S-CHIP Showdown Could Affect 2008 Races
The House is set to vote tonight on a key provision of the Democratic Party's domestic agenda -- expanding the federal-state Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). President Bush has threatened to veto the measure.
But Democrats want Republicans to be thinking of Bailey, a little girl from Texas who, as a 3-year-old in 2004, played a starring role in Rep. Chet Edwards's surprising re-election victory.
While Edwards used the issue defensively to retain his seat, Democrats think that the S-CHIP can be an offensive weapon against House Republicans, particularly those in suburban districts.
Edwards was one of five Texas Democrats whose district lines were redrawn by the Texas legislature in 2003. The redistricting effort was led by then U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who hoped the new districts would be more favorable to Republican candidates.
Four of the Democrats affected by the redistricting went down in flames Election Day 2004, but Edwards mounted a fierce campaign and successfully fended off GOP state Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth.
Wohlgemuth's key success in the legislature was a re-organization of the state health agencies, including a reduction in enrollment for S-CHIP. Enter young Bailey and her mother, Jamie Jones, who became the stars of one of the toughest ads of the 2004 cycle. After her husband died, Jamie Jones tells the camera, she got her daughter insurance through S-CHIP. Black-and-white pictures of mother hugging daughter roll across the screen -- interspersed with graphics indicating Wohlgemuth's bill cut 147,000 Texas kids from the insurance program. Then the kicker: Jones tells how Bailey was cut from S-CHIP without warning, leaving the child with no health care.
"I don't want welfare," Jones says in the ad. "I just want good insurance for my child. ... Look at my little girl; look into her eyes and tell her why she's not good enough to be taken care of."
Edwards won the 2004 race by less than 10,000 votes. He was re-elected with about 58 percent of the vote in 2006. Democratic strategists such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) believe the S-CHIP ad used in Edwards's race could serve as a near cookie-cutter image for what Democrats hope to do to Republicans in vulnerable districts next year.
Republicans opposed to the S-CHIP expansion measure have argued that the Democrats created a bill that would expand coverage well beyond poor, deserving children (like Bailey). They argue that the bill in reality masks unchecked growth of a government entitlement.
"This bill doesn't confine the program to low-income children which is what it's supposed to be about. I think that's the principle reason for him vetoing it -- the amount and that it's extending beyond low-income children which is what it's supposed to be all about," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters in a conference call yesterday.
And House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) issued a memo accusing Democrats of making it easier for illegal immigrants to get insurance through the expansion of S-CHIP.
If it comes to a veto override fight, Boehner will be the White House's man on the Hill. In early August, 68 senators voted for the program, more than enough to defeat Bush's veto pen. Earlier that week, just five Republicans joined 220 Democrats to support the bill, with many arguing the House version contained strict cuts in Medicare programs to finance it. That's no longer an issue since the final version is much more in line with the Senate bill, and late last week Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) told The Post's Jonathan Weisman he was hoping for an additional 30 votes from his side of the aisle.
But that would put Democrats in the neighborhood of only 255 votes, well short of the 290 needed to override a Bush veto if every member is present and voting.
If Bush's veto of S-CHIP stands, several dozen House Republicans will be left hoping that their Democratic challengers don't have sympathetic cases like Bailey's to use next fall in the form of an attack ads.
By Paul Kane |
September 25, 2007; 1:47 PM ET
House
Previous: McConnell Works to Turn Critics' Attacks Into Strengths |
Next: The Narrow Stall at the Heart of Craig's Widening Legal Fight
Posted by: Hank | September 25, 2007 9:14 PM
I do understand the GOP principles that condemn children to disease and death without health insurance because taxing tobacco hurts their real clients, big business and big tobacco.
I just find it surprising that they would be so utterly obvious about it. Yet another indication of the vast gulf between Democratic ideals and GOP priorities.
Posted by: reussere | September 25, 2007 10:14 PM
So Bush will veto a children program that will cost seven billion a year and at the same time request an extra 200 billion from Congress to continue his stupid war. Can someone please tell me what has happened to the value system of this country when our President will spend more than 30 times as much on his personal war as he is not willing to spend on the sick children of our beloved USA. More importantly can someone explain to me why we let him get away with it? How come this sick in the head President has not been impeached?
