There's been a lot of rhetoric spewed by both sides of the SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) debate.   Commenters on the left are convinced that Bush just hates children and wants to deny health care coverage for poor children.  On the right, Democrats are accused of wanting to tax the middle class to bring nationalized health care to the well off as part of an evil plan to nationalize healthcare for everyone.

I have done a little research to try and separate fact from fiction.

SCHIP current budget - $5 billion per year

Bush's proposal - $6 billion per year (20% or $1bn annual increase)

Democrats' proposal - $12 billion per year (140% or $7bn annual increase)

The Congressional Budget Office's estimates, the net additional federal cost to maintain current programs under SCHIP would be $8bn over the next five years - an increase of $1.6bn per year (see page 14 at link).  Then again, they overestimated this year's budget deficit by about 50% and they only had to look one or two years into the future). Nevertheless, seems like a great compromise opportunity - 1.8 is between 1 and 7 - guess not!

(To cover the cost, the bill relies on tobacco taxes, especially the cigarette tax, which would be increased to $1 a pack, from the current 39 cents.)

SCHIP current goal - coverage for children of families making 200% of the poverty level (approx. $40,000 per year for a family of four)

Bush proposal - maintain existing coverage levels, providing more funds to cover inflation

Democrats' proposal - allowing for coverage for children of families making 300% of the poverty level (approx $60,000 per year) with certain excpetions for states like NY  and NJ where the limits would be 350-400% of the poverty level (approx $70,000-$80,000 per year).  According to my calculations, this would extend coverage to about half the families in the United States and it is reported that the bill would double the number of children covered.

You would think they could find some middle ground, wouldn't you?  The issue is not coverage for children who are "poor" (i.e., living below the poverty line).  They are already covered by Medicaid.  The question is how many children above the poverty line should be offered government provided health care benefits. 

All in all the question comes down to this - is health care for children something that we should treat as a human right, and if so, who gets it for free and who doesn't?  I don't have the answer, but I wish those that are running the country would just have that specific debate instead of calling each other names.

If you read this, please let me know if you have any other interesting info that a concerned citizen might rely on to make their decision.