First and foremost, children’s groups really didn’t much like last year’s SCHIP bill that came out of the conference committee, as it was written largely by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA). The legislation throws currently covered parents off of coverage (people have largely missed this rather significant provision in the bill), covered fewer than 4 million of the 9 million uninsured children in this nation, maintained a bar on LEGAL immigrant children from seeking health coverage for five years, maintained some bureaucratic enrollment barriers to enrollment of low-income children through what the Republicans call citizenship documentation that has disproportionately hurt African-American kids from getting enrolled, and created what could be a devastating cliff in 2013 when the program would be underfunded by over $10 billion annually.

Thus, children’s groups largely opposed pushing the legislation again just 50 days before the election because children and their low-income parents would undoubtedly fare much better with a rewrite of the Republican-drafted legislation in the next Congress and Administration. The difference could mean billions of dollars and expanded coverage for millions of children without forcing their parents off of coverage.

Second, the SCHIP bill will cost $1.6 billion more this year than last because you are looking at a 2009-2013 budget window instead of 2008-2012. Thus, additional budgetary offices beyond the tobacco tax would be needed just to pass the “not so great” bill. Thus, it will be far from simple and give the appearance of an expansion of SCHIP that isn’t.

Third, passing the legislation locks in the lack of coverage of legal immigrant children (even those with cancer or some other life-threatening illness!) for five long years, locks in place a “not so great” citizenship documentation compromise that most negatively impacts African-Americans and children, and creates long-term problems for other needed changes to the SCHIP bill.

Fourth, why would Democrats agree to throw off parents of the low-income SCHIP kids, as the bill Bush vetoed did, to only start pushing to add them back into coverage in January? That seems a bit odd and forces creating the need to add adults back in and immigration as key issues for children’s groups as part of national health reform. Health reform already faces an enormous uphill battle without those two added burdens.

And last, for all these reasons, it more-and-more seems like such a lose-lose for children and Democrats.

For example, if it passes, we shortchange children by billions of what they could get with a new president and Congress. It also deprives Democrats of a powerful issue in the presidential, Senate, and House races across the country. Every single day I see a House or Senate candidate bashing their opponent on the SCHIP vote, but passage would take that away.

On the other hand, if it fails, it is another blow to children’s health issues compared to Medicare, which got prescription drugs in 2003 and a presidential veto override from Congress for Medicare physician payments this past summer. In fact, 114 Members of Congress voted for Medicare prescription drugs but repreatedly voted against SCHIP (McCain actually voted against both).

Instead, another vote would only further politicizes health policy and children’s issues. Although it would raise attention to the issue, many pundits will note the politicization of the issue as it has already been vetoed by Bush twice before. As for those that voted against SCHIP, those votes against have already been cast mutiple times so this offer nothing new for proponents of children’s health if it fails for a 3rd time.

What seems missing is not another vote but a lack of focus on this point of departure between Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin by the Obama Campaign (Obama and Biden voted for SCHIP and McCain voted against it; Alaska has one of the lowest coverage rates in the country, ranks 49th in child mortality, and Palin ignored her own health commission’s recommendation that the State should use its oil revenue surplus to expand coverage to children). Great ads are being run by candidates for office across this country on the issue but we barely hear a word on it from the Obama Campaign despite the overwhelming public support for the issue, particularly among women voters from polling by two Republican pollsters (see http://www.firstfocus.net/pages/3488/).

Palin said a McCain-Palin White House would be a great place for children with special needs. Currently, the evidence on how their health care needs would be addressed seems quite the opposite.

Why do Ds still call it SCHIP instead of Meds for Kids?
reply

Excellent question.

Is he sacrificing needy children’s health insurance because he’d rather campaign on the GOP’s unwillingness to override the veto than see SCHIP actually pass?

Rahm do that? Nah, he’s the least cynical Democrat in the history of the US House, isn’t he….?

OT – about to collapse from emotional exhaustion. Progressive Alaska made Time Magazine’s on-line edition today. Wish they had spelled my name right, though.