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

Main Category: Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIP
Article Date: 11 Oct 2007 - 10:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

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

Editorials

• Detroit News: The "tug-of-war" over SCHIP reauthorization "provides the Republican presidential candidates with an opportunity to move from beneath the shadow -- or is it a dark cloud? -- of President Bush," according to a News editorial. The editorial concludes that whichever candidate can "articulate a sensible solution for restoring SCHIP will set himself apart on an issue that is critical for voters" (Detroit News, 10/9).
  
  
• Foster's Daily Democrat: It would be "the height of liberal irresponsibility to enact" SCHIP reauthorization legislation "that will provide federal support to families with annual incomes as high as $80,000," according to a Daily Democrat editorial. The editorial continues, "We hope the outcome of negotiations between Congress and the Bush administration will come closer to the centrist views of responsible conservatives" (Foster's Daily Democrat, 10/8).
  
  
• Honolulu Star-Bulletin: Bush in "typical fashion" justifies his "indefensible" veto of the SCHIP reauthorization bill "with half- and stretched-out truths," according to a Star-Bulletin editorial. The editorial adds, "Members aligned with Bush's ideological position should reconsider, and the president, who spurned congressional offers for collaboration, should come up with an acceptable alternative" (Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 10/8).
  
  
• Lincoln Journal Star: Nebraska's four Republican members of Congress "need to return to our state's fine tradition of responsible, pragmatic problem-solving when it comes to the controversial issue of providing health care for children" by "standing up against" Bush's veto, according to a Journal Star editorial. The editorial concludes that the "Republicans in Nebraska's congressional delegation need to stop being part of the problem and start working on solutions" because the U.S. health care system "becomes more dysfunctional every year" (Lincoln Journal Star, 10/7).
  
  
• Long Island Newsday: Bush is starting to lose the "war of words over government-funded health insurance for children" because he is "now talking compromise," according to a Newsday editorial. The editorial states that bipartisan supporters of the SCHIP expansion bill "should hold firm" because covering health care for uninsured children is a "fight worth having," and if they win, "so will the nation's children" (Long Island Newsday, 10/9).
  
  
• Christian Science Monitor: "Congress can both reach children whose parents earn more than twice the poverty level and preserve employer-based insurance" through a tax credit that would make "money available directly to poor families" and would allow them "to pay for health care providers of their choice for their children or pay their share of employer-based insurance," a Monitor editorial states. "Such an idea should become the basis for a compromise between Mr. Bush and Congress, assuming his veto" of the SCHIP bill "is upheld in the House, as expected," according to the Monitor (Christian Science Monitor, 10/10).
  
  
• New York Times: Claims by Bush that many states have spent SCHIP funds on adults and have not enrolled an adequate number of low-income children are a "distortion and a diversion" and "should not deter Congress from overriding the president's veto of" the SCHIP bill, according to a Times editorial. The editorial adds that Bush, who has called on Congress to support legislation that "moves adults off this children's program," is "either woefully unaware or deliberately ignoring that the bill he vetoed would ... end coverage for childless adults after a transition period" and prevent the enrollment of more adults in SCHIP (New York Times, 10/10).
  
  
• Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News: Congressional Democrats and Republicans should channel the energy they use to attack each other over the SCHIP reauthorization bill "into a positive outcome -- finding a realistic means to provide insurance coverage for the children of working poor families," according to a Morning News editorial. Congress "should not politic whether more children of working poor Americans have access to health care," but instead they "should find a way to make it happen and ensure that the funding reaches its intended demographic -- children" (Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News, 10/6).
  
  
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer: If Republicans "want to help working families, the quickest route would be for a few more of them to agree to override the president's veto of a bipartisan plan for expanding insurance opportunities," according to a Post-Intelligencer editorial. The editorial concludes, "The bottom line remains the same: Without the bipartisan bill, more kids than necessary will be denied coverage, even if Bush does compromise" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 10/8).
  
  
• Virginian-Pilot: The "best solution to the SCHIP standoff" is for Bush and Congress "to provide adequate funding to continue the program at current or slightly expanded income levels," according to a Virginian-Pilot editorial. The editorial concludes that after this goal is achieved, the "nation needs to elect a president and a Congress that will get serious about combining public and private resources and ingenuity to allow every American a basic level of affordable health care" (Virginian-Pilot, 10/9).

Opinion Pieces

• Matt Heinz, Arizona Daily Star: U.S. residents "must quickly come to the conclusion as a country that citizenship confers a right to health security" and that this "right must include prompt attention to medical and mental ailments as well as preventative measures," Heinz, an internist at Tucson Medical Center and treasurer of Healthy Arizona writes in a Daily Star opinion piece. He continues that "at a minimum, our children must be afforded this right above all" (Heinz, Arizona Daily Star, 10/9).
  
