Third Party & Independents Archives

Uninsured Increasingly Unfavorable Towards Obamacare

We have been told for some time that the young uninsured are going to love Obamacare because it gives them something they want at a good cost.  But it appears that their opinion on the law is a little bit different than expected.

One of the most interesting public opinion phenomenons of the last several months has been the rapid shift against the president's health care law amongst the people it was supposed to help the most—the uninsured. Unfavorable views of Obamacare continued to rise amongst those who lack insurance this month, according to the latest health tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Shortly after the law passed in 2010, a 57 percent majority of the uninsured said they approved of Obamacare. And views of the law were divided fairly evenly as late as last fall. But since the rollout of the exchanges began last October views have become far less favorable amongst those without coverage. The Kaiser poll now finds that amongst the non-elderly uninsured, 54 percent say they do not approve of the health law while only 22 percent say they favor it, a split of 34 points.

Couple that with a couple of recent stories about how low cost doesn’t really mean low cost and you wonder who is really liking this law and why.

Users of "specialty drugs"—high-cost medications used to treat complex conditions such as multiple sclerosis—are likely to face a case of sticker shock if they sign up for one of the Obamacare Exchange health plans. The plans require users to pay coinsurance, a percentage of medication costs. While that percentage varies with specific plans and with the "metal" level of the plan, that's expected to patients' out-of-pocket payments higher than most are acccustomed to paying.

According to Caroline F. Pearson, vice president of the consulting firm, Avalere Health:

In most exchange plans, consumers will face paying a percentage of the costs—known as coinsurance—rather than fixed-dollar copayments for many specialty medications used to treat rare and complex diseases.

According to a new Avalere Health analysis, some plans require enrollees to pay 50 percent of the specialty drug’s cost. ...

Specifically, 59 percent of Silver plans on exchanges across the nation use coinsurance for consumer cost-sharing on the specialty tier. Among Silver plans, the analysis also found that 23 percent of plans have coinsurance rates of 30 percent or more on the highest formulary tier. Sixty percent of lower-premium Bronze plans apply specialty tier coinsurance greater than 30 percent of the drug price. By contrast, only 38 percent of Platinum plans require coinsurance.

and

As with most cancers, one thing led to another. There have been several more surgeries, metastases, bone deterioration, a terrible bout of thyroiditis (an inflammation of the thyroid gland), and much more. But my mother has kept fighting, determined to make the most of life, no matter what it brings. She has an indomitable will and is by far the toughest person I've ever met. But she wouldn't still be here without that semimonthly Sandostatin shot that slows the onslaught of her disease.

And then in November, along with millions of other Americans, she lost her health insurance. She'd had a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan for nearly 20 years. It was expensive, but given that it covered her very expensive treatment, it was a terrific plan. It gave her access to any specialist or surgeon, and to the Sandostatin and other medications that were keeping her alive.

And then, because our lawmakers and president thought they could do better, she had nothing. Her old plan, now considered illegal under the new health law, had been canceled.

Because the exchange website in her state (Virginia) was not working, she went directly to insurers' websites and telephoned them, one by one, over dozens of hours. As a medical-office manager, she had decades of experience navigating the enormous problems of even our pre-ObamaCare system. But nothing could have prepared her for the bureaucratic morass she now had to traverse.

The repeated and prolonged phone waits were Sisyphean, the competence and customer service abysmal. When finally she found a plan that looked like it would cover her Sandostatin and other cancer treatments, she called the insurer, Humana, HUM +1.66% to confirm that it would do so. The enrollment agent said that after she met her deductible, all treatments and medications—including those for her cancer—would be covered at 100%. Because, however, the enrollment agents did not—unbelievable though this may seem—have access to the "coverage formularies" for the plans they were selling, they said the only way to find out in detail what was in the plan was to buy the plan. (Does that remind you of anyone?)

With no other options, she bought the plan and was approved on Nov. 22. Because by January the plan was still not showing up on her online Humana account, however, she repeatedly called to confirm that it was active. The agents told her not to worry, she was definitely covered.

