Editorials, Opinion Pieces Address Veto, Failed Override Vote Of SCHIP Expansion Bill

Main Category: Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIP
Article Date: 22 Oct 2007 - 7:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

Summaries appear below of several recent editorials, opinion pieces and a letter to the editor that examine the recent presidential veto of legislation to reauthorize and expand SCHIP and the House's failed attempt to override the veto.

Editorials

• Charleston Gazette: The veto "was a cruel act by the supposed champion of 'compassionate conservatism,' who spends vastly bigger sums for war," according to a Gazette editorial. "We hope the pressure forces enough GOP loyalists to desert their president and salvage the [SCHIP] expansion," the editorial states, adding, "If America can spend $1 trillion for President Bush's needless Iraq war, surely it can spend $7 billion a year for children's medical care" (Charleston Gazette, 10/17).
  
  
• Chicago Tribune: "The unlikeliest political battle of the year -- over government-sponsored children's health insurance -- took a disappointing turn Thursday" when the House failed to override the presidential veto of the SCHIP bill, according to a Tribune editorial. "So now what?" the editorial asks, adding, "It is time for a bipartisan compromise with the White House" that would "preserve the current enrollment of kids while improving some of the system's shortcomings." Bush and Congress both "understand the importance of this program," the Tribune writes, concluding, "Congressional leaders need to keep in mind those kids in low-income families who are already in the program" and "get a deal done that the president can sign," the editorial concludes (Chicago Tribune, 10/19).
  
  
• Detroit Free Press: Republicans "have been blowing a lot of smoke, and distorting a lot of facts," during the debate over the SCHIP bill, according to a Free Press editorial. Michigan "is so economically stressed that it's unfathomable any Michigan member of Congress would say no to SCHIP," the editorial states, adding, "There's no decent reason to deprive [families] of peace of mind over their children's health" (Detroit Free Press, 10/18).
  
  
• Denver Post: "It costs far less for the government to subsidize insurance premiums for those struggling to meet their health care needs than to have the cost of health care for everyone increase because emergency rooms are crowded with the uninsured" -- one of the "main reasons" that Congress should override the veto, according to a Post editorial. The editorial concludes, "We hope lawmakers have the courage to override the veto" because "America's children deserve a healthy future" (Denver Post, 10/17).
  
  
• Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "Other approaches might provide more efficient, less expensive ways of extending coverage to the uninsured," but "none is developed enough to offer a practical, available alternative" to the SCHIP bill, which "already has won support from a large majority of both chambers in Congress and more than 40 of the nation's governors," according to a Star-Telegram editorial. The editorial concludes, "A vote to override Bush isn't a vote for reckless spending -- it's a vote for rationality" (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 10/18).
  
  
• Houston Chronicle: "Having a citizen from your state in the White House usually means all kinds of advantages," but Texas, "which has the greatest number of uninsured children in the country, will only suffer if ... Bush prevails with his veto" of the SCHIP bill, according to a Chronicle editorial. In the event that Congress fails to override the veto, Texas "stands to lose the most in wasted productivity and runaway health costs," the editorial states, adding, "Failing to expand SCHIP might curry favor with the White House," but, "long after Bush leaves office, they will have to account to Texans for the cost and suffering of his reckless veto" (Houston Chronicle, 10/17).
  
  
• Long Island Newsday: The high number of uninsured U.S. residents is a "shameful situation" that "won't improve anytime soon unless the House finds the votes" to override the veto of the SCHIP bill, according to a Newsday editorial. The editorial states, "Bush's hard line against SCHIP expansion is callous and potentially costly," and should focus on "protecting uninsured children," rather than the "private health care system" (Long Island Newsday, 10/18).
  
  
• Manchester Union Leader: The debate over the SCHIP bill "is not about insuring the poor" but "is about who insures the middle class," according to a Union Leader editorial. "Make middle-class families dependent upon the government for their health care, and they become a guaranteed Democratic Party constituency," the editorial states, adding that "Bush vetoed the SCHIP expansion bill for all the right reasons" (Manchester Union Leader, 10/18).
  
  
• The Oklahoman: A successful override of the veto would have expanded SCHIP "from its original purpose ... to a middle-class entitlement covering families earning up to $62,000 a year," The Oklahoman writes in an editorial, adding, "The problem with entitlements is costs can't be contained because everyone who meets income standards qualifies for benefits." According to the editorial, "when government provides a benefit to Americans who otherwise could handle a responsibility themselves, it crosses a serious social line." The editorial concludes, "SCHIP was created to help the truly needy. That's where its focus should remain" (The Oklahoman, 10/17).
  
  
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "In a twisted assertation, Republican leaders have argued that it's the Democrats who are preventing reauthorization of [SCHIP], since they won't go along with the president's plan to increase funding by $5 billion instead of $35 billion," a Post-Gazette editorial states. According to the editorial, SCHIP "has been a success, and more eligible families need to take advantage of it" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/18).
  
