SCHIP is hard to argue against, especially when Bush is leading the veto effort and charities are so eager to remind you of the fund raising lure, "its for the children!" But Mike Leavitt makes the strongest case by arguing for preserving scarce present resources to anticipate for large-scale medical expenditures in the future, or in other words, saving.
The SCHIP argument primarily centers around which families will receive funding and how much they will receive. It seems that a resolution might just be around the corner, but its curious why Leavitt (and Bush) wouldn't want to help kids get easier access to medical care.
One reason is the Dems' expansion would actually cost more to maintain than the initial $35 billion they desire. The other is that it doesn't make sense for a family of 4 making a total of $83,000 to be eligible. But the uber-reason is that a GOP-approved $20 billion expansion would save $15 billion for other important programs, such as the development of national standards for health outcomes, information transparency so the public is aware of such standards, and a national IT/exchange structure to maintain and update these standards. And I'm not talking about the Zagat-like rating system Wellpoint is offering, either. What a joke.
Bottomline: Saving for the future is important. The Golden Rule of cutting back a little now to benefit future generations later is even more important. The environment, the debt-ridden budget, social security and certainly health care all depend on it.