Fisking Franken

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200403180833.asp

Franken says I make a "mistake" when I write of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (italics to highlight the point in contention), "The generous federal subsidy encouraged states to maximize their health benefits, essentially extending a federal entitlement to children living in families with incomes roughly 200 percent above the poverty line." But this is absolutely correct. It is Franken who is mistaken, and apparently doesn't have the slightest idea what he is writing about.

Such programs often apply to families with incomes 200 percent above the poverty line. It is a way to ensure that they reach the working poor. "200 percent of poverty" is, therefore, pretty standard public-policy argot, but Franken seems never to have heard of it, and insists that I'm wrong that SCHIP applies to families in that category. The error, however, is his: According to the American Medical Association, "SCHIP coverage is now available in 38 states and the District of Columbia for children up to age 19 whose family income is at or above 200 percent of the federal poverty level."

 

[corplinx]

From the Article:

Let this be a warning to other comedians: Don't try to do public policy.

I think the point is that teams of harvard students should do the the heavy lifting just let the comedian add the ad hominems and put their name on it.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm not sure what is meant by "fisking", but as the editors point out neither Franken's nor Lowry's facts were 100% correct.

 

[headscratcher4]

Can't help wondering why the National Review and others are so worried about Franken...he's just (barely) a commedian nowadays. Maybe he doesn't need to understand the numbers, unlike the president who told COngress Medicare reform would cost $120 million less than he now says it will, or that the econmy would create 2 million jobs this year. My point is that Fanken, right or wrong is a commentator, I think we should worry more about the guys on the inside who either don't understand the numbers or who are diliberately fudging them. IMO

 

[gnome]

Sometimes a single number--poverty line--can be misleading.

For example, I have a close personal friend who is well above the poverty line. She can afford medical insurance through work--for herself. The cost of the family plan offered to her skyrockets--to the point where she would not be able to pay her basic bills (and we're not talking cable TV here--more like electricity, rent, and car insurance). It would literally be better for her to save her money and pay for medical costs out-of-pocket... which she did, scraping by with taking her kids to the doctor only when there was an emergency.

Finally, due to federal money going to the state of florida, she is off the waiting list for Florida Kid-care, and can cover her children at a far more reasonable price. -- Which, by the way, is on a sliding scale by income.

My point is, just looking at the poverty line is meaningless, if health insurance is so costly even working parents can't afford it.