Robert Pear's dissection of the Bush administration's abuse of statistics about the Medicare prescription drug bill takes me back to the old days:
In trying to shape public perceptions, the Bush administration has manipulated enrollment figures.
On April 20, the administration issued a news release saying, "30 Million Medicare Beneficiaries Now Receiving Prescription Drug Coverage." On May 10, it announced, "37 Million Medicare Beneficiaries Now Receiving Prescription Drug Coverage."
Only one million people had signed up in the three-week interval between those dates. Most of the apparent increase resulted from the administration's decision to include six million people who had not signed up for the Medicare drug benefit but had coverage from other sources.
Likewise, on May 10, the White House said, "Of the more than 42 million people eligible for Medicare, more than 31 million people with Medicare now have Part D-related prescription drug coverage."
But more than 10 percent of the people — 3.5 million of the 31 million beneficiaries — were getting drug coverage from programs unrelated to Medicare: the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and Tricare, the military health care plan.
I'm glad he ran the story, but why wasn't this news back when it happened?
Also, Pear's lede is an annoying example of "he said," "she said":
Republicans tend to overstate enrollment, which is widely viewed as a measure of the popularity and success of the program, known as Part D of Medicare.
Democrats stretch the facts, too. They suggest that hardly anyone is benefiting from the program, which they call costly, confusing and corrupt.
But the Times reporter provides no specific example of Democratic deception that is comparable to the misleading White House statistics quoted above.
Comments