  
• Salt Lake Tribune: SCHIP "is a pro-life program, because it saves children's lives," according to a Tribune editorial. It also is "pro-family, because it helps families cope in the midst of a national health care crisis," and "it's fiscally conservative, because it will keep uninsured children out of hospital emergency rooms, where taxpayers wind up paying much higher bills," the editorial states (Salt Lake Tribune, 10/16).
  
  
• San Diego Union-Tribune: A "better focus" for SCHIP legislation would be to enroll all eligible children in the program, and while "Bush suggests that focus as the basis for compromise, [h]e suggests in vain," a Union-Tribune editorial states. The editorial concludes that "if a 1993 memo by the staff of then-first lady Hillary Clinton prevails, the SCHIP expansion will help inaugurate a phase-in of universal health care 'by population, beginning with children.' The 70% of Americans happy with their private health coverage should beware" (San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/18).
  
  
• San Jose Mercury News: Congress should bring up SCHIP "for another vote, and another, until President Bush relents," according to a Mercury News editorial. The editorial concludes that if the efforts still are unsuccessful, "Republican and Democratic supporters should go back to the negotiating table with the holdout Republicans to provide coverage to as many children as politically possible," adding, "If they're smart, Republicans will make a deal. This will be an issue in next year's congressional and presidential election. And we already know how voters feel about it" (San Jose Mercury News, 10/18).
  
  
• Wall Street Journal: "Congratulations to House Republicans, who succeeded [Thursday] in sustaining President Bush's veto" of the SCHIP bill, a Journal editorial states. "They're right on policy," but "this exercise is largely political, with Democrats trucking out every last deception to portray Republicans as something out of Oliver Twist," the editorial states, adding, "Now we'll see if the Democrats are really interested in kids' health or simply in winning more congressional seats next year." The editorial concludes, "The administration is willing to compromise. [Thursday], Democratic leaders were already saying no way. What a surprise" (Wall Street Journal, 10/19).
  

Opinion Pieces

• Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), Minneapolis Star Tribune: "Expanding SCHIP is a powerful statement about the value that we as a country put on our children's health," Walz writes in a Star Tribune opinion piece. According to Walz, "The program is economical ... and cost effective because children who have access to routine preventive care from a family doctor don't have to rely on emergency rooms for their medical care" (Walz, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 10/18).
  
  
• Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), St. Paul Pioneer Press: The SCHIP bill "is fatally flawed by funding schemes and budget gimmicks that should trouble anyone," Kline writes in a Pioneer Press opinion piece. According to Kline, lawmakers "must end this dangerous game of politics" and "come together in a bipartisan manner to expand the program with solid funding to ensure the children of the working poor do not fall through the cracks" (Kline, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 10/17).
  
  
• Sen. Pete Domenici (D-N.M.), Santa Fe New Mexican: Congress and Bush "must move beyond misguided criticism" of the SCHIP bill and "finally enact new SCHIP legislation for the continued benefit of uninsured children," Domenici writes in a New Mexican opinion piece. "It doesn't make sense to have millions of children without health insurance," he writes, adding, "It is not good for them because they don't get the care they need," and "it is also not good for the rest of us" because those children will seek care in emergency departments, which increases costs. Domenici concludes that "there is still time for this Congress and the president to do the right thing to enact SCHIP legislation that builds on the progress we've made to provide health coverage to more uninsured children" (Domenici, Santa Fe New Mexican, 10/19).
  
  
• Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.), Savannah Morning News: "Supporters of the president's veto of SCHIP have been making a lot of claims about the bill," but "many of those claims are false or so partially true as to be completely misleading," Barrow writes in a Morning News opinion piece. According to Barrow, supporters of the veto have said that the legislation would expand SCHIP eligibility to children in families with annual incomes as much as $83,000, but "nothing in the bill would allow" such an expansion. In addition, supporters of the veto said that the legislation would expand SCHIP eligibility to adults, he writes, adding, "It's the current law that doesn't limit SCHIP coverage to kids, not Congress' bill," which would have phased adults out of the program over the next two years (Barrow, Savannah Morning News, 10/19).
  
  
• William Murchison, Washington Times: Bush's veto of SCHIP legislation, "which stalls briefly anyway the rush to national health insurance, is a favor to everyone," Murchison, a nationally syndicated columnist, writes in the Times. "[B]etter means of solving the health insurance conundrum exist -- namely, extension to the whole population of tax-exempt savings accounts for health care," because the "more you expand government health insurance, the unlikelier it becomes you'll try what actually would work -- like choice." In addition, "as bad as the present system may be, it beats" a government-run system "financed by whooping taxes, wherein entitlement to access is offset by the inadequacy of the care such access provides" (Murchison, Washington Times, 10/18).
  

Letter to the Editor

• Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Washington Post: "Congress still must reauthorize" SCHIP, and such a bill should require that states enroll 90% of children in families with annual incomes less than 200% of the federal poverty level before they enroll those in families with higher incomes; prohibit eligibility for adults, except pregnant women; and retain a requirement that states document the citizenship and identities of Medicaid applicants, Barton writes in a Post letter to the editor. He concludes, "With a bipartisan effort, such a bill could be passed in a week. Doing so would make sense for poor children, their families and nearly everybody outside the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee" (Barton, Washington Post, 10/19).

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