The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) is running a series of articles (the first two are here and here) that explain how news reporters should write about Medicare during the 2012 election. It looks like CJR is taking over the Washington Post's Journolister role of coordinating nationwide pro-Democratic-party news coverage -- at least in terms of properly promoting the Democrat's party line on senior-voter issues. The CJR Medicare rules are pretty simple:
- Never call Medicare "good" insurance (because it isn't); instead -- for cover --find some Democratic- party politician, academician or analyst that says that Medicare is good insurance. (NOTE: Unlike with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, MIT Professor Gruber cannot help you.)
- Never call Medicare Parts A and B by their correct names; instead call them Original Medicare or traditional Medicare; throw in a "Medicare as we know it" quote from President Obama or Vice President Biden every once in a while
- (Otherwise never quote Biden on Medicare; Biden can't keep Medicare and Medicaid straight and has made all kinds of other gaffes. CJR didn't literally say this but some of its "Medicare as we know it" rules are implicit and I am assuming 'ignore Biden' is one of them.)
- Never mention that over 80% of Medicare beneficiaries choose to buy private insurance, or that 14% get Medicaid, and that some seniors get both private insurance and Medicaid; such statistics prove that Medicare Parts A and B are not good insurance
- Never use original sources such as the government's Medicare and You booklet, the Medicare Trustees Report, memos from Medicare actuaries, or the June 2012 MedPAC Data Book;
- Instead use far-left-wing sources such as Kaiser or the CommonWealth Fund
- But call Kaiser and the CommonWealth Fund non-partisan (because that's what they claim to be so technically you're not lying)
- Never explain -- as the Medicare and You booklet does -- that all Parts of Medicare (A, B, C and D) are administered by private insurers; instead pin "private" only as an epithet on Medicare Parts C and D
- Never mention the Government Accountability Office finding that the Obama administration is probably illegally propping up Medicare Part C with bonus payments as part of a so-called Demonstration Project funded by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
- Never say that PPACA closed the Part D donut hole, just say "PPACA is closing the donut hole;" this gets tricky and even this isn't entirely true so just take the Columbia Journalism Review's word for this rule
- Never include the major increase in out-of-pocket (OOP) costs to be experienced by Medicare Part C subscribers under PPACA when promoting the Health and Human Services (HHS) monthly press release about the OOP decrease "average Medicare beneficiaries" will receive because of PPACA
- Never mention the term Fee for Service (FFS) in relation to Medicare Parts A and B; this is a tricky CJR rule because
- The monthly HHS propaganda about "average Medicare beneficiary" OOP savings has to use the term FFS to make its claim "true"
- But FFS is exactly the opposite of what PPACA is proposing for non seniors
- So just drop the term FFS in your reporting and say you made an honest mistake if anyone writes a letter to the editor
- Never use the term "premium support" to describe many policy wonks' approach to reforming Medicare's finances; instead call it a voucher despite the fact that Alice Rivlin, who was President Clinton's budget advisor and is one of those wonks, has clearly explained how the two differ and why the Wyden/Ryan proposal of December 2011 involves premium support
- (In fact, never mention Democratic supporters of Medicare reform such as Alice Rivlin or Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon.)
- Never mention that the $500 billion in cuts to be made by PPACA to Medicare will be used to fund subsidized insurance for non seniors; instead call them "savings."
- Never call it ObamaCare, a rule with which I agree -- parents get to name their babies -- although President Obama himself has begun to ignore that rule
- Never call PPACA by its correct name, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, because that reminds readers of the thousand-page complexity of the bill and the political wheeling and dealing that went into passing the law by a vote or two with all Republicans and even 20 or so Democrats voting "No" (remember the Louisiana Purchase and Cornhusker Compromise?)
-- Dennis Byron
