The New York Times called “misleading” Nancy Pelosi’s statement that “up to 17 million children…have pre-existing conditions” because 17 million “is the upper limit of… estimates.” (photo: Gabriella Demczuk/NYT)
The New York Times, in its obsession with reporting that the truth is somewhere in the middle no matter what the facts say (FAIR.org, 5/3/17), is now downplaying the risk to sick children posed by elimination of the Affordable Care Act.
In a “Fact Check” on the Affordable Care Act, the Times‘ Linda Qiu (5/3/17) was careful to call into question two Republican and two Democratic statements. One of the Democratic statements was from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:
“Up to 17 million children who have pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage by insurers.”
First Qiu rephrased Pelosi’s statement, removing her qualification (“up to”):
Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said the Affordable Care Act insured 17 million children with pre-existing conditions.
Then she debunked not Pelosi’s actual statement, but her own paraphrase of Pelosi’s statement:
This is misleading. Ms. Pelosi’s office cited a 2011 Department of Health and Human Services report, but the 17 million figure is the upper limit of the department’s estimates. The report’s lower figure, four million, is a fraction of that, and most of those children already had coverage before the Affordable Care Act.
Obviously, it is not misleading to cite an upper limit with the phrase “up to”—that’s what “up to” means.
But when you read the HHS report that Pelosi was referencing, the Times‘ “factcheck” is even more deceptive. The 4 million and 17 million figures are not the low and high estimates of the government about the same phenomenon; they’re counting two separate things, and the first figure intentionally leaves out massive numbers of kids with pre-existing conditions.
The HHS report states:
Because pre-existing conditions are determined by insurer practices which vary, two estimates of the number of non-elderly individuals likely to be denied coverage in the individual market were constructed. The first includes only conditions that were identified using eligibility guidelines from state-run high-risk pools that predated the Affordable Care Act. These programs generally insure individuals who are rejected by private insurers. As such, the “lower bound” estimates are people with a health problem likely to lead to a denial or significant mark-up or carve-out of benefits. The second includes additional common health and mental health conditions (e.g., arthritis, asthma, high cholesterol, hypertension and obesity) that would result in an automatic denial of coverage, exclusion of the condition or higher premiums according to major health insurers’ underwriting guidelines identified using internet searches. Individuals with these conditions would at least get charged a higher premium but could also have benefits carved out or be denied coverage altogether.
So the first, lower estimate used “eligibility guidelines from state-run high-risk pools”; the second, higher estimate—the one Pelosi cited—is based on “major health insurers’ underwriting guidelines.” The pre-existing conditions identified by insurance companies themselves as resulting in denial of coverage, reduced benefits or higher premiums are clearly a better gauge of what conditions require the ACA’s protection than state high-risk pool guidelines.
Pelosi’s statement is not misleading. What is misleading, and dangerously so, is the New York Times‘ effort to minimize the dangers ACA repeal poses to sick children in order to maintain its self-image as even-handedly critical of both major parties.
ACTION: Please write to the New York Times public editor and ask her to call for a correction of the New York Times‘ inaccurate “fact check” of Nancy Pelosi’s statement that the ACA protects “up to 17 million children who have pre-existing conditions.”
CONTACT:
Public Editor Liz Spayd
email: public@nytimes.com
Twitter: @SpaydL
letters: 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
Feel free to leave copies of your messages in the comments of this alert. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
More faked news from the NY Times.
It’s sadly ironical to read the Michael Gordon reporting on the “retaking” of Mosul in Iraq, given that having to “re-take” Mosul from other Iraqis is part of a war that Michael Gordon helped to sell in the fall of 2002.
Posted to public@nytimes.com:
The New York Times is embarrassing itself. This kind of stupid “balancing” is debasing journalism. Why can’t the “Fact Check” pay attention to what is actually said, rather than making up something to criticize?
Details here: https://fair.org/home/action-alert-nyt-misleads-on-childrens-pre-existing-conditions/
Don Porter
Schenectady, New York
If you expect accuracy never read the NYT.
Anyone else get the feeling that all this healthcare hullabaloo is meant to distract us from other issues, like the death and destruction we’re causing in other countries, perhaps?
i SENT AN EMAIL WHICH IN PART SAYS:
It appears that you have misreported the facts and misrepresented an important part of the ACA. I am calling for a correction of the New York Times‘ inaccurate “fact check” of Nancy Pelosi’s statement that the ACA protects “up to 17 million children who have pre-existing conditions.”
The New York Times is widely read. With something as important as the repeal and replace that Republicans are trying to do, it is very important to get the facts straight.
Mine said, in part:
I am a subscriber who was quite disappointed to see how your recent “Fact Check” by Linda Qiu on claims about the ACA contains extremely misleading information, apparently in an effort to show both sides on an issue that simply does not require this kind of forced balance.
Qiu’s statement that “Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said the Affordable Care Act insured 17 million children with pre-existing conditions” CANNOT be fact checked, as it is a misrepresentation of what Pelosi said.
What we need to do is show the American public that nothing will save our economy from medical industry bankruptcy, not even Medicare for all, unless we improve our health. As our medical industry now consumes almost 20% of GDP and only provides good healthcare to the upper-half of society.
So, in order for the lower-half of society to also receive good healthcare, the medical industry would need to receive an additional $1.5 trillion tax dollars each and every year, namely, over 30% of GDP.
For the average American diet is 50% fat, it clogs up every internal organ in the body and is the root cause for 95% of the sickness plaguing America.
A better way, give free healthcare to the poor and everyone who passed a blood test showing that their diet was healthy and contained less then 10% fat.
It is NOT fat that is Americas problem. It is the pesticides and other toxins as well as nonfood ingredients that taint everything we eat. Our land is poisoned on a false premise that GMOs will feed the world. That is a lie. Lower yields won’t feed the world. And poisoned foods will just poison the world.
Statin drugs are not needed and fat is actually a very important nutritional need as is cholesterol which without it your cells would fall apart and you’d probably have a brain the size of your thumb considering it is made almost entirely by cholesterol and fat. Starve your body of fat and you have what Statin users experience-and that is far from healthy. You should watch the film $tatin Nation and its sequel.