Editorials, Opinion Pieces, Letters To The Editor Address SCHIP

Main Category: Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIP
Article Date: 15 Oct 2007 - 9:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

Summaries of editorials, opinion pieces and letters to the editor addressing President Bush's veto of legislation that would have reauthorized and expanded SCHIP appear below.

Editorials

• Baltimore Sun: The campaign to override President Bush's veto of legislation "isn't going well" from a "Maryland perspective," the Sun writes in an editorial. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) was "the only Marylander to vote against" the SCHIP bill and "has reveled in the attention" from the vote, "saying he was pleased to be identified as the only one who got it right," the Sun notes. If Bush's veto is upheld, "tens of thousands" of Maryland children will lose their health care benefits, the editorial continues. It urges Bartlett to "reconsider the various options for SCHIP on the merits" of a program that was "designed primarily by Senate Republicans to help ... working people who can't get insurance through employers and can't afford the full cost of buying it on their own." For many people, "SCHIP is a vital safety net," the editorial concludes (Baltimore Sun, 10/11).
  
  
• Christian Science Monitor: Concerns about children's health care "should never be used as a political football, [but] that's the case with" SCHIP, which has "become a campaign 'wedge' issue" when it instead should be "a window of opportunity for a consensus on reform of health care," the Monitor writes in an editorial. The editorial suggests that Congress "make money available directly to poor families" as "a tax credit" to enable them "to pay for health care providers of their choice ... or pay their share of employer-based insurance." The credit could be "indexed to rising health care costs and based on different costs by region." The editorial concludes, "The issue of health care need not be a third rail in American politics, used to burn. Renewal of SCHIP the right way can play to people's hopes, not their fears" (Christian Science Monitor, 10/10).
  
  
• New York Times: When the SCHIP veto override vote takes place next week, "any legislators from New York or New Jersey who fail to support this essential program will be sabotaging their own state's program and, far worse, punishing their own state's children," the Times writes in an editorial. It notes that those two states -- "where health care costs are especially high -- have been the most aggressive in trying to expand coverage to middle-income children, not just the near-poor who are the chief targets of SCHIP." If the veto "is sustained, both would see their efforts thwarted," the Times continues (New York Times, 10/12).
  
  
• Oklahoman: "Those urging an override" of Bush's veto "use emotion-laded arguments that avoid the hard question of whether people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to obtain it," according to an editorial in the Oklahoman. The expansion of SCHIP would cause the responsibility "for the health care of millions of children" to "pass from the family to Uncle Sam," the editorial continues, so if federal "coverage of children becomes an entitlement for all but the wealthiest of citizens, a major step toward universal health care will be taken. This is why Bush vetoed the bill." The editorial concludes, "We agree ... that the private sector offers a more efficient and cost-effective approach to health care than the bureaucracy. Yet the override truck rolls on without stopping for the hard question" (Oklahoman, 10/10).
  
  
• Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: "The over-inflated political football known as" SCHIP "continues to be an embarrassment to President Bush, the Democrat-controlled Congress and all those operatives who believe that scoring partisan points is more important than health care for uninsured young people," according to a Democrat and Chronicle editorial. The editorial writes that the Democratic congressional leadership "should stop trying to round up votes for an override of Bush's veto and instead come up with a reauthorization plan that captures more, though likely not all, of the children now without coverage." It concludes, "What politicians don't seem to realize is that none of them, whatever their party banner, looks good when children's health is used so cynically as political leverage" (Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 10/11).
  

Opinion Pieces

• Michael Petit, The Hill: Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) in 2004 won an election against a Republican candidate in Texas' 17th congressional district -- "home to the president's Crawford Ranch" and a district in which Republicans outnumber Democrats "by a nearly 3-to-1 margin" -- in a victory that "had everything to do with SCHIP," Petit, president of Vote Kids, writes in The Hill. Petit concludes, "The president, in his veto of SCHIP, and his congressional allies may well be taking what they believe is a principled stand in support of their deep anti-government ideology," but "at least in the president's own congressional district, the ideology does not seem to run so deep" (Petit, The Hill, 10/10).
  
