Reservoir Hill Improvement Council


The Debate on SCHIP Gets Uglier All the Time

By Richard Gwynallen

1 November 2007

I feel I’m pretty used to watching self-serving debates over programs designed to help people, but one of the hardest to watch unfold has been the debates over SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program that covers children whose families make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own coverage.

As everyone now knows, President Bush vetoed the original bill that came out of Congress, offering a miserly $5 billion increase to the program.  Now there’s a compromise bill out that is still opposed by the Administration.  We seem to be inching toward something.

What has been for me a particularly unpleasant aspect of this debate is the extent to which Republican critics of SCHIP have tried to use such a widely popular program to foster fear over “government-run health care,” and the depths they’ll sink to in misrepresenting the program.

Critics argue that the proposal is designed to admit families with high incomes.  States differ on their rules for families eligible for SCHIP based on the cost of living in different states.  At the high end, New York State wanted a waiver to cover families of four making up to about $80,000 because the cost of living in New York City can be extraordinarily high. According to an Associated Press story in the 29 October 2007 Kansas City Star, most states are “covering children with incomes at twice the federal poverty level — $41,300 for a family of four. About 18 states cover children above that threshold or have plans to do so.”

The administration is now willing to support SCHIP applying to families of four making as much as $62,000, but they want to limit states’ ability to go beyond that level.

Then they argue that SCHIP was meant for poor families.  Nonsense!  Medicare covers children in impoverished families.  SCHIP has always been meant for working class families who make too much to qualify for Medicare but not enough to buy their own insurance.  As costs rise, more and more families are finding themselves in an uncomfortable in-between position with health care, the ability to buy a home, afford a college education, and more.

SCHIP costs too much?  We have to be fiscally prudent?  Please! Just four short years ago, President Bush and many of the Republican critics of SCHIP promoted prescription drug coverage for senior citizens. This was a highly expensive program that added to existing coverage seniors enjoyed. 

One of those critics, Kentucky Republican Senator Mitch McConnell periodically lauds Medicare and championed the prescription drug coverage for seniors, centering his only complaints about the prescription coverage bill on Democratic efforts to get the government to negotiate for lower prices. Perhaps SCHIP would garner the support of some of these critics if it included a way to enrich their supporters.

With the war in Iraq costing the public $2 billion a week, and the much lauded prescription drug coverage costing $534 billion over ten years, the SCHIP proposal adds only $35 billion over five years bringing the whole program to $60 billion for that period.  SCHIP is exceptionally modest given such other expenditures, and an investment in the health of America’s children. It would be well worth cutting into the budget surplus for it had the Administration left any of the surplus it inherited.

This Administration and Republican critics of SCHIP have no room to claim concerns over fiscal responsibility. After all, these are the people who squandered a budget surplus on tax cuts, war, and reckless domestic spending.  They have even less room to claim they are defending the poor. These same people have championed globalization that has decimated U.S. industry and eliminated many of the jobs that gave working class families a solid salary with health benefits and a pension.  Today it’s easy to get a full-time job that lacks health insurance and barely pays enough for the bills, much less buying health insurance.  That is the reality of the American economy.

Finally, there is the scare of government run health care. These same people don’t have any problem with some government run health care.  They generally support Medicare. How about the claim that Medicare is for those who are in need?  No, it isn’t.  It was for those over 65 years of age. Some if not most members of that group are in need, but Medicare will cover senior citizens making $80,000 a week.

There are justifiable issues around SCHIP.  The reliance on increases in tobacco taxes will weigh disproportionately heavy upon low-income smokers. Further, the Democrats caved in and dropped language that would allow foreign-born children who here legally to obtain coverage.  Corporations can move across borders freely to raise their profits by using cheap labor.  Why shouldn’t legal, tax-paying residents have access to health care that would give their children a hand up?

We shouldn’t compromise on the health of our children.  Affordable health insurance for working families is not only desired by a majority of Americans, but it is, as part of a broader social safety net, needed in this era of free trade.

Moreover, health care is a right, not a privilege. Ensuring it for our children is a far better use of public funds than many of the expenditures working families have had to bear.

The Debate on SCHIP Gets Uglier All the Time 1 November 2007