The WaPo’s Christopher Lee noted over the weekend, “If anything looked like a sure thing in the new Congress, it was that lawmakers would renew, and probably expand, the popular, decade-old State Children’s Health Insurance Program before it expires this year.” It’s a no-brainer, right? Who’s going to balk at an established, successful program that offers health insurance for kids?
As it turns out, the president is.
Is it because he doesn’t think the program works? No, Bush acknowledges that S-CHIP works well. Is it because it’s fiscally irresponsible? No, it’s fairly inexpensive.
Bush’s opposition is entirely, by his own admission, ideological. Here’s what he told a friendly audience in Cleveland last week:
“[S-CHIP is] now aiming at encouraging more people to get on government health care. That’s what that is. It’s a way to encourage people to transfer from the private sector to government health care plans…. I strongly object to the government providing incentives for people to leave private medicine, private health care to the public sector. […]
“I mean, think of it this way: They’re going to increase the number of folks eligible through S-CHIP; some want to lower the age for Medicare. And then all of a sudden, you begin to see a — I wouldn’t call it a plot, just a strategy — (laughter) — to get more people to be a part of a federalization of health care.”
It doesn’t matter if it works, or if it’s affordable, or whether it’ll help children receive quality care — what matters is Bush’s ideology tells him it’s offensive. If that means less insurance for kids, so be it.
Lawmakers are moving towards passing a bi-partisan measure to extend coverage for about 4 million U.S. children, and late last week, the White House made it crystal clear: Bush will veto the bill because it conflicts with the president’s philosophy.
I’m trying to understand the White House line here. As the Bush gang sees it, we’ve socialized medicine for the elderly (Medicare), we’ve socialized medicine for the poor (Medicaid), and we’ve socialized medicine for veterans (the VA system). But 4 million kids? Out of the 9 million who currently lack coverage? That’s just too much. Pretty soon, the rest of the country might see these Americans receiving quality healthcare in a publicly-financed system and start to think they deserve coverage, too.
And we can’t have that.
An editorial on the subject in TNR notes that Bush has been consistent on the issue: he fought healthcare for kids in Texas, and now he’s doing the same in DC.
Back in the 1990s, when he was still governor of Texas, he had an opportunity to help some of his neediest constituents get affordable medical care. The federal government had just created the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP, making billions in new spending available to states that created public insurance programs for poor kids and their families. While even some of his fellow Republican governors were jumping at the opportunity, Bush balked. The program might get expensive in the long run, he feared. And, oh dear, it would mean more government. So Bush fought efforts to create an expansive S-CHIP program in Texas, arguing a minimalist version would be better, even though the state had one of the highest proportions of uninsured residents in the country.
The Texas legislature, though hardly a bastion of socialism, didn’t see things Bush’s way — and bullied him into supporting a bigger program. But now, as president, Bush is waging the same fight all over again.
TNR also notes that under Bush’s preferred approach, not only would those 4 million children be excluded, but “at least 17 states would actually lose S-CHIP funding, meaning that more kids and families in desperate need of medical insurance would go without.”
Ezra adds, “One way or the other, on September 30th, SCHIP will expire, and the millions of children and families currently relying on it will be without health coverage.”
How far is Bush willing to push this showdown? I guess we’re about to find out. But if our Democratic Congress follows the example of the Texas Legislature in the 1990s, and takes a firm stand, the nation will be better off.