The New York Times Biased?

Yesterday the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments, in Halbig v. Sebelius, over whether Obamacare’s restriction of  federal subsidies to those who purchase insurance on an exchange “established by a state” really means what it says. Not surprisingly, the administration — you know, the one that changes, rewrites, or ignores the law by executive fiat whenever doing so becomes convenient — argues that the text is irrelevant. All that matters is what Congress intended, or rather should have intended. Thus, it argued, all those who have bought insurance through exchanges created by the federal government, not a state, should receive subsidies if they qualify.

In his New York Times article on this hearing, veteran journalist Robert Pear parrots the administration argument so slavishly that he doesn’t even mention the plaintiffs’ strongest arguments against it. The administration, Pear notes, argued that the “established by a state” restriction is not a restriction at all since “the federal secretary of health and human services ‘stands in the shoes’ of a state when she establishes exchanges for states that are unwilling or unable to do so.” At worst, it maintained and Pear duly reports, the language was a minor drafting error since Congress couldn’t have meant to gut its own law by including  such a drastic restriction.

There is no evidence in the statute, however, that this restriction was a drafting error, and voluminous evidence that it was not. Michael Cannon gives a few examples:

Section 1323 provides that U.S. territories establishing a compliant Exchange “shall be treated as a State.” So, Congress could have said that Exchanges established by the federal government shall be treated as though they had been established by a state. Section 1304(d) creates a legal fiction when it explicitly defines “State” to include the District of Columbia. (Since D.C. established its own Exchange, this legal fiction makes D.C. residents eligible for tax credits.) In the same manner, Congress could have defined Exchanges “established by the State under section 1311” to include federal Exchanges. Finally, the PPACA contains 95 separate “notwithstanding” clauses. Had its authors added just one more – say, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, premium-assistance tax credits shall be available through Exchanges established by the Secretary” – Congress would have unambiguously overridden the plain meaning of the tax-credit eligibility rules, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

The restriction of subsidies to purchases on exchanges “established by a state” was neither unintended nor irrational. As Jonathan Adler, who has written widely on this issue and submitted an amicus brief in Halbig, points out, the purpose of the restriction was ” to provide an incentive for states to create their own exchanges, operated at their own expense.”

My point here, however, is not to argue that the plaintiffs’ arguments are correct — though I think they are — but that readers of Pear’s New York Times article on the case were not even informed about them. The New York Times, in short, apparently deems only one side of a two-sided argument fit to print.

There were other, more typical examples of Pear’s report including pro-administration bias. Consider the following paragraph:

Of the 4.2 million people who selected private health plans from October through February, 2.6 million obtained coverage through the federal exchange, and four-fifths of them qualified for subsidies that reduce their premiums. Without subsidies, many would have been unable to afford insurance.

Since the administration has so far refused to announce the numbers of those who have actually paid the first month’s premium, there is no way to know that “2.6 million obtained coverage” since actual coverage depends upon payment. Nor is it clear how Pear knows that “many would have been unable to afford insurance” without subsidies. Does he know, for example, how many of those alleged 2.6 million in fact had insurance that was cancelled because of Obamacare? If they had insurance before, they obviously could afford it. What they might not have been able to afford without subsidies were the new Obamacare policies.

An impression of New York Times bias is reinforced by the following sidebar that accompanies Pear’s article, showing the Times trolling for good news:

Contribute to Our Reporting

The Times would like to hear from Americans who have signed up for health care under the Affordable Care Act.

If you could not or did not sign up, the Times doesn’t want to hear from you.

Say What? (1)

  1. CaptDMO March 28, 2014 at 12:27 pm | | Reply

    “Nine out of ten (pre selected)doctors surveyed say….”

Say What?