Insuring children

Even if Maine lawmakers last session could not agree on whether to insure the children of the working poor, they should be willing to help the federal government do it. Getting kids better preventive care when they would otherwise do without is a smart investment for the state.

Several state plans would have used part of the increase in the cigarette tax to support health insurance for children whose parents earn enough so that the children do not qualify for Medicaid but not so much that they can afford to purchase insurance. Gov. King was the chief opponent of this plan, saying the cigarette money should be used instead for tax relief.

Democrats did not have the votes to override his veto and so settled for what everyone without votes settles for: a committee to study the problem. That 16-member committee, to be appointed by the governor, is expected to report back to the Legislature by December.

Its members will have more information than lawmakers did when they punted on the health insurance in June. The new federal budget includes $24 billion for children’s health, $13 million of which could come to Maine. Along with a required state match of $4 million, that money could insure approximately 14,000 children, just less than half the total number of those lacking insurance. The state has set aside considerably more than that in the event the committee concludes that insuring these children is a good idea.

The federal plan would allow for children up to 200 percent of the poverty level to qualify for the insurance. The parents of those above 150 percent would be required to pay premiums and other expenses equal to not more than 5 percent of family income. The federal grant also requires states to ensure that the expanded coverage does not replace existing coverage, a valid point of concern during the legislative debate last session.

As in many other states, there is popular support in Maine for children’s health insurance. The perception is based on numerous persuasive reports of kids suffering far worse health problems because they lacked basic — and inexpensive — care that insurance provides. The state has sound humane and fiscal reasons to get behind this plan to support the working poor, and should do so when the federal money becomes available.