It’s the and middle-class part that I object to. I presume coverage of 25-year old “children” is intended to cover ‘kids’ in college, or who are incapacitated in some shape or fashion. I have no problem with helping those truly ‘in need,’ but I have an immense problem with paying for my peer’s kid’s health insurance and/or for those who have figured out how to ride the system for free.

Get the federal government out of the picture - transition the program over to the states and I become much more inclined to listen.

Out of curiosity, where in the Constitution does it enumerate the right or responsibility of the government to provide for healthcare of the citizens?

I don’t know if I agree or disagree with S-CHIP yet - EXCEPT that when ADULTS are covered, I presume some kids get crowded out.

When the program is billed as “for the children” and “children” is defined as up to 25 years of age, then I find this to be a socialized medicine Trojan Horse and very deceitful and it turns me against these types of programs.

if it’s for poor and middle-class children, $35 billion OVER five years, we suddenly have to curb spending.

And this ladies and gentleman is repuglican logic to everything.

“Almost 700,000 adults were enrolled in the program last year, and adults receiving coverage through S-CHIP outnumbered children in three states.”

S-CHIP has been around for over a decade. It is supposed to cover millions of CHILDREN. Many states have introduced their own coverage for “the children”. Why do the political ads over the last decade continue to claim that millions of children have no health care coverage?

How many children lose out on coverage because of the 700,000 adults covered, or the addition of people up to 25 years of age?

As always, the Democrats always raise the age level of “children”. It explains so much about how they act at times.

S-CHIP review