Earlier this month, President George W. Bush vetoed the congressional attempt to significantly expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program or SCHIP. It was only the fourth time that the president has used the veto pen.

Last week, a congressional attempt to override the president failed in the U.S. House by just 13 votes of the two-thirds required.

Many people believe, correctly, that President Bush should have removed the veto pen from its ink well much more during his seven years in office. Still others believe it was wrong to do so this time in vetoing the expansion of SCHIP.

Let’s take a closer look at the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Born in 1997, U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) is the legislative father of SCHIP, a program conceived and mothered by the then first lady, Hilary Rodham Clinton, now U.S. Senator for New York State. At that time, SCHIP was “created to address the growing number of children in the United States without health insurance” by providing for families “who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, yet cannot afford to buy private insurance.” Some Background to consider:

• At creation in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of health insurance coverage for children in the United States since Medicaid began in the 1960s during Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

• The statutory authority for SCHIP is under title XXI of the Social Security Act.

• During the last fiscal year, 6.9 million children were covered by SCHIP at some point”

• Some states have received “Section 1115 demonstration authority to use SCHIP funds to cover the parents of children receiving benefits from both SCHIP and Medicaid,” as well as expanding coverage by adding pregnant women and other adults.

• SCHIP is already facing funding shortfalls in several states.

We can go on but you can now clearly see what is happening with SCHIP and how it links with the next off-spring: nationalized health care.

The bottom line …

The U.S. spendthrifts currently resident in the U.S. Congress — through their original legislation (HR 976) and their attempt to override the president’s veto — are using SCHIP to incrementally expand coverage for not just children but selected adults.

One way to do this is by adjusting eligibility thresholds upward using percentage ratios to the federal poverty guidelines (FPG). This installs an auto pilot into the program for its expansion, and beyond.

Also, federal spendthrifts include levers in the program guideline regulations for state flexibility knowing full well that the federal poverty guideline threshold will itself be adjusted upward each year as well. For example, in 2004, the maximum annual income needed for a family of four to fall within 100 percent of the federal poverty guidelines was $18,850. Accordingly, 200 percent of the poverty guideline was $37,700.

So, all that state-level spendthrifts need do is increase their state ratio percentage in order to move eligibility up and include more people. More specifically, if the state ratio percentage was set at 150 percent of the federal poverty level, by simply increasing the guideline to 200 percent they would expand eligibility dramatically upward to, as noted above, $37,700.

Here are some more facts for you:

• No states (zero) are currently using a 100 percent SCHIP ratio to the federal poverty guideline. Nine states are currently using an SCHIP ratio between 101-to-199 percent of the federal poverty guideline.

In other words, every other state plus the District of Columbia — 42 of the 51 political entities in the United States — are using, at the least, a 200 percent eligibility level for SCHIP.

The 2007 Federal Poverty Level guideline for a family of four is $20,650. Given that 42 of the 51 political entities are using at least a 200 percent SCHIP ratio, that yields $41,300 for SCHIP eligibility in those states and D.C. (Note: Add or subtract $3,480 for each additional or for each fewer family member down to one person set at $10,210 FPL.)

Looking closer at those 42 states and DC, we find:

• 23 states are currently set at a 200 percent SCHIP ratio;

• Eight states are currently set between 201-250 percent (California, Georgia, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia); and

• 11 entities (10 states (Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Vermont) plus D.C.) are set above 250 percent as their respective SCHIP level.

Let’s look closer at the legislation – and, perhaps, discern why the President vetoed it. The SCHIP expansion included “specific outreach and retention practices” including “liberalization” of “asset requirements,” i.e. “eliminating verifications of income eligibility, doing away with in-person interviews in determining eligibility,” and (hold on to your seats folks) “Establishing a process of continuous eligibility” and “establishing presumptive eligibility”

Now, hold on even tighter. Designed to expedite enrollment, bill sponsors came up with the idea of an “Express Lane.” “By eliminating normal screening requirements, the Express Lane speeds up the process whereby states may grant, but not deny, Medicaid and SCHIP applications.

Yes, you read it right. “States may grant , but not deny, applications. When one takes this SCHIP evidence in, one conclusion is clearly apparent. Whether you agree or not, whether you want it or not, congressional incumbents — and, no doubt, some presidential aspirants — want to install an express lane with no exits en-route to government controlled health care.

If and when it is implemented, you can be sure it will be a toll road. The toll it will take in money and lives may be intolerable.