Posted by: Opa | September 26, 2007 12:01 AM
All the posts above make such common sense: We have a dry drunk president who spent all his "political capital" on not finding Bin Ladin. Funding his profit driven neo-Vietnam at the expense of our nation, our future financial stability, our safety, and here, the well being of our children. If it WERE possible for an individual to buy decent health insurance that wasn't jacked up in price to support Big Pharm and six-seven figure HMO salaries, that would be one thing to argue against this bill. But you can't. They don't sell it. Health insurance for the self employed and for those not working for the government or a large corporation is a joke. Something has got to change. Before more kids die at the hands of this "Pro-Life" administration. We can't wait till 2008 to kick his wrong ideas to the curb.
Citizens have been way too complacent about this President and his minions. If We the People, even a fraction of us, got really organized and utilized the internet and the power of the vote, these Jackals in Washington would have nowhere to hide. Our elected representatives have great health insurance for life, paid for by you and me. But not enough of us are making the kind of noise that will change this. Eventually the responsibility falls to us: To keep calling and writing our representatives, writing letters to the editors and telling Congress we WILL vote them out of office in a New York Minute if they don't do what's right, what real American family values call for. Our children are so worth it, and so are we.
Posted by: Susan | September 26, 2007 8:52 AM
The GOP are always bragging about being friendly to small business owners.
Who do they think benefits by the expansion of S-CHP?
I can give them names of small independent contrators who are able to provide health insurance for their kids.
These same hard-working, tax-paying independents would be buck naked health-wise without it.
What does that mean?
The parents of a girl I know who fell out of a stopped car and broke her foot would have had to pay all the bills.
Instead, through CHP, they were covered.
Doesn't anyone in the GOP caucus actually talk to independent small business owners?
Posted by: robert chapman | September 26, 2007 9:59 AM
The Repub's had no problem expanding the Prescription Drug Benefits, maybe because it can help elderly voters think favorably of the Repub party. Even Rush Limpbaugh railed against the Drug plan because it cost too much and gave benefits to millionaires (like Rush). I guess that kids can't vote so Bush won't fund then. I'm not surprised.
Posted by: Doug | September 26, 2007 10:51 AM
Bush should veto this bill. A continuation of the current program is one thing, but to expand it to cover people not poor ($80,000 per year family income), or not children (up to age 25), is simply ridiculous. This is just a backdoor attempt at socialized medicine.
Posted by: Brian | September 26, 2007 11:32 AM
So Brian,
I guess that little girl doesn't deserve the health care?
Obviously, non-socialized medicine has failed America and decent Americans.
Posted by: Tim from Silver Spring | September 26, 2007 11:35 AM
As someone who has a bit of experience with "socialized medicine" (the VA healthcare system), let me say that not only does it work, it works very well. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg (unless that's how one became eligible), and it's proof that the government is quite capable of administering a comprehensive, single-payer healthcare system. It's time we extended the benefits of "socialized medicine" to everyone in America, not just members of Congress and privileged administration officials.
Posted by: Idoogye | September 26, 2007 12:39 PM
Brian, do you really think a household making $80,000 a year can afford the insurance premiums they would pay without a group rate?
Are twenty somethings earning entry level salaries likely without benefits supposed to handle those big non-group premiums, too?
Brian, how can you convince us you know from socialism when you obviously don't have a clue about the free market?
Posted by: robert chapman, Lansing, NY | September 26, 2007 12:52 PM
I am flabbergasted that the American people can be so STUPID!!! We have a MORON for a president and vice-president, who have set themselves up above the law, created am imperial administration, using lies, deceit, fear, and every low-down tactic that they can manipulate to stay in power. Still, there are American people who are totally BLIND to these facts thinking that "the Bush" is a good Christian man. To classify himself as a Christian is nothing less than an extraordianry act of blasphemy, however, those "Christians" who think he is a good man are complete hypocrits themselves. Our children need this program and I cannot believe that the American people think that it's OK for Bush to veto the bill. Judgement day is coming in Novemeber 2008. ALL Republicans beware!! This will be your day of reckoning!! The movement is gaining speed to kick all of you out of the Congress and the White House, then maybe our nation can return to its foundations from which it was built. Today is the most dangerous time in our nations history, and it comes not from terrorism per se, but from Bush and his court of criminals!!
