September 22, 2007
By Michael Franc
The future of America's health-care system may be at stake in
the battle over the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
SCHIP was intended to provide children living in homes up to
twice the poverty level ($41,300 a year for a family of four) with
government-designed health coverage. Liberals have transformed a
routine renewal debate into a referendum on whether we should take
an incremental, but significant, step toward a
government-controlled health system.
Indeed, even as the Census Bureau was reporting that 5.7 million
SCHIP-eligible children remain uninsured, liberal governors and
their Capitol Hill allies were pressing to make SCHIP coverage
available to children in middle-class homes, the vast majority of
whom already are covered under their parents' private plans.
President Bush resisted. Uncle Sam, he reminded them, shouldn't
be luring working Americans into the welfare state. In August, the
Department of Health and Human Services informed state health
officials that it would no longer approve their requests to extend
SCHIP coverage to children in families earning more than 250% of
the federal poverty level unless they had already covered virtually
all (95%) of the children originally targeted under SCHIP.
One would expect liberals to applaud this bold move to increase
health coverage among the poorest kids. Think again.
The Children' Defense Fund called Bush's initiative "unjust" and
a "move in exactly the wrong direction." The New York Times
editorialized that "the Bush administration wants to return to a
darker age." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) alleged the president
had launched "a sneak attack on America's children."
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), who chairs a congressional health
panel, doubts that any state could achieve this goal. The Bush
administration, he adds, "might as well just come out and say let's
kick kids off the rolls."
But, as the 2006 Census Bureau figures demonstrate, the 95%
coverage standard is eminently attainable. Indeed, it's already
standard in 22 states. If Connecticut (97.7%), Rhode Island (98%),
Wisconsin (97.7%), and Michigan (96.8%) can cover so many kids,
others can, too. But even in the 22 high-coverage states, the
number of uninsured children at or near the poverty level --
222,000 in New York, 128,000 in Pennsylvania, 96,000 in Ohio, etc.,
-- remains too high for their governors to abandon them.
Expanding SCHIP to middle-class kids makes even less sense in
states that flunk Bush's standard. Gov. Jon Corzine (D) estimates
that Bush's proposal would "[deny] health care coverage to as many
as 10,000 children in New Jersey." But why pursue these kids when
150,000 kids below 200% of poverty still lack coverage in New
Conservative lawmakers should rally around an alternative that
enables the working poor to own their own coverage and not depend
on the inferior coverage that comes with programs such as SCHIP.
And they should emphasize just how mediocre and, at times, even
deadly government-controlled coverage can be.
Medicaid and SCHIP pay health providers a pittance. According to
a leading health consulting firm, the rates private plans pay "can
be up to twice what is paid under Medicaid for the same service."
Not surprisingly, a Gallup survey shows, only 53% of Medicaid
recipients report it's easy to "find a provider who accepts
Medicaid." Predictably, those on Medicaid and SCHIP use emergency
rooms four times more often than those with private insurance.
The inferior quality of government healthcare proved fatal to
12-year-old Deamonte Driver of Maryland. Earlier this year Deamonte
succumbed to a brain infection after his mother spent months trying
to get a dentist to treat his nagging toothache. Her search isn't
unusual; only 16% of Maryland's 5,500 dentists accept Medicaid
Ironically, lawmakers attribute his death to the shortcomings of
the very government health programs they want to expand. Deamonte's
mother, Sen. Clinton said, "called [27 or 28] dentists, but they
weren't taking any more children on Medicaid or on SCHIP." They
told her, Clinton continued, "look, our quota for poor kids is
In a sop to Deamonte, lawmakers have appended a token $300
million to SCHIP to -- what else? -- expand the government's role
in providing dental services to eligible kids. But liberal
lawmakers refuse to believe that government-controlled healthcare
will ration or deny care and prove inferior to privately-owned
coverage. "Our goal," Bush says, "should be [to get private
coverage] for children with no health insurance, not [get
government healthcare] for children who already have private health
Franc is vice president of government relations for
The Heritage Foundation.
First appeared in the Human Events
The future of America’s health-care system may be at stake in the battle over the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Read More >>
Request an interview >>
Please complete the following form to request an interview with a Heritage expert.
Please note that all fields must be completed.
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam(R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2013, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973