Am I the only one frustrated by the news media coverage recently -- particularly when it comes to SCHIP?

Question

So here is why I am frustrated. I want to know about SCHIP, so I read a bunch of news stories on it (from newspapers all over the political spectrum -- isn't Google News wonderful). However, all they told me was what politicians said about it. For example, Bush and Bohner, said it allows health care to illegal aliens, takes health care away from private insurance companies, and covers adults and families making over 80K. Pelosi and Reid said the opposite. Why can't some journalists read the bill and tell me who is telling the truth -- complete with quotes from the bills to support their conclusions. I would read the bill myself if I had the time, but I don't. Given however, that jounalists get paid to report, you would think that someone would actually read the bill and tell me what it really says.

Michael H., thanks your long reply. Could you point me toward the passages in the bill that you are referring to (or towards an online news story that cites passages from the bill).

Uri K, thanks for the link. It did not get me text of the bill, but by typing in "schip" I was able to get links to 128 bills/amendments!! How do you know which is the most recent proposal?

I figured out how to find the most recent bill. I found it at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.3963:

It is bill House Bill 3963, and I found it by searching for "schip" with the date range of this week.

Answer 1

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:120:./temp/~c110aW48YJ:e1144:

This is the bill as of two days ago I dunno if there is a newer one.

this is from section 203 of the current bill `(IV) VERIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY STATUS- The State shall satisfy the requirements of section 1902(a)(46)(B) or 2105(c)(10), as applicable for verifications of citizenship or nationality status.

It may be a bit difficult to understand the precise meaning of that without having the documentation to look at, but it makes it pretty obvious there is a citizenship requirement. In addition the bill only covers those 18 and under and pregnant women. I can't answer the income number as I don't really know the poverty line currently, but coverage is extended to children whose families make less than 300% of the poverty line.

This is the vetoed version of the bill which is a little different with a little bit vaguer language but with pretty much the same meaning and intent: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:126:./temp/~c1107FwO7b:e139776:

Answer 2

There have been very few journalists being published in the news media over the past 30 years, so you shouldn't be surprised.

The fact is that the liberal media is attempting to hide many parts of the bill. For instance, most of the poor children that this bill is attempting to address are already covered. That is a fact.

Further, many of the children that the liberals claim will benefit from the bill are already covered by private health care through their parents' work provided coverage.

Another reason why the facts of SCHIP are not being presented by the media is that it is socialized medicine that will require those who it is supposed to help pay more in taxes for less and more inadequate coverage.

Also, the amount of pork on the bill was outrageous.

Finally, and this is the biggest reason, this is the first major attempt of the liberal left to take complete control of the lives of the individual citizen. If this is enacted, then they will claim that because of the higher taxes that the working parents will now need to be covered. And then you would have total socialized medicine and the middle class will now become part of the welfare system. So you will have 2 classes, those on welfare and those in power. A liberal paradise.

So, in short, yea right, you are not the only one frustrated with the media coverage of SCHIP.

Answer 3

A few point that the media is not yet reporting about SCHIP. The bill sent to the president for signature did have provisions that would have allowed some illegals to receive care. Also that same version would have expanded the elegibility to some households of 4 people who earned as much as $80,000 per year.

Now, for the opposite claims by Pelosi and crowd. The current version of the bill (changed from the one sent to the president) does lower the elegibility to those earning only 300% of the federal poverty level. It also no longer has language that would allow illegals to gain subsidized care.

Hope this helps. Things can get real confusing. I read the current version. I still don't like it but it is better than the original which Pelosi and gang KNEW would be vetoed by Bush. It was a ploy so they could say "Republicans hate children and want them to all die".

I can't stand Bush but I absolutely hate that kind of blatant manipulation!

Answer 4

As in most cases, there is a "bit" of truth in both camps. The notion that this is about some bizarre plot to "control" people is laughable and only believable to conspiracy nut jobs who live a data free, truth free existence.

Both sides like to take some aspect in a bill and . . . well, exaggerate it. The GOP liked to show what is theoretically possible in some situations. The dems did the same thing buy showing a kid who really needed the program. Then of course the GOP swift boated the kid and lied like crazy.

Unfortunately, that is what our politics have become. Lies, more lies and yet more lies.

Answer 5

Journalists for the most part are idiots.