I've just viewed tonight's PBS Newshour, and I can't say I'm happy about it.
One of tonight's segments was Congress Eyes Expanding Children's Health Insurance. The segment is described on the PBS website as
Lawmakers and President Bush have been at odds over funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which is set to expire this year. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt and GOP Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty debate the matter.
Watching this segment is to get a glimpse just how bad PBS and other "mainstream" media outlets are handling not only the health coverage of poor children, but of all Americans.
How badly? See after the break.
So how bad is it?
First, even the description is something of a joke. It's a debate with no debating. Michael Leavitt gets an extended segment with Newshour regular Gwen Ifill, who as we will see is not earning her pay on this one. The other interview (they are never on at the same time) is a Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota does not rebut any of Leavitt's points.
And more to the point, when discussing an issue that's now before Congress, would it kill them to actually ask a Senator or Representative about the bills before Congress? I'm guessing that the answer to this is "yes".
So here's Ms. Ifill not doing her job:
GWEN IFILL: Why is it that the president wants to veto this legislation?
MIKE LEAVITT: The president desires to have the State Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorized. It's very important; he'd like Congress to do it soon. We think it's an important program. We want to make certain that no child who's currently covered by the program or eligible for the program loses that eligibility.
What he objects to is using this program or its reauthorization as a chance to expand dramatically the number of people who have federal health care. He believes that, while every American needs access to an affordable basic policy, that there are better ways to do it than to put people who make $80,000 a year on welfare.
Leavitt should really be Sec. of Agriculture, since the man is shoveling huge piles of manure here. Let's parse this ourselves:
- He's suggesting that Bush really intends to renew this, and if only Congress would be "reasonable", the
hostages children currently covered under the bill now expiring will be covered.
- Note the phrase affordable basic policy, because he is about to keep repeating versions of the phrase for the rest of the interview. In the entire interview, Leavitt will go out of his way to say that they are offering "insurance". He will not say the words "health care" in connection with administrative policy. He does use the words. But not as if it's a good thing.
- He describes the Democratic bill as "welfare", and uses the $80K riff to suggest that people who make $80K and don't have adequate coverage are somehow "slumming" it.
Ifill in no way disputes his framing, and even makes the error of suggesting that the Administration would sign a health care bill of any kind:
GWEN IFILL: You use this term "government-run health care" a few moments ago. Do you think that this is basically the camel's nose in the tent toward a universal health care coverage idea?
MIKE LEAVITT: Well, those who propose it don't make any effort to hide their fact that they would like Medicare or government-run health care to cover everyone in the country. Medicare has been an important program, as has SCHIP, but let's also remember that it was focused on those who are in need. If we use it as a tool to cover everyone, the dramatic problems that we have in meeting the demands, the fiscal demands of the entitlements would be expanded.
I'm a trustee of Medicare, and we issued a warning, saying this system cannot be sustained. It is financially in deep trouble. And then to use it as the means by which we would continue to cover people would be a very serious mistake.
GWEN IFILL: Some people listening to you might be a little confused at this point. You said that you support government -- universal access to health care [emphasis mine], which you distinguish -- how is that different, in your estimation, from universal health care?
Um, Gwen, no he didn't. Read the fine print. Leavitt, like his colleague Fredo Gonzales, is a "what the meanin of is is" kind of guy. He has only said the Administration favors access to "affordable insurance" -- whatever the hell that means. Actually giving people access to health care, well, that's what those socialist Democrats are pushing for.
Leavitt, G'd love him, is also including the "Medicare is going broke" riff for good measure. Having made the pile high and deep, he keeps shoveling away. Get a load of this face full of, well, whatever:
GWEN IFILL: I believe the president's proposal would come to about $5 billion, but the Congressional Budget Office says it would cost $14 billion just to cover the number of people who are covered now. How do you reconcile those two numbers?
MIKE LEAVITT: Well, actually the president's proposed just under $10 billion, which we think is adequate. If the number is wrong to cover our policy then we're obviously willing to discuss that.
The number isn't what's important. The number -- what's important is that we agree on what this government program is intended to do. The president believes it should cover those children who are poor, not those who are moderate-income or, in some cases, higher-income brackets.
The number isn't what's important???? Especially since Bush is lowballing it by $4 Billion to even maintain the same access there was before?
Higher and deeper, folks.
I'm not even going to go into Pawlety's "reply", which is a luke warm pile of... mush.
Ifill needs to get a Ear full on this on. Read the transcript or listen to the audio, and give the Newshour a piece of your mind, politely but firmly.
Maybe next time they'll even have someone who knows or cares about health care on the panel.
Update: I posted another "Feedback" form to the NewsHour site with a link to this diary. Don't know if they'll respond, but if they do, I'll spread the word.