SCHIP Veto Justified

Now that President Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization bill has been upheld liberals are turning the propaganda machine loose on the President and Republicans in Congress. But people need to see through the distortions and understand what is at stake with this bill.

SCHIP came into being as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This federal program was intended to provide health insurance coverage for families whose income is too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to afford private health insurance. The program was for families whose income was at 200 percent above the federal poverty level or what would now amount to just over $40000 for a family of four.

Under the 1997 bill SCHIP is required to be reauthorized by Congress every ten years or the program will expire. Unfortunately the reauthorization bill that the Democrats pushed through Congress was really a leftward leap toward socialized healthcare in America.

Even though practically every media outlet in the country as well as many in Alabama jumped on the Democrats’ SCHIP bandwagon President Bush was right to veto the bill. Liberal Democrats have portrayed the President’s veto as immoral and an attempt to according to Democrat House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi “… forbid struggling families in America to have healthcare.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact forcing Congress to work out a compromise that empowers more families to get private health insurance may open the door for millions of children to get quality healthcare that they otherwise could not afford.

Under the Democrat bill vetoed by President Bush the SCHIP program would be dramatically expanded to include families earning over $62000 per year and under certain circumstances states could raise the threshold even higher. By raising the income threshold the bill would go beyond covering uninsured children to allow children already covered by private insurance to be pulled into government-provided healthcare coverage.

According to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Urban Institute almost 60 percent of the children currently eligible for SCHIP are already covered by private insurance. Moreover 77 percent of the children that the Democrat bill would make eligible for SCHIP already have private coverage. If the Democrat bill were to become law a study by the Heritage Foundation estimates that 44 to 51 percent of the children newly eligible for expanded SCHIP coverage would lose their private insurance coverage.

Being dropped by private coverage and getting sucked into socialized medicine would be an ordeal for families. Because of cost controls and bureaucratic red tape people who have to depend on government-run healthcare such as Medicaid do not get the same service or access to healthcare as those in the private sector. As Nicole Garrett a Michigan parent whose family is covered by Medicaid told The Wall Street Journal “When we had real insurance we could call a doctor and come in at the drop of a hat.” Ms. Garrett’s view is based on her experience with government-run healthcare. Her daughter Jada required the services of a rheumatology specialist yet had to wait three months before she could get an appointment.

Not only is the bill a major leftward move toward socialized healthcare the method the Democrats have proposed to pay for this major expansion of the welfare state should also be of concern to taxpayers.  The Democrats plan to pay for the program by applying a 61-cent tax to every pack of cigarettes. The problem with this scheme is that it would require another 22 million Americans to take up smoking over the next five to ten years in order to pay for the program. With smoking becoming less popular it will be very likely that taxpayers will wind up footing the bill instead.

With government-run healthcare you get a system that is very costly to the taxpayers highly regulated and with limited access to specialists and new technology. However there are alternatives to the Democrat bill that makes sense.

For starters President Bush recommended increasing funding by $5 billion for the SCHIP program and maintaining eligibility at current levels. This would assure coverage for children within the 200 to 300 percent above the federal poverty level. In addition there were excellent bi-partisan recommendations to provide assistance to higher income families by allowing them to get a tax credit to help cover the cost of private insurance and for allowing states some flexibility in the design and implementation of their SCHIP program.

The Heritage Foundation makes a strong case for using tax credits and vouchers (available to families with incomes too low to pay federal income taxes) to defray the cost of private health insurance for their children. 

Liberal rhetoric and hysterics aside Bush was right to veto the SCHIP bill and so were those who voted against overriding it. They and other members of Congress should focus now on legislation that is less costly more effective and allows families the opportunity to choose private insurance for their children.