DaytonDailyNews.com

One of U.S. Rep. John Boehner's claims to fame is the prominent role he played in brokering the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Today the law has plenty of critics. But at the time of its passage it was widely hailed, and so was the fact that Rep. Boehner, a conservative, made common cause with the iconic liberal, Sen. Ted Kennedy. Notwithstanding the unintended and unforeseen consequences of the law, the effort was a good example of public policy being put ahead of partisan politics.

That was then.

Now, Rep. Boehner is at the center of debate about a bipartisan proposal to expand a wildly successful federal program known as S-CHIP — or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It provides medical care to children who lack health insurance and whose families are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

The bill that Congress passed by large bipartisan majorities, and that President George W. Bush vetoed, would have extended health care to 3.8 million uninsured children by 2012. In the House, 44 Republicans supported the expansion — including Reps. David Hobson, of Springfield, and Mike Turner, of Centerville.

Rep. Boehner's job, however, has been to make sure that the president's view prevailed. To that end, he convinced enough members of his party to back the president, and an attempt at overriding the veto failed by 13 votes.

Rep. Boehner and President Bush say the bill costs too much and that it fails to put poor children first. They say much of the new money would support middle-class children whose families can afford private health insurance. They insist some states use the program, not just for children, but to provide health insurance for adults. They imply that the S-CHIP expansion is a trial balloon for government-funded health care — and will result in people leaving private health care plans in favor of the government dole.

The arguments are overstated or simply wrong.

At $35 billion over five years, the extra funding for S-CHIP is a significant expenditure. Still, it's one the country should pay for. Providing medical care for children is the least the national government can do while it tries to figure out how to make sure everyone has access to basic medical care.

The biggest deception by Rep. Boehner and the president is this business about not putting poor children first. The legislation creates the largest financial incentives for states to enroll the lowest-income children. It also would remove a barrier to doing that by reversing a Bush administration regulation that prohibits reimbursement to schools that help enroll uninsured children.

Meanwhile, it's a fact that many families that have incomes of $30,000 to $40,000 can't afford insurance if they have to buy it on the open market, or if their employer doesn't subsidize the premiums.

The legislation does allow states to insure children in families with incomes significantly above the poverty limit, but the classic case where this will occur involves a child with chronic illness that's expensive to treat and beyond the means even of a middle-class family.

Would some adults be eligible? You bet. What, exactly, is the problem with providing prenatal care for uninsured pregnant women?

Rep. Boehner has delivered the necessary votes the president needed to get his way. But he did so at the expense of uninsured Ohio children.