As I predicted here in July, George W. Bush, the president of all the people, is once again vetoing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), despite its overwhelming (75 percent) support among Americans, health care professionals and members of Congress. The basic reason was and is ideological; he’s against government sponsored health care.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, has acknowledged as much. But the reasons keep changing, like the rationales for going to war in Iraq or threatening an attack on Iran. And still the White House press has failed to challenge her, to force her off the robotic talking points and discuss seriously the issue, as other press secretaries have done during my 40 years of covering Washington.

For example, at a recent briefing explaining the president’s criticism of Democratic health care proposals and his opposition to SCHIP, Perino said, “the President’s point was that the Democrats are trying to incrementally establish government-run health care and a national program. He does not think that’s the right thing for the country.”

As one who has been second-guessed in the past, I hesitate to do the same now. But the questions begged to be asked. “Does that mean the president thinks Medicare, a government-run program is ‘not the right thing for the country?’ Or, for that matter, the socialized VA health care system, where everyone works for the government? Or does the president oppose the federally subsidized health insurance he and his family and Ms. Perino get, which is what most Democrats propose?”

A couple of days later, Ms. Perino gave yet another reason for the president’s opposition to SCHIP. Aside from his earlier objection to it as a government program that might threaten to lead to socialized medicine, and his later opposition to raising the tax on tobacco to pay for it, Ms. Perino said, “We’re not going to compromise on the one core principle that we think is key to this debate: poor children should be taken care of first.”

That, of course, implies that too many of the families of the 10 million children who would be included in the proposed expansion of SCHIP can afford their own insurance. The original SCHIP legislation, which Bush rejected, would have permitted high-cost states like New York to grant eligibility for children in families of four with incomes up to $80,000. The later legislation scaled that back to $60,000, although most of the eligible kids would come from near-poverty families.

No one in the White House press challenged the assumption that that’s too much money to entitle families to help with their children’s medical expenses. After all there was no real challenge when the president said poor children could always go the emergency rooms for help. Perhaps too many in the White House press corps, like Ms. Perino, have good salaries with health care benefits subsidized by their bosses or taxpayers. In any event, no one thought to ask about the costs of health insurance for a family of four, when it is not sponsored by an employer.

In my other capacity as a Newsday columnist, I found out from readers how much their heath insurance cost. First, in many states it’s difficult for a family to get individual coverage if, for example, someone has a chronic illness like asthma. But in New York, where you can’t be turned down, the premium for a family ranges just over $2,500 a month–or $30,000 a year. That’s more than the income of many American families.

It’s not much cheaper elsewhere. And if a child (or anyone else in the family) is stricken with a catastrophic illness, most insurance companies will set a limit on what they’ll spend on you. That’s why, in addition to the 10 million children among the 47 million Americans (most of them working) with no health insurance, there are millions more (including some in the White House press corps) with insufficient insurance.

Preparing for a White House briefing with some basic reporting on an issue that’s likely to come up could yield some interesting answers. But as I read the transcripts of the White House briefing I’m struck by the lack of specific knowledge among reporters to challenge the talking points, which too often make the television news shows. Next time she (or the president) throws her concern for “poor children” at a reporters, why not ask if she knows how much individual insurance for a family costs.