Editorials, Op-Eds Address Veto Of SCHIP Reauthorization, Expansion Bill

Main Category: Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIP
Article Date: 18 Oct 2007 - 12:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

Summaries of several recent editorials and opinion pieces that examine the recent presidential veto of legislation to reauthorize and expand SCHIP appear below.

Editorials

• Boston Globe: The Globe editorial asks what Bush has to "fear" from "a program that is helping children in families who are just getting by financially." Perhaps Bush vetoed the SCHIP bill because of concerns that the legislation would "show the American people that carefully targeted government initiatives make life better for people who weren't helped much" by his tax cuts, according to the Globe. The editorial concludes, "At its core, the SCHIP controversy is all about the purpose of government -- should it help those who have the most or should it offer health insurance, an essential of modern life, to people starting out in life who lack the cushion of wealth?" (Boston Globe, 10/17).
  
  
• Chicago Sun-Times: Bush "blew it when he vetoed a bipartisan health care bill to provide health insurance for nine million of America's poor children," but his "mistake can be corrected on Thursday when the U.S. House of Representatives convenes to override the president's veto," a Sun-Times editorial states. According to the editorial, although Bush "claims the program is a middle-class entitlement," he "is under the false impression that families will cancel perfectly good insurance from work to go on the public dole" and has "obfuscated facts to prove his point" (Chicago Sun-Times, 10/16).
  
  
• Dallas Morning News: Bush said the "right things over the weekend, declaring he wants to end the impasse" over the SCHIP bill, but the "president and legislators who want to expand the program have a long way to go before they reach common ground," according to a Morning News editorial. The editorial states that Bush and Democrats should compromise and expand SCHIP eligibility to children in families with annual incomes as much as 250% of the federal poverty level, a move that would "force the president and conservatives to budge off their insistence on keeping the program at its original limit" and "force Congress to back off from moving the program deeper into the middle class" (Dallas Morning News, 10/16).
  
  
• Denver Rocky Mountain News: Lawmakers "who want to ensure that SCHIP remains a vital means to cover lower-income children without busting the budget should make sure the veto stands and then work for a sustainable compromise, which shouldn't be that difficult to reach," according to a Rocky Mountain News editorial. "A meaningful compromise should keep SCHIP focused on its objective -- covering uninsured kids from low-income families," the editorial states (Denver Rocky Mountain News, 10/16).
  
  
• Philadelphia Inquirer: "House Democrats know they have little hope of overriding" the presidential veto of the SCHIP bill, but "it is still worthwhile to force critics ... to stand up and be counted once again," according to an Inquirer editorial. The editorial adds, "Critics who talk about the SCHIP renewal as though it is a gateway drug to the nanny state ignore the facts (never a problem when a party-line loyalty test is in the offering)" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/17).
  
  
• Raleigh News & Observer: The argument by Bush that a large expansion of SCHIP would lead to "socialized medicine" is "one favored by insurance companies that want to protect their control of the system and their profit margins," a News & Observer editorial states. According to the editorial, "There are few signs that raising the possibility of a greater governmental role in health care bothers the people nearly as much as it bothers those companies" (Raleigh News & Observer, 10/16).
  
  
• USA Today: Bush has said that he vetoed the SCHIP bill because the legislation "would extend benefits to families earning as much as $83,000 a year," but that "claim is misleading at best," as only New York has sought to expand the program to that level and "nothing in the bill mandates it," a USA Today editorial states. "The president's charge is a misleading way to demonize a bill that, while not perfect, would increase health coverage for kids who need it and pay for it with a cigarette tax increase," the editorial states, adding, "The House would do well to look past the president's deceptive rhetoric and override his veto" (USA Today, 10/17).
  
  
• Washington Post: The Bush administration "argues that, because tobacco taxes are effective in reducing smoking," an increase in the federal tobacco tax to fund an SCHIP expansion "would not produce enough to fund SCHIP after the first five years," a Post editorial states. The editorial adds, "That's true -- but it's an argument for the tax, not against it," because tobacco use is the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. (Washington Post, 10/17).
  
  
• Washington Times: The "very commonsensical viewpoint" that SCHIP should cover children in low-income families, not children in middle-income families or adults, "is at odds with the Democratic Party goal of converting SCHIP into a new middle- and upper-middle-class entitlement," a Times editorial states. However, "people seem to be recognizing that" the SCHIP bill "is not the glorious salve for our health care woes that backers describe, and that is good news," the editorial adds (Washington Times, 10/17).
  

Opinion Pieces

• Jim Wooten, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Supporters of the SCHIP bill will not "rest until 10 million children -- and the rest of America -- have taxpayer-provided health insurance with bureaucrats setting the rates and practicing medicine," columnist Wooten writes in a Journal-Constitution opinion piece. "SCHIP reauthorization will be a test of whether official Washington is into governing -- or is simply too mired in partisan politics to get past dreams of 2008," Wooten writes, adding, "This fight is not about children. It's about how adults vote" (Wooten, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/15).
  
  
• Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), Detroit News: The "financing scheme" for the SCHIP bill "doesn't work unless 22 million new Americans begin smoking," and "I will not support any federal action that relies on millions of Americans becoming smokers," Knollenberg writes in a News opinion piece. Knollenberg asks, "When did ... the national Democratic Party decide to become the chief lobbyists for Philip Morris?" (Knollenberg, Detroit News, 10/16).
  
  
• Michelle Malkin, New York Post: "The left-wing elite is in high dudgeon over conservatives who have dared to question the wisdom" of extending SCHIP to "middle-class families, adults and even illegal aliens to the tune of $35 billion -- funding that depends on saddling millions of smokers with new taxes and maintaining their nicotine addictions," columnist Malkin writes in a Post opinion piece. Malkin concludes, "If Republicans don't have the guts to torpedo the Democrats' SCHIP Trojan Horse permanently, they deserve to lose their seats" (Malkin, New York Post, 10/17).
  
  
• Al Hubbard, USA Today: Bush's "priority" on SCHIP "is to ensure the program covers poor children first," Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy and director of the National Economic Council, writes in a USA Today opinion piece. He adds, "Only in Washington is such a simple concept controversial." Hubbard writes that after the House vote on overriding the SCHIP veto, Bush "will repeat his request that the congressional leadership work with his administration to find common ground and ensure that SCHIP fulfills its purpose of covering poor children first" (Hubbard, USA Today, 10/17).
  

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