando Sentinel: Bush's "unfortunate" veto of SCHIP "could quickly become tragic if the White House and Congress can't put election-year politics aside and reach a compromise," according to a Sentinel editorial. The editorial continues, "Congress ought to put greater restrictions on SCHIP to be sure only children in families without access to affordable insurance are enrolled," adding, "Those safeguards against abuse should be the common ground upon which to build a compromise." The Sentinel concludes, "Of course, that would require Mr. Bush and congressional leaders to put the health of children ahead of politics" (Orlando Sentinel, 10/4).
  
  
• Providence Journal: "If the president and members of Congress had to put up with what most Americans had to put up with instead of the gold-plated federal employees' plan they keep for themselves, you wouldn't see measures like expanding SCHIP being vetoed," a Journal editorial states. It concludes, "Congress needs to override this veto pronto and start trying honestly to bring the chaotic, unjust and wasteful American health system, which legislators protect themselves from, to a level commensurate with other 'developed' nations' systems" (Providence Journal, 10/7).
  
  
• South Florida Sun-Sentinel: "The Bush administration is right that the program ought to be focused on kids, not adults," but the "poverty-level benchmarks the administration insists on using to determine who qualifies are way too low," a Sun-Sentinel editorial states. It continues, "Making the program available to a lot more children, as congressional Democrats want, raises the overall price tag. But it makes sense to give kids as healthy a start as possible as they prepare for and progress through education systems." The Sun-Sentinel adds, "The better off kids are health-wise, the better off the nation will be in the long term" (South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 10/6).
  
  
• Spokane Spokesman-Review: "Economically, it's counterproductive not to cover children's health care," a Spokesman-Review editorial states. Although Bush vetoed the SCHIP bill, it is "just a matter of time -- and a new president -- before popular, bipartisan support for SCHIP wins the day," the editorial continues (Spokane Spokesman-Review, 10/5).
  
  
• Washington Post: Bush said he vetoed the SCHIP bill "not because it cost too much, but because it was a march toward government takeover of health care," a Post editorial states. The editorial continues, "Somehow, we don't recall such lamentations over the 'federalization' of health care when Mr. Bush pressed for the most expensive new entitlement program in decades: adding prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients." The Medicare drug benefit "was inevitably going to encourage some to switch from employer-sponsored private prescription drug coverage to the government-run program. Sound familiar? That wasn't so much of a problem then," the Post notes (Washington Post, 10/7).

Opinion Pieces

• Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "SCHIP strayed from its intended design" -- just as "most government programs" have -- and "this trend will accelerate and sets the stage for government-sponsored universal health care," Kingston writes in a Journal-Constitution opinion piece. Kingston adds that Bush's veto of "this sham" will let Congress "go back to the table and draw up something that makes more sense," such as a proposal that would "reauthorize and extend the program for an additional 18 months." This plan "will give Congress time to craft a bill that will properly reauthorize this program," he writes (Kingston, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/5).
  
  
• Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Charleston Gazette: The presidential veto of the SCHIP bill last week "may be based in principle," but the "bill's critics overstate their case," Capito writes in a Gazette opinion piece. Critics have said that the legislation "would extend government-financed health care to adults and high-income families," Capito writes, adding, "This blurs the facts and overlooks the intent of the law." In addition, despite "concerns about government-run health care," the bill "would actually provide an option for states to offer insurance premium assistance for eligible families with access to a private employer-provided health care plan," according to Capito (Capito, Charleston Gazette, 10/7).
  
  
• Mike Ervin, Charlotte Observer: Bush's veto of SCHIP reauthorization legislation "was cruel to all the uninsured children who would have received coverage"; however, the "cruelest blow was a hidden one -- to foster kids with serious mental illness," Ervin, a disability-rights activist with ADAPT, writes in an Observer opinion piece. The bill contained a provision that would have stopped a CMS rule that will "sharply restrict funding for rehabilitative services for children with disabilities," Ervin writes. Ervin concludes that "it seems that the war is much more important to the Bush administration than giving children health insurance and providing foster care for those with serious mental illness," adding that the "priorities of the Bush administration are terribly askew" (Ervin, Charlotte Observer, 10/5).
  
  
• The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Chicago Sun-Times: Bush has said that he vetoed the SCHIP bill because the "expansion of the program would cover middle-income families" and because the legislation would move the U.S. toward "socialized medicine," but neither of those arguments is "true," Jackson writes in a Sun-Times opinion piece. He concludes, "It is America's shame that one-fifth of all children in this rich nation are raised in poverty. It is simply inexcusable that vulnerable children should be deprived of health care to make an ideological point. The insurance companies are enjoying record profits. The children are at risk and need the care" (Jackson, Chicago Sun-Times, 10/9).
  
  
• Rep. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Foster's Daily Democrat: "SCHIP is a lifeline" to children from low-income families who do not qualify for Medicaid and cannot afford private health insurance, but the bill would "ignore the original intent of SCHIP and radically expand the program by as much as 300%," Gregg writes in a Daily Democrat opinion piece. He adds, "So while I fully support ensuring that all low-income children receive the health care services they deserve, I regretfully cannot support the way this program is being used to expand the size of government, advance a national health care system and pass the cost along to hard-working Americans" (Gregg, Foster's Daily Democrat, 10/7).
  
  
• Ana Menendez, Miami Herald: "Anyone who thinks the [U.S.] doesn't already have taxpayer-supported universal health care is deluded" -- it "just happens to be the most inefficient and costly system imaginable, one in which there is no prevention or follow-up," columnist Menendez writes in a Herald opinion piece. She continues that SCHIP compromise legislation would have expanded coverage to children at the "relatively modest cost of $35 billion over the next five years," which is the same amount that the National Coalition on Health Care estimates hospitals spend annually treating uninsured patients, who are "up to 50% more likely to be hospitalized for a condition that would otherwise be avoidable" (Menendez, Miami Herald, 10/7).
  
