With Congress poised to vote tomorrow on an effort to override the president’s veto on healthcare for low-income children, the president used part of his White House press conference today to explain why he rejected the bipartisan measure.
“Six or seven — in six or seven states they spend more money on adults than children. And finally, the eligibility has been increased up to $83,000. That doesn’t sound like it’s a program for poor children to me. And I look forward to working with the Congress if my veto is upheld to focus on those who are supposed to be covered. That’s what we need to get done. […]
“Some states are spending more money on adults than children. That doesn’t make any sense if you’re trying to help poor children…. And finally, to increase eligibility up to $83,000, in my judgment, is an attempt by some in Congress to expand the reach of the federal government in medicine.”
When right-wing voices started smearing the Frost family a couple of weeks ago, Malkin decried what she saw as the left’s reluctance to have “a good-faith argument” about S-CHIP. It was ironic, of course, considering the source, but putting that aside, Bush’s comments this morning were a reminder of why good-faith arguments are difficult in today’s political climate — the president is simply willing to lie.
It’s tempting to think that maybe Bush is just confused. Maybe he’s addressing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program without really knowing what it is, or why he doesn’t like it. Given the president’s limited intellectual prowess, this seems like a distinct possibility.
But we’ve been at this one for a while. The S-CHIP debate has been front-and-center for weeks, if not months. Bush has to know what’s he’s saying is false.
Today’s argument focused on two specific claims: 1) the bill he vetoed increases S-CHIP eligibility up to $83,000; and 2) states are misusing S-CHIP to insure adults.
On the first point, Bush has repeated this bogus claim repeatedly, but repetition hasn’t made it true.
On the second, Bush has the entire dynamic backwards. In some states, S-CHIP has been used to insure adults, but only because the Bush administration gave those states waiver to do so. If the president doesn’t believe this makes any sense, he shouldn’t have embraced a policy he disagrees with. For that matter, the S-CHIP bill Bush vetoed addresses this and makes it harder for adults to get coverage under the program.
The NYT devoted an entire editorial to this bogus talking point last week, calling it a “distortion and a diversion.”
In his radio address on Saturday, Mr. Bush complained that six states — Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, Rhode Island and New Mexico — “will spend more S-chip money on adults than they do on children” in this fiscal year. That might sound outrageous at first hearing, but there are often good child-centered reasons for covering certain categories of adults.
Surely it is sensible to enroll pregnant women, to make sure the prospective mother and her fetus get good prenatal care even before the child is born and becomes eligible. And in some cases it may even be reasonable to offer coverage to low-income parents, if only as bait to get their children enrolled. New Jersey hardly deserves presidential criticism for what look like enlightened policies.
The state currently enrolls some 83,000 adults and 124,000 children in its S-chip program. The adults account for more than 60 percent of the program’s costs because it is a lot more expensive to cover adults than children. A small number of the adults are pregnant women. A small number are childless adults supported solely by state funds, under a program that is being phased out. The overwhelming majority are poor parents, with family incomes no higher than 133 percent of poverty — or $27,500 for a family of four.
To imply that this is an abuse of the S-chip program reflects an ideological determination to disparage public insurance no matter how much it helps poor families and their children.
Mr. Bush failed to acknowledge that all of the states that extended coverage to adults did so under waivers granted by the federal government, mostly by his own administration. In its first term, his administration actively encouraged states to use any unspent S-chip funds to cover adults.
That was back when Mr. Bush was espousing “compassionate conservatism” and the administration was looking for efficient ways to reduce the number of uninsured Americans. Now Mr. Bush calls any expansion of S-chip a step toward “government-run health care for every American.”
That Bush can’t defend his policy position without lying says a great deal about the merit of his ideas. Hopefully, lawmakers who are on the fence about the veto override are paying attention.