Posted by: Tom, Enterprise, AL | September 26, 2007 1:38 PM
Until we overhaul our healthcare system altogether, we need band-aids like this program. Eighty thousand may sound like plenty for someone to live on, and it may sound unreasonable to insure those who already have private insurance, but the truth is, this expansion is still necessary. We have good friends who recently had a baby with many complicated long-term medical problems, none of which were identified before birth. Though they had believed themselves to be in a good position to have a child, they now find themselves buried in medical bills, with no end in sight for years. Thanks to schip and other such programs, they will be able to pay for the care their baby desperately needs to survive. Right now, the system only works for people of an average income if no one in their household gets sick. That is simply untenable.
Posted by: K | September 26, 2007 1:49 PM
Perpetual war is much more necessary than health care for children as far as the Bush administration and most Republicans are concerned. Why not divert all tax revenue to wars and military weapons. About 6 billion dollars a week of our tax dollars are currently being spent on just the Iraq War. We have military bases around the world and our military budget is about 30% of our multi trillion dollar federal tax revenue. Why not spend everything on war and war preparation and end the continuous debates on funding health care, social security, and education. Let's do the only RIGHT thing and declare PERPETUAL WAR and spend every tax dollar fighting wars forever!
Posted by: Zalman Saperstein | September 26, 2007 2:09 PM
Bi partisan work on the SCHIP program is vital, and could they bundle it with subsidized universal health care for working poor adults as well? Why not kill 2 birds with one stone? Government efficiency is paramount! The Tennessee Primary Care Association holds alot of keys. Their grassroots state lobbying team is in great touch with Corporate America, bi partisan work, and holding the keys to the finest health care available. We have some of the finest doctors and nurses here in Nashville. I am a fundraiser for the Fred Thompson in 2008 presidential campaign. I am a Rising Junior straight A student at Tennessee State University. We need to put an end to government waste and corporate misery when it comes to top notch health care. Meet my doctors, Dr. Michelle Rorie at the United Neighborhood Health Clinic and Dr. Michael Fowler at the Irwin Eskind Clinic at Vanderbilt Hospital. These people have the answers. In the spirit of vocational rehabilitation and government money, let's go further!P.S. I love Porter J. Goss!
Posted by: Tsutigerbelle | September 26, 2007 3:08 PM
considering the $350 billion a year in tax cuts the Bush administration has pushed through in his first term, we can't afford a lot of things.
Posted by: Jeff Solomon | September 27, 2007 4:57 AM
Underlying this issue is something very important, namely the large and rapidly growing class of citizens between the dirt-poor bottom and what was once a thriving middle. The contentions on whether the 80K income is enough are appropo; it may very well be that govt. assistance will have to expand upward from the bottom, for indeed in many areas 80K is not enough. You don't have to see your wages fall to grow poorer, it can also happen if prices of certain necessities, such as healthcare or housing, increase more. Folks, a big issue is lurking here.
Posted by: Henry | September 27, 2007 12:22 PM
Health insurance is important...we need to keep the kids healthy...in case we need to send them off to get killed in a war over oil,politics,or whatever...Anything but the truth.
I am saddened that the people of the US are stupid enough to fall for this guys lies....
Why are his kids not in the war?
Do you think him or any of his family are ever going to have to worry about health care costs?Not likely when you got stock in oil companies and you allow them to gouge us for gasoline.
This country is going south...Where are the protestors of the 60s?
We need to wake up people!
Posted by: Ralph /Stow Ohio | September 27, 2007 2:55 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.








CHIP is a successful, thoughtful and appropriate health insurance program that should not only be continued it should be expanded. If we can afford a trillion dollars to carry on an unjust war that American citizens do not want, we certainly can afford to provide basic health care for our children. PERIOD.