FREE TAPATALK APP

Nie Trink Wasser · 22nd March 2004, 11:10 AM

Quote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0403180833.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 · 22nd March 2004, 12:25 PM

From the Article:

Quote:

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 · 22nd March 2004, 01:03 PM

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 · 22nd March 2004, 01:27 PM

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 · 22nd March 2004, 03:55 PM

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.

22nd March 2004, 11:10 AM	#1
Nie Trink Wasser Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 1,333	Fisking Franken Quote: http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0403180833.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."
	__________________ "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." - Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." - Louis D. Brandeis "Heâ€™s pulled back the curtain to reveal places like Harvard as the gratuitous institutions theyâ€™ve become ever since graduating the Unabomber (and other like-minded lunatics) who can justify terrorism all too easily with the moral indifference of postmodernism."

22nd March 2004, 12:25 PM	#2
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	From the Article: Quote: 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.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

22nd March 2004, 01:27 PM	#4
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,759	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
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

22nd March 2004, 03:55 PM	#5
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,879	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.
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,879	__________________

22nd March 2004, 01:03 PM	#3
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,480	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.