Newsroom

Newsroom image of kids

Editorials From Around the Country Tell Congress: Stand Firm, Save Children's Health Now

For Immediate Release
September 12, 2007
For More Information Contact:
Ed Shelleby
(202) 662-3602

 

Washington, D.C. – After months of debate on the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) — which included a Presidential veto threat — Congress is now considering further delaying approval of this critical program. The following are excerpts from editorials around the country, urging Congress to act now to save the health of our children.

New York Times: Stiff Arming Children's Health
The Senate has passed a bill that would raise eligibility to 300 percent of the poverty level, and the House has gone to 400 percent. President Bush has threatened a veto. If the main goal is to reduce the number of uninsured children, as it should be, the Administration is headed in the opposite direction. [New York Times, 8/26/07]

Boston Globe: Penny Pinching with Health
The fact is that money doesn't pay for as much as it used to, and this can be a rude shock for working parents who think of themselves as productive adults who shouldn't need government help... Scrimping on S-Chip is bad policy. It is likely to drive up costs by letting children's illnesses deteriorate into more expensive problems. Congress should hurry. That would be best for children. [Boston Globe, 8/27/07]

Denver Post: Senate SCHIP Plan Should Be Passed
President Bush, no stranger to meddling in places he doesn't belong, is wrong to short circuit legislative debate over who can qualify for a popular children's health insurance program... A year is far too long to leave a child uninsured in this country. It would place more of a burden on hospital emergency rooms that are already severely overcrowded. Plus, it's far more expensive for an ER visit than a trip to a doctor's office, which would be available to an SCHIP child. [Denver Post, 8/28/07]

Seattle Times: Fight Back to Insure Children
This is a shell game played at the expense of kids. Requiring children to go without insurance for one year could be potentially dangerous and expensive if the child becomes ill or injured... The reality is, many working families don't earn enough to pay insurance premiums or they work for companies that offer little to no coverage. [Seattle Times, 8/24/07]

###