• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

In 2003 President George W. Bush strongly advocated for passage of a drug benefit program, Medicare Part D, for the country’s elderly despite projections that the legislation would cost hundreds of billions of additional federal dollars.

The legislation even specified that the government would not be able to aggressively negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

President Bush never stated any opposition to expanding a federal governmental single payer entitlement for seniors, yet he now threatens to veto the State Children’s Health Insurance Program reauthorization, which funds Colorado’s Child Health Plan, if the bill includes sufficient funding to enroll more of America’s uninsured eligible children.

He has said that the Senate compromise is “the beginning salvo of the encroachment of the federal government on the health care system,” that “expansion of government in lieu of making the necessary changes to encourage a consumer-based system is not acceptable,” and that “you’re really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government.”

Implying that additional funding for SCHIP will lead to socialized medicine seems ludicrous given his position on passing and signing the prescription drug benefit for seniors before his election. Was his Medicare position simply political opportunism to capture more of the elderly votes? Many Republican legislators and commentators such as Mort Kondracke have voiced strong disagreements with Bush’s threatened SCHIP veto.

Sen. Ken Salazar, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, responded immediately to President Bush’s veto threat.

“It is unconscionable that the president would announce a veto threat before we have even begun to mark up the SCHIP bill in committee. Reauthorizing SCHIP is a no-brainer. It has become a critical resource that provides much needed coverage to children who would otherwise go uninsured. It is our moral and economic obligation in Washington to invest in our children’s health care, as our investment today will pay off tomorrow.”

A bipartisan compromise passed the Senate Finance Committee by a vote of 17-4 on July 19. It increases the funding by $35 billion from $25 billion to $60 billion over the next five years, enough to enroll an additional 3.3 million children. The additional cost would be funded by an increase in the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to a dollar a pack.

The increase over five years is less than the $50 billion Democrats initially wanted and what child advocates and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended, $60 billion. The Bush administration is recommending only a $5 billion increase, which will require states to cut back their programs and reduce the number of children that can be covered.

Where is the president’s compassion for uninsured children? Based on data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, the American Academy of Pediatrics reports that 21 million children 21 and younger were uninsured for all or part of 2004: 9 million without coverage for the entire year and 12 million with gaps in coverage sometime during the year.

While contradictory studies make understanding whether SCHIP leads to a shift of children from private employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) to public coverage difficult to determine, we know that employer-sponsored insurance coverage has been steadily eroding in recent years.

From 2000 to 2005, 5 million employees lost health insurance coverage as the proportion of businesses offering insurance fell from 69 percent to 60 percent.

As the cost of premiums has increased, low-income workers are less likely to be offered insurance — and even when offered, the employee cost share of purchasing family coverage is often unaffordable.

SCHIP needs to be reauthorized by Sept. 30 of this year. This week the full Senate should send President Bush a strong message and pass the Senate Finance SCHIP bill by a veto-proof majority.

While children may not vote, it is time that our legislators respond to their needs. Salazar has said, “It is our moral and economic obligation” to do so.

Dr. Steve Berman is a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics and is a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

READER COMMENTS

Dr Berman,

Fast foods is a bigger cause for the bad health of our children, why not increase the tax on a fast food meal by $.61 to finance your health care program?

Actually any tax on the citizens of this country to supply medical insurance for illegal immigrates is just plain wrong. I hope Bush does veto this bill!

Carefull Gentlemen (and ladies if any of you are) You will be assaulted for not being sensitive enough, or politically correct or heartless with those types of statements posted above. Or told that they smell sulfur in your future. I'm sure they'll be on the attack in relatively short order.
The thing that is lost upon many is the way almost all current government programs are run in this country - poorly at best.
Those who are in favor of complete socialized medicine (or single payer if you will) have absolutely no answer for how they would also trust the government to run health care when it cannot provide effective, quality education of our children even though we are by and far the best funded of any country on the globe, cannot provide proper accounting of social security to avoid the major disaster that is looming, cannot or will not close our borders and enforce all the CURRENT immigration laws on the books, etc, etc.

Until they can come up with a clean answer for that question this single payer system should not be attempted - maybe take care of the kids but not allow it to go to government run for all - that would be a disaster.

Some of us were not happy that Bush gave away the Viagra-for-oldies plan and are at least happy he has come to his senses about socializing medicine.

People in this country need to get personal responsibility back in their vocabulary. We did not ask you to pop out a kid. If you cannot afford to care for your child, you should not have had it. Abortions are cheap and legal. You should avail yourself of this if you cannot afford to have a kid.

Now, ask yourselves this.. if your kid needs new tennis shoes, who do you ask? your neighbor? No, you either save up, buy them or get a used set.

Quit asking us to pay for your mistakes. This is the land of opportunity with thousands of success and rags to riches stories. Get off your welfare butt, get a job, kick it's butt and pay your own way.

Strange, I and millions others grew up in the 40 and 50's without any health insurance. We all survived without it. Now all of the bleeding hearts, try to tell us "health care is a right or an entitlement". They are wrong, citizens earn their rights by working and paying for them. Working, taxpaying citizens are getting tired of paying for and supporting non productive citizens that are capable of work and paying their own way.
Bush's extra 5 billion is a 20 percent increase over last year!! I think a 20 percent increase is too much!
But, the liberals cry for more money and bigger government involvement.
Not for me!!

Mr. Salazar also believes it is our moral and economic obligation to support illegal aliens and their children, so I'm wondering how many of the additional 3.3 million children (that the bipartisan compromise would cover) belong to that group.

I see, also, that the additional cost would be funded by an increase in the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to a dollar a pack. Once again, a sin tax is used because it's "good for the children", regardless of whose children these are.

POST A COMMENT

• Will Columbus Day protesters become the very monster they deplore?
• Ready to fight right-to-work
• GUEST COLUMN: Rockies tickets, anyone?
• Energy development imperils habitat
• A Civic Center for Denver
• Preventing a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S.
• Closures identified: critical next steps for DPS
• Hillary health plan could result in crackdown on illegal immigration