  
• Raymond Keating, Long Island Newsday: "Bush should be commended, not criticized, for his veto" of SCHIP legislation by anyone who cares "about affordable, quality health care for both adults and children," columnist Keating writes in a Newsday opinion piece. The "push is now on to vastly expand the costs and reach of this government program," and it is "critical to understand that when government picks up more of the health care tab, nobody really cares about costs," so they "skyrocket," Keating writes. He concludes that the "answer is not more government," but instead "market reforms ... that enhance choice, competition and consumer control" (Keating, Long Island Newsday, 10/8).
  
  
• Douglas Schoen, Long Island Newsday: Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill is an "example of the legislative paralysis that we can expect" from a divided Congress where "bipartisan consensus is something no one in Washington appears willing to stomach," Schoen -- a founding partner of political consulting firm Penn, Schoen & Berland and author of "The Power of the Vote: Electing Presidents, Overthrowing Dictators and Promoting Democracy Around the World" -- writes in a Newsday opinion piece. According to Schoen, the "initiative is far too important to serve as a proxy battle over universal health insurance," and Congress "must renew the program, cognizant of the White House's current occupant, and save longer-term expansion for the future" (Schoen, Long Island Newsday, 10/7).
  
  
• Michael Tanner, Spokane Spokesman-Review: The "SCHIP expansion has never been about helping poor children," because "12 states currently use SCHIP funds to provide taxpayer-funded insurance for adults," and the program is not "targeted to the poor or those most in need," Tanner of the Cato Institute writes in a Spokesman-Review opinion piece. Tanner continues, "SCHIP merely encourages" beneficiaries' "famil[ies] or their family's employer to drop private coverage and switch to the government program -- at taxpayer expense." He concludes that as Democrats hold a vote to override Bush's veto on Oct. 18, "Congress should ignore the rhetoric and uphold this veto" (Tanner, Spokane Spokesman-Review, 10/6).
  
  
• Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), St. Petersburg Times: It is "essential" that lawmakers "come together as Republicans and Democrats to talk about viable alternatives" to the SCHIP compromise legislation, Martinez writes in a St. Petersburg Times op-ed. Martinez continues that he has "introduced an alternative reauthorization proposal composed of three elements: a full reauthorization of SCHIP, a child health care tax credit and an aggressive outreach program to ensure all children eligible for the program have the opportunity to sign up for insurance." According to Martinez, the difference between his proposal and the vetoed SCHIP bill is that his plan "is patient-focused; it retains for families the choice of providers and practitioners and gives parents the resources necessary to add their children to their existing health care plan" (Martinez, St. Petersburg Times, 10/8).
  
  
• Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), Tennessean: Efforts to "label the renewal of SCHIP as a blatant attempt to institute socialized medicine by Democratic officials" do not pass the "smell test," Davis writes in a Tennessean opinion piece. He adds, "There is a question I think people should be asking themselves: Why now did the president veto a popular bill supported by many Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and a vast majority of Americans?" According to Davis, "I think it's time to stop the grandstanding and 'rebranding' attempts so our children can have the health care they deserve and need" (Davis, Tennessean, 10/9).
  
  
• Donna Brazile, Washington Times: "It's time President Bush governed as if he listened to the American People and understood the needs of families struggling to make ends meet," Brazile -- a nationally syndicated columnist; commentator on CNN, ABC and NPR; and former campaign manager for Al Gore -- writes in a Times opinion piece. She continues that spending a "fraction" of the billions spent fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "for our children's health is a good investment in the future" because there is a "crack in the system between Medicare eligibility and affordable private health care" that "nine million kids fall into" (Brazile, Washington Times, 10/8).

Letters to the Editor

• James Flanigan, Albany Times Union: "With all the focus on health care for children, less attention has been directed to another important aspect of the SCHIP bill, the impact on people with disabilities," Rensselaer ARC Executive Director Flanigan writes in a Times Union letter to the editor. Congress had "added wording to the SCHIP bill that will place a moratorium on the ability of the administration to implement regulations that redefine the term 'rehabilitation'" to counter CMS' attempt to redefine the term and "eliminate Medicaid funding for services that are vital to adults and children with disabilities," Flanigan writes (Flanigan, Albany Times Union, 10/7).
  
  
• Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), Philadelphia Inquirer: "What hasn't been widely noted" about SCHIP reauthorization legislation "is that only two-thirds of uninsured children currently eligible are signed up for SCHIP and Medicaid," and the bill "is simply designed to give states the resources and incentives to enroll children who are eligible but not signed up," Brady writes in an Inquirer opinion piece. He concludes that while Democrats "wrestle with the Republicans who voted against the bill, ... concerned parents, grandparents and anyone else who cares about children's health care" should let their "voices be heard" (Brady, Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/8).
  
  
• Leslie Wyatt, Richmond Times-Dispatch: A Times-Dispatch editorial that "paints [SCHIP] reauthorization as a handout to 'rich' families certainly does not align with how most" U.S. residents feel about the program, Children's Hospital of Richmond President and CEO Wyatt writes in a Times-Dispatch letter to the editor. He continues that while the Times-Dispatch has endorsed Bush's veto of SCHIP legislation, Children's Hospital joins "millions of Republicans, Democrats and independents all across the country in continuing to advocate its passage in a veto-override vote to give children access to the health care they need" (Wyatt, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10/8).

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.

• Additional
• References
• Citations