SCHIP Shape

Framer at Arizona8th has an excellent post last night concerning the SCHIP debate, and I wanted to respond to it.

As to the question of using children in advertising, both parties have done so in the past when they felt it would help make their point, and both parties will continue to do so in the future. However, Framer actually missed the point of having the Frost and Wilkerson families in the ads.

As Framer correctly notes, both the Frosts and the Wilkersons qualify under the current SCHIP standards. However, the point of using both families in the ads was the original funding increase proposed by the President was not sufficient to even maintain coverage for all children currently in the program - an estimated 700,000 current participants would have been cut. The Frosts and the Wilkersons have legitimate concerns they might lose the benefits if the proposed bill is not passed.

Framer also points to a poll indicating a majority feel most of the benefits should go to families with income leves less than 200% of the poverty level -- and hey, what do you know, they would under the proposed bill!

The Congressional Budget Office notes 84% of the 3.8 million otherwise uninsured children who would gain insurance under the program qualify under current state standards, with "a large share" living under the poverty line.

Further, while lower-income families do not pay premiums within the program, those with incomes closer to the program limit do pay some form of monthly premium, helping insure those who need the most help get the most help.

Framer also has issues with the funding mechanism, and here I partly agree with him. I am not opposed to higher cigarette taxes - if it helps encourage people to stop smoking that is just an ancillary benefit in my mind. However, I would like to see some other form or forms of funding involved as well, so that it's not entirely based on cigarette taxes.

Finally, Framer accuses Democrats of addressing the issue emotionally ... and again he has a point ... but to which I say yeah, Democrats are going to continue to pound Republicans over SCHIP emotionally as well. Remember all those (logic-laden, unemotional I am sure) "you don't support the troops" charges levied for years at liberal lawmakers? Consider "you don't support the children" a response to that.

I realize it's petty, but it's nice to let conservative lawmakers have a taste of their own medicine for a change. It's even nicer when one is on the better side of the argument both emotionally and from a policy standpoint.

A slightly unrelated point - Framer is careful to not call the vetoed bill "bi-partisan", instead quoting an article which refers to it as "the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow".

There have been a number of votes in which every Republican + Joe Lieberman voted one way, and every other Democrat voted the other way, and the administration has never hesitated to use that one vote to apply the label "bi-partisan". A lot more than one Republican voted in favor of this bi-partisan bill, and the longer the minority continue to block it, the more it's going to hurt in 2008.