Children's Health: Where we agree

[Editor's Note: This editorial has been changed. In the original version, the editorial referred to the work of a congressional conference committee. The compromise was actually developed in informal negotiations. An editorial discussing the decline of conference committees appears in September 27's opinion section.]

President Bush's bring-'em-on determination to block expansion of American kids' access to health coverage is deeply troubling. Washington's entire congressional delegation should focus on areas of agreement to continue the state's and the nation's long, bipartisan efforts to provide insurance to more kids from low- and lower-middle-income families.

This state has long been a leader in efforts to enroll more children in coverage and provide the kind of routine health care found in other advanced countries. But, nationally, the number of children without health coverage hit a record 8.7 million last year. In part because of lack of health coverage and preventive treatment, this country ranks near the bottom among developed countries in terms of children's well-being. Expanding coverage should be a matter of pride and principle for congressional members from Washington and the rest of the country.

Senate-House negotiators have been working on a compromise measure that would allow new coverage for several million uninsured children nationally. But the president threw more oil onto the partisan fire he has provoked, challenging Democrats Thursday to pass an extension of the current program.

That is absurd, coming from the same president who earlier wouldn't wait for Senate Republicans to finish work on an excellent expansion compromise before promising a veto. Bush is blatantly misrepresenting compassionate expansion as a step toward government takeover of health care.

The New York Times reported that the compromise would remove Medicare provisions in the bill's House version. In a way, that's promising, as one section poses serious threats to the future of a Wenatchee hospital. But it also means Congress must return later to larger Medicare issues, particularly to halting a planned cut in reimbursement rates for doctors that could spur further reluctance by physicians to take Medicare patients.

We understood House Republicans' concerns with the earlier version of the bill they voted on, but the final measure is expected to be closer to the more modest Senate bill. Unless the negotiators' compromise is a sham designed to bait Republicans into rejection, Eastside Republican U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert or any other member who votes to uphold a presidential veto should expect the most serious scrutiny from voters next year.