Several newspapers recently published editorials discussing new rules that would limit SCHIP coverage to the lowest-income children, as well as the pending reauthorization of the program. Summaries appear below.

* Akron Beacon Journal: The move by the Bush administration to “severely restrict the capacity of state governments to expand SCHIP” is a “blatant and unfortunate end run around Congress,” a Beacon Journal editorial states. “The losers in this maneuver are the nine million children for whom health insurance remains a luxury,” the editorial states, adding, “The priority of the White House appears to be to protect private insurance rather than reduce the number of uninsured children” (Akron Beacon Journal, 8/23).

* Bergen Record: “The White House is worried” that SCHIP might “take the place of private insurance,” but “[s]omeone should tell the president he has little to worry about in that regard” because private insurance plans for families “are simply too expensive for most low- and middle-income families to afford,” according to a Record editorial. The editorial continues, “The administration’s efforts to shrink the current program through both budget cutbacks and restrictions on who can be enrolled will have one effect: making children sicker.” It concludes, “It’s too bad the president isn’t as worried about sick children as he is about the health of private insurers” (Bergen Record, 8/22).

* Des Moines Register: The “message coming from the Bush administration” is that “George Bush is in the White House” and he “makes the rules,” according a Register editorial. “Congress must craft the reauthorization so it clarifies rules and federal authority for an administration intent on limiting” SCHIP, the editorial continues, adding, “It must make clear that the program will be expanded.” It concludes that “in this democracy, most people want children to have health insurance” (Des Moines Register, 8/22).

* Detroit Free Press: The Bush administration, “rather than trying to undermine the program’s expansion while crowing about the need for unspecified alternatives,” should work “seriously with states to make SCHIP more effective,” a Free Press editorial states. The editorial adds, “As it is, the White House is allowing its philosophical objections to keep needy children from being able to see a doctor,” adding, “Public policy couldn’t get any more shortsighted, or cruel.” According to the editorial, Congress “could, and should, override the policy,” and states “should continue to experiment with ways to help families that can’t afford insurance” (Detroit Free Press, 8/23).

* Houston Chronicle: “When lawmakers return to Washington next month, they must swiftly move to pass an authorization bill that counters the onerous regulations with a reasonable, well-funded approach to making health insurance available for the children of working-class parents,” according to a Chronicle editorial. It concludes, “Instead of demonizing SCHIP as federalized medicine, the Bush administration should be willing to expand on its success” (Houston Chronicle, 8/21).

* Las Vegas Review-Journal: Democratic lawmakers maintain that “they’re trying to help poor children and that anyone who opposes” SCHIP expansion “(and the tax increases needed to pay for it) is a heartless miser who’s apathetic toward a permanent underclass of uninsured sick kids,” a Review-Journal editorial states. The editorial adds, “The problem with such claims is that the federal government already has a partnership with states to provide health care to the poor. It’s called Medicaid, and its liabilities are already swallowing greater and greater slices of states’ funding pies.” The editorial states, “President Bush’s order should put Congress on a more fiscally sensible path when it meets to work out differences between House and Senate plans,” adding, “If lawmakers don’t make satisfactory compromises, he should veto the legislation” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 8/22).

* Los Angeles Times: “Preventing poor children from seeing a doctor is politically unpopular and deeply immoral, which explains the Bush administration’s attempt to hide its efforts to do precisely that,” a Times editorial states. “Recognizing that even his threatened veto might not stop an expansion of the program because the Senate bill passed with a bipartisan, veto-proof majority, Bush is trying to sidestep Congress entirely” through the rules, the editorial states, adding, “When the House and Senate reconcile their SCHIP bills, they should legislate the Bush administration’s clarifications into the trash bin” (Los Angeles Times, 8/23).

* Memphis Commercial Appeal: “Losing the battle with Congress” over SCHIP expansion, the Bush administration has “issued new guidelines for the program that could stymie its progress after all,” according to a Commercial Appeal editorial. The editorial states, “The president’s determination to protect the private insurance industry demonstrates loyalty to the interests that put him in office,” adding, “It’s unfortunate that — unless Democrats in Congress are able to reverse this decision — more children will go without insurance coverage as a result” (Memphis Commercial Appeal, 8/22).

* New York Daily News: The Bush administration’s new SCHIP rules would make it “practically impossible” for states to enroll children in families with annual incomes greater than 250% of the federal poverty level, according to a Daily News editorial. A plan by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) to cover children in families with annual incomes up to 400% of the poverty level “will never get off the ground” under the new rules, the editorial says. It continues, “Ditto for efforts in other states, where elected officials are trying to ease a health care crisis the feds have ignored.” The editorial concludes, “Congress must come to the rescue,” because the “nation’s children deserve nothing less” (New York Daily News, 8/22).

* Philadelphia Inquirer: The Bush administration has “opened another front in their battle against bipartisan support in Congress and state capitals to expand children’s health coverage” with the announcement of the rules, according to an Inquirer editorial. “If Congress doesn’t put up a fight, the Bush policy … would do particular harm” in states — such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey — that are “at the forefront on expanding kids’ access to health care,” the editorial states (Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/23).

* Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: The Bush administration, weeks before Congress “attempts to reconcile its veto-proof foray into socialism for children’s health care,” has “fired a welcome shot across its bow” with the announcement of the rules, the Tribune-Review writes in an editorial. According to the editorial, critics of the rule should “get cracking in trying to help the truly needy by reaching the new 95% threshold” in the event that they “don’t want to be labeled the subterranean socialist hypocrites they are” (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 8/22).

* San Francisco Chronicle: Neither Bush nor Congress should “allow this country’s vulnerable children to get caught up” in the “ideological morass” over efforts to expand health insurance to more adults, a Chronicle editorial states. “Bush must back off his restrictions, and Congress must go forward with the Senate’s bill” to expand SCHIP, the editorial states, adding, “Covering uninsured adults needs to be done, all right, but it needs to be done as part of a national program to overhaul our health care system,” not “as part of a children’s program” (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/23).

* Seattle Post-Intelligencer: The Bush administration’s opposition to SCHIP is “too much on the side of insurance companies and not at all on the side of working families,” according to a Post-Intelligencer editorial. The editorial continues, “We don’t think the president has become a compassionless conservative toward children and families,” but “he has picked a callously partisan fight.” It concludes, “The president should recall what feel like long-ago promises of cooperation to work with Congress on compromises that expand coverage significantly, effectively and, yes, compassionately” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 8/21).