  
• Paul Krugman, New York Times: "Two weeks ago, the Democratic response to President Bush's weekly radio address was delivered by a 12-year-old, Graeme Frost," who sustained brain injuries in a 2004 automobile accident and is enrolled in SCHIP, columnist Krugman writes in a Times opinion piece. Frost is "exactly the kind of child the program is intended to help," Krugman continues, but "that didn't stop the right from mounting an all-out smear campaign against him and his family." He adds, "Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates the true depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country has universal health insurance, but in America, insurance is now out of reach for many hard-working families, even if they have incomes some might call middle-class" (Krugman, New York Times, 10/12).
  
  
• E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: "Conservatives claim to be in favor of stable families, small businesses, hard work, private schools, investment and homeownership," columnist Dionne writes in a Post opinion piece, adding, "So why in the world are so many on the right attacking the family of Graeme Frost?" He continues, "The real issue here is whether uninsured families with earnings similar to the Frosts' need government help to buy health coverage," and with the "average family policy in employer-provided plans now costing more than $12,000 annually -- the price is usually higher for families trying to buy it on their own -- the answer is plainly yes." Dionne concludes, "All the conservative attacks on a boy from Baltimore who dared to speak out will not make this issue go away" (Dionne, Washington Post, 10/12).
  

Letters to the Editor

• Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), Charlotte Observer: When SCHIP began in 1997, "I supported it," and "I still support" it, but this bill "has lost its focus" because it "opens up avenues for illegal immigrants, wealthier families and adults to be covered," Myrick writes in an Observer letter to the editor responding to an Oct. 4 editorial. She adds, "We need to work together as Americans in a bipartisan way to correct" these problems, because this "particular bill was not considered by any committee in Congress, and ... it promotes too much government involvement in family health care decisions." She continues, "I support SCHIP enhancements, but not this misunderstood bill" (Myrick, Charlotte Observer, 10/11).
  
  
• Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Chicago Tribune: "A 'second look at the facts' reveals more than a few problems with" the SCHIP bill, which would modify a program that originally was "designed to provide health care for low-income children," Biggert writes in a letter to the editor in response to an Oct. 5 Tribune editorial. She continues, "But in Illinois, 45% of the SCHIP recipients are adults -- not children," adding that "[a]ccording to the state's projections," the state will spend "more SCHIP money on adults than on children during the next fiscal year." Biggert concludes, "I would like nothing better than to vote for a good SCHIP bill. Let's quit the political nonsense and pass a compromise that puts needy children first and pays for it honestly" (Biggert, Chicago Tribune, 10/11).
  
  
• Jim Wordelman, Idaho Statesman: "AARP believes that SCHIP is a smart and affordable way to reduce the number of uninsured people in this country," and "paying for children's health coverage with a tobacco tax could help improve the health of the entire country by reducing smoking at all ages," Wordelman, state director for AARP Idaho, writes in a Statesman letter to the editor (Idaho Statesman, 10/10).
  
  
• Edward Langston, USA Today: "It is unconscionable that in a country as prosperous as the United States is, the number of uninsured children has increased by nearly one million over the past two years," Langston, board chair of the American Medical Association, writes in a USA Today letter to the editor. He says that is "critical" for Congress to reauthorize SCHIP "so that the 6.6 million children who rely on the program aren't forced to join the swelling ranks of the uninsured" (Langston, USA Today, 10/12).
  
  
• Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Wall Street Journal: "We were dismayed by the mischaracterization" in a Sept. 28 Journal editorial on the SCHIP reauthorization legislation, Hatch and Grassley write in a letter to the editor. They continue, "You did not accurately portray the work and diligence that went into crafting this truly bipartisan compromise, which passed the Senate twice with 18 Republican senators voting 'aye.'" The senators conclude, "This is not an entitlement program. The legislation passed by the House would have turned SCHIP into an uncapped entitlement, but the compromise bill maintains the Senate position for a capped block grant" (Hatch/Grassley, Wall Street Journal, 10/12).
  

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