  
• David Rossie, Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin: Bush's notion that uninsured children can seek care at emergency departments shows "his appalling ignorance of how the American health care system works and his equally appalling indifference to those who are the victims of its inadequacies," Rossie, a former associate editor of the Press & Sun-Bulletin, writes in an opinion piece. Bush maintains that the U.S. cannot afford to fund the SCHIP bill. However, that claim comes from a "man whose administration, thanks in large part to its illegal war in Iraq, has plunged the nation into a debt of unprecedented depth," according to Rossie. He adds that "there is more at stake here than just money and the dread possibility that expanded health care for children might imperil his outrageous tax cuts for the extremely wealthy" (Rossie, Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin, 10/7).
  
  
• State Sen. Jack Hatch (D), Des Moines Register: "If Congress does not override the president's veto" of SCHIP, "there is a real chance that the Iowa Legislature will consider cuts to other health care programs -- including those for children, families and the elderly -- to make up for the federal cuts," Hatch, co-chair of the state Legislative Commission on Affordable Health Care, writes in a Register opinion piece, adding, "This is unacceptable" (Hatch, Des Moines Register, 10/9).
  
  
• Sen. Tim Mathern (D-N.D.), Fargo Forum: North Dakota's "lackluster support for SCHIP" is "disappointing at best, and frankly, an embarrassing statement about our priorities," Mathern writes in a Forum opinion piece. He adds, "We should be ashamed that there are millions of kids in America who lack health care coverage -- and thousands in North Dakota." Mathern continues that the reauthorization bill is a "major step in the right direction" (Mathern, Fargo Forum, 10/8).
  
  
• Keith Perrin, New Orleans Times-Picayune: SCHIP opponents claim that it is an "entitlement program for the middle class and a first step to a government medical insurance for all," Perrin, a New Orleans-area physician, writes in a Times-Picayune opinion piece. He adds, "Truth be told, this is a program that provides health care for the children of the working poor, an otherwise neglected group." It is "up to Congress to override [Bush's] ill-advised decision" to veto the reauthorization bill, Perrin continues (Perrin, New Orleans Times-Picayune, 10/9).
  
  
• Ruth Ann Daily, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: The "most unfair and illogical aspect of the SCHIP bill is its pretense of paying for itself by levying an additional 61 cents-per-pack tax on cigarettes," which would "disproportionately hurt" the low-income families the program is intended to help, columnist Daily writes in a Post-Gazette opinion piece. She continues that the "only way" to have a national debate on the proper expansion of SCHIP "was for the president to ignore critics whose goodwill he can never earn and veto the bill for a program he has always supported." She concludes, "This late in his presidency he has nothing to lose, and the country has a lot to gain" (Daily, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/8).
  
  
• Ruth Marcus, Washington Post: The major Republican presidential candidates have "embraced" the presidential veto of the SCHIP bill, "demonstrating in varying degrees a combination of technical ignorance, ideological bluster and -- though this is less certain -- political miscalculation," Post columnist Marcus writes in an opinion piece. Their support for the veto can "be explained by GOP voters' anger at what they see as out-of-control government spending," but that "has to be balanced against the broad support for SCHIP expansion even among Republican voters," according to Marcus. "The sooner these candidates can get the administration to find a face-saving compromise, the better their party's prospects for keeping the White House will be," Marcus concludes (Marcus, Washington Post, 10/10).

Letters to the Editor

• Tevi Troy, Detroit News: Bush "strongly supports" SCHIP as a "way to help children whose families cannot afford private health insurance but do not qualify for Medicaid," Troy, deputy secretary of HHS, writes in a News opinion piece. According to Troy, the Bush administration has a "better idea" than the SCHIP bill: "First, let's find and enroll the 500,000 kids already eligible for SCHIP who haven't signed up. Then let's make health insurance more affordable for all Americans" through tax incentives for those who purchase private coverage and other proposals (Troy, Detroit News, 10/10).
  
  
• Grace-Marie Turner, Washington Post: The SCHIP bill would have provided states with "incentives to bring more affluent, already insured children into the program rather than focusing on lower-income children who are uninsured and whose parents earn $41,000 or less -- the original intent of the program," Turner, president of the Galen Institute, writes in a Post letter to the editor. Bush "has said repeatedly that he wants to sign an SCHIP bill that focuses on lower-income children whose parents make too much to qualify for Medicaid but can't afford private coverage," Turner writes, adding, "But adding millions of middle-income children, many of whom already are insured, to the program would hurt rather than help the children who need help most" (Turner, Washington Post, 10/10).

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