Finding an SCHIP compromise

Politics is supposed to be the art of compromise. But the way both sides are acting in the debate over the State Children's Health Insurance Program, compromise is finding itself buried somewhere long behind lines in the sand.

That's too bad. The ultimate goal here should be to provide insurance coverage for the children of America's working poor families. Given that both President Bush and leaders in Congress stipulate this as a goal, it ought to be possible to work out a deal.

On Thursday, the House fell just 13 votes shy of the number necessary to override the president's veto of a $35 billion expansion of the program. With the president standing firm on his position that the program should be increased no more than $5 billion over five years, middle ground looks like a fantasy. Most likely, attention will turn instead toward placating 13 "no" votes in the House so that a bill can be rammed through despite the president. That's unfortunate.

Opponents of the bill claim it would expand eligibility to families making $83,000 a year, something flatly denied by supporters, including Utah's Sen. Orrin Hatch, a chief sponsor of SCHIP. Perhaps an amendment is in order clarifying that SCHIP won't cover children in families that earn more than a certain amount. Perhaps, as well, amendments could be added to clearly state that SCHIP won't cover adults, and that it won't cover people who are in this country illegally.

SCHIP is a federal program that actually works. It provides coverage for poor children, the most vulnerable and helpless of Americans. Their parents are not eligible for government help because they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, and yet they either can't afford health insurance or they work for employers who won't provide it.

There are few feelings as helpless as dealing with a sick child and not having the means to get help that easily could cure the problem. Current SCHIP funding covers 6.6 million children. Surely, the nation's politicians can find a way to agree on how to expand that coverage without turning the measure into a political stalemate.