Oh, New York Times. Do you have a quota where, for every article you serve up that contains useful reporting on true and important things we might not otherwise know about, you have to run some both-sides-do-it nonsense like this?
“Both sides are stretching the truth,” eh? Let's check it out: According to this very fair and balanced fact check, two Democratic claims about health care are “misleading” while Republicans account for one “misleading” and one “false” claim. So you know it’s balanced right there, because there’s two of each, and one of the cardinal rules of balanced reporting is that it always provide an equal number of examples from each side, no matter how many such examples reality offers up.
“Misleading” is the designation the Times gave Paul Ryan’s claim that “VERIFIED: The MacArthur amendment protects people with pre-existing conditions. The amendment is very clear: Under no circumstance can people be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.” But in reality, Trumpcare would allow insurers to put coverage out of reach for people with pre-existing conditions by charging giant premiums. That might not be technically denied coverage, but it’s sure as hell not a protection. So, wow, if that’s the standard for misleading, Democrats could be saying some very, very untrue stuff.
Nope. According to the Times, Democrats are stretching the truth by using the largest number of people who could be hurt by different aspects of Trumpcare. The numbers are right, mind you, it’s just that there’s a range and rather than saying “anywhere from four million to 17 million children who have pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage by insurers” thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Nancy Pelosi said “up to 17 million.” This is, according to how the English language works, correct. But the Times labels this “misleading.” Just like Ryan’s claim that “under no circumstance can people be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.” Equally misleading to assume that people know what the words “up to” mean and to say that people with pre-existing conditions are “protected” because rather than saying “you can’t have insurance at any cost,” insurers can just make them an offer they can’t afford.
Can the New York Times please fact-check itself? That “misleading” rating it’s so fond of would fit very nicely with its own product.