How hard is it to try to resolve factual disputes over controversial policy issues? Too hard for the New York Times:
Mr. Bush argues that the expansion is too costly and would push people who could afford private insurance onto the government rolls, steering the program away from its initial aim of helping poor children. He said that states like New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Illinois and New Mexico spend more money on adults than children, and he reiterated his contention, which the authors of the bill dispute, that the measure could benefit some families earning up to $83,000 a year.
“That doesn’t sound poor to me,” the president said.
Welcome to the dystopia of “objective” journalism. What’s particularly sad here is that other publications have already addressed this issue — the Times could have just cribbed from them. For instance, here’s the relevant passage from McClatchy that I praised on Monday:
President Bush claims that the bipartisan bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program “would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes up to $83,000 a year.”
That’s not true.
The bill maintains current law. It limits the program to children from families with incomes up to twice the federal poverty level — now $20,650 for a family of four, for a program limit of $41,300 — or to 50 percentage points above a state’s Medicaid eligibility threshold, which varies state to state.
States that want to increase eligibility beyond those limits would require approval from Bush’s Health and Human Services Department, just as they must win waivers now. The HHS recently denied a request by New York to increase its income threshold to four times the poverty level — the $82,600 figure that Republican opponents of the bill are using.
Under current law, nineteen states have won waivers from these income limits. The biggest was granted to New Jersey, which upped its income limit to 350 percent of the federal poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four in 2007. The expanded SCHIP program retains the waiver option under federal discretion; it doesn’t change it.
Any chance McClatchy can take over the NYT’s Washington bureau?
Update 10/5 11:14 AM: There’s even more lameness in today’s NYT story on the SCHIP debate, in which Rudy Giuliani is allowed to make an unsupported claim about “crowd out” without any contradiction from the writer or supporters of the bill:
In an interview yesterday on New Hampshire radio, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani framed the insurance program itself as a “typical Democratic, Clinton kind of thing” that substitutes government solutions for private section options.
“Half to two-thirds of the children that they’re going to take care of already have private insurance,” Mr. Giuliani said. “They’re going to move them to the government. It is not just a beginning, it’s a big step in the direction of government-controlled medicine.”
Actually, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that about one-third of the children who will be added to the program already have private insurance — here’s McClatchy again:
The president also claims that the proposal would cause some families to drop private coverage and enroll their children in the cheaper SCHIP program.
That’s true.
Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, said that was inevitable to some degree when any government program expanded. The CBO estimates that the legislation would attract 5.8 million new enrollees by 2012. Of them, 3.8 million would be uninsured and eligible under current requirements, and 2 million probably would have had private coverage before the expansion.
That’s a rate of about 1 in 3 new enrollees dropping private insurance. “We don’t see very many other policy options that would reduce the number of uninsured children by the same amount without creating more” dropouts from private insurance, Orszag said.