The Wall Street Journal has a pretty even-handed editorial today on this whole program. While taking conservative bloggers to task for criticizing the Frost family (and Democrats for putting them in the spotlight in the first place), it points out that:

  • The Schip bill was not some all-or-nothing proposition: A continuing resolution fully funds the program through mid-November, so none of the 6.6 million recipients will lose coverage. And even if Washington can't agree by then, there will be another stopgap, because Schip might as well already be an entitlement. In truth, the Bush Administration endorses a modest expansion. A majority of Congress backs a much larger expansion. The controversy is over the role of government in health care.

    The 10 million children that [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi cites are the sum of the current enrollees plus those who could join under the Democratic plan (which also has the support of some Republicans). Never mind that up to 60% of these children already have private insurance, which Schip would displace as it moves up the income scale. Only by Beltway reasoning could "not expanding" count as "denying" public assistance.

    Despite all that, after his veto Mr. Bush repeatedly signaled a willingness to compromise and spend more than the $5 billion he would prefer to pump in--which is by itself a 20% expansion. His offer has been spurned flatout, and an override vote is scheduled for next week.

    Mr. Bush's position recognizes that a subsidy like Schip is necessary is some cases because of government mandates and overregulation. Congress and the states consistently enact health-care policies that make insurance coverage more expensive, and then they wonder why people have trouble paying for it.

    The employer-based insurance tax deduction is a wealth transfer to those who need it least--the most affluent, with the most gold-plated plans. It launders health dollars through a third-party bureaucracy that encourages people to spend, reducing access and raising prices for the uninsured.

    On equity grounds alone, Democrats should support changing these incentives.

    That they don't, or won't, suggests ulterior political motives, and that's where Schip comes in.