Editorial: A bad veto on children's insurance

Bipartisan bill deserves Minnesota's support.

Last update: October 4, 2007 - 8:19 PM

Print this story

Follow Opinion Exchange on Twitter

SCHIP IN MINNESOTA

The State Children's Health Insurance Program covered about 36,000 people in Minnesota last year. Because Minnesota already did a good job of covering low-income children, it uses the federal funds to extend coverage to pregnant women and low-income parents.

More from Editorials

Children's advocates staged a vigil at the office of Rep. Michele Bachmann Wednesday night, urging her to defy President Bush in the big showdown that developed this week over children's health insurance. We don't always applaud political theater, but in this case the advocates are right. The number of uninsured children in the United States is a national disgrace, and the bill that Congress produced last week was a sensible, cost-effective answer. Bachmann and Rep. John Kline, the only no votes in the Minnesota delegation, should switch sides and support a veto override.

A bit of background: Congress created the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 1997 to cover children whose parents can't afford private coverage but don't qualify for Medicaid. It has been a huge success -- it cut the number of uninsured children by one-third -- but it expires this year. Last week Congress produced a bipartisan plan to renew the program for five years and expand coverage from 6 million to 10 million children and parents at an additional cost of $35 billion. The Bush administration has proposed a funding increase of $5 billion, but it's not enough to cover inflation and would cause SCHIP enrollment to drop by nearly 1 million.

We understand why conservatives balk at the expansion of subsidized health care. But the president's objections are simply inaccurate. This is not some feckless Democratic scheme. It passed Congress with dozens of Republican votes, including those of Rep. Jim Ramstad and Sen. Norm Coleman. It is not "government run" health care. In most states, including Minnesota, SCHIP families go to the same doctors who serve everyone else; the government simply subsidizes their premiums. This bill does not break with the program's original intent -- serving poor children -- and reach far into middle class. The Congressional Budget Office says 85 percent of the children who would gain coverage would fit the original state guidelines - that is, fall below twice the federal poverty line.

Bachmann's staff says she's a firm supporter of SCHIP and voted for an 18-month extension so Congress can work out a compromise with the White House. That extension was a good buffer, but the bill that passed Congress already was a bipartisan compromise. Further concessions will only mean more children going without good, preventive health care, so overriding this veto is crucial.

The larger puzzle in this debate is why every other advanced nation can give its children health insurance while spending far less than Americans do. SCHIP has been a practical, effective step toward solving that puzzle, and it deserves better than a presidential veto.

Recent Editorials stories

Editorial: Kids Count's No. 2 is a warning signal - October 4, 2007

Editorial: Kids Count's No. 2 is a warning signal - Needed: A focus on minimizing poverty's toxic effects on kids. More

Comment on this story | Be the first to comment | Hide reader comments

New ideas for the public sector

THERE'S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME to create a more efficient Minnesota. Facing large budget deficits at the state, county and local levels, Minnesotans are seeing with new clarity that the public sector must adapt to new economic realities. Only the smartest, most strategic reinvention will ensure that our tax dollars are spent on the best programs and services. Read more

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS