Low-income families in Washington who were stressed about how they could afford health care for their children can relax, at least for another year. Gov. Gary Locke decided this week to delay a plan to charge families a modest premium for children’s Medicaid coverage.

At least “modest” is the term most households would apply to the $10 to $15 monthly fee the state intends to charge families, per child, for the health care coverage that’s now free. Affected families – those who earn between 150 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level – include about 74,000 children. An estimated 4,000 of those kids would drop off the Medicaid rolls, because the trifling fee would be prohibitively expensive for their parents.

To a needy family on a no-frills budget, those few extra dollars a month may have evaporated after paying for the rent, the utilities, the groceries or the gasoline to get to and from work. When a car repair can blast holes in your budget and possibly cost you your job, $10 or $15 in extra expenses can be devastating.

But Locke’s decision merely delayed the imposition of the Medicaid fee, which he wants to establish in phases.

He may have little choice. In its own way, the state is needy, too. Revenues are slack and costs are risingThe state is in a shaky position to indulge in charitable impulses.

But the push to impose Medicaid fees has not been expressed in budgetary terms. It has been framed as a moral issue; a character issue. People need to take some ownership in their own health care, the governor and other political leaders have said.

“I don’t think it’s an issue of money; it’s an issue of responsibility,” said state Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Vancouver.

That statement has a plausible philosophical sound to it, but that’s of little comfort to a child whose health is on the line. A child whose parents choose not to accept their responsibility, assuming it’s financially possible for them.

Moreover, it’s of little comfort to society, which will eventually have to pick up an array of associated costs. For example, the extremely expensive emergency-room care provided to youngsters whose illnesses went untended at earlier stages. Or the ongoing social-service expenses of children who grow up hampered by lingering health issues and end up taking more from the economy than they contribute to it.

Society has a self-interest in providing for its neediest members. Those who can should contribute to that cost at a reasonable level. Those who can’t will not grow in character by having to choose between the rent and medical attention for their children. And the children may not grow at all.