Then on Feb. 12, just before going into (yet another) surgery, she was informed by Humana that it would not, in fact, cover her Sandostatin, or other cancer-related medications. The cost of the Sandostatin alone, since Jan. 1, was $14,000, and the company was refusing to pay.

Posted by Rhinehold at February 28, 2014 4:44 PM
Comments
Comment #376970

ObamaCare will have to be changed almost completely.

There is one trend I find good. Some restaurants are starting to charge an ObamaCare surcharge. Whether or not you like ObamaCare, it is good to be transparent about the costs.

Posted by: CJ at February 28, 2014 7:16 PM
Comment #376972

This ACA thing has been a hard nut for the Corpocracy to crack. The idea is that middle class/worker wages have to go down if the US is going to be able to compete in a globalised world. So, in order for folks to have HC it is necessary to provide it free to those under a certain income level. The hard part is saddling the middle class with the cost of their own insurance plus carrying the ones who can’t pay.

It’s tuff to force wages down while asking the worker to pony up way more for insurance.

Interesting that some of the bankrupt and near bankrupt counties/states are seeking legal ways to lower worker wages, pensions, benefits and so on - - -

Detroit wants to clip pensions 30% and bond holders 80%.

Considerable noise about a fellow in calif who runs 3 high schools and making $600k/yr.


Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 28, 2014 9:44 PM
Comment #376980

It’s time for drastic measures. We have to take matters into our own hands. It’s time.

It’s time to elect the same people over again. They’re the only ones qualified to do the job, right?. They’re doing it so well we need to name more buildings and roads after them, also. That will solve our problems. Gosh! Why didn’t we think of this earlier?

Throw in a couple of lies, some slander, a dash of threats, intimidation, and lawsuits, add some name calling, and we have a recipe for Utopia!

That was helpful, wasn’t it?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 1, 2014 10:29 AM
Comment #376982

Are you complaining here of SSDD or NDNS? Life is still tough, is that it? Before and after.
We are not on disability, so none of this program effects us ever—so let it go.

Are the Rino-publicans in favor of big socialism too now?
Sadly for ye’ we aren’t France, Germany or Canada or you could lay the wackiest claims—oh wait! You are laying the claim that US socialism has it’s drawbacks and we aren’t a socialist country to date. Why are you RINOs chasing socialism as of late? You will not be getting our votes as as a result, being obviously most Americans aren’t socialists.

A true 100% Republican is rollicking in the fact that it doesn’t work in the least—a RINO asks “why” and thus insists on improvement.

This is all just tantamount to garbage raking, all of this “Obamacare” talk, to get us to somehow vote RINO-ed.

Posted by: simpleheaded at March 1, 2014 3:24 PM
Comment #376984

Rhinehold these negative stories coming out about the ACA are so misleading sometimes it is hard to believe what is true. Your source the WSJ is now a Murdoch owned rag that is discredited and untrustworthy IMHO. It seems when we see these stories from the extreme right wing they have been exaggerated or falsified. Here is an example.

The part I don’t understand is how come it is the ACA that is blame for these problem. It is the insurance companies that chose to stop coverage, In your example the insurance company said yes then backed out coverage, yet the ACA gets the blame. IT seems to me it is the free market at work.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 1, 2014 4:48 PM
Comment #376986

J2t2

You are an investor. If you read an article in WSJ do you trust it less than one in PoliticusUSA? As an investor, you don’t read the WSJ? Okay.

Posted by: CJ at March 1, 2014 5:42 PM
Comment #376988

C&J It is what it is but it ain’t what it use to be. Murdoch is a discredited media tycoon IMHO. The corruption this man and his News Corp. is responsible for around the world tarnishes the companies he controls. Not to mention Fox News and the lack of journalistic standards they employ. As an investor there are more suitable and reliable sources of information than the WSJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal

Posted by: j2t2 at March 1, 2014 6:25 PM
Comment #376994

CJ, it’s called kill the messenger. The story is as good as the person telling it in j2t2’s opinion, his IMHO.

If Murdock read a story and Maddow read the same exact story jt2t would believe Maddow and call Murdock a liar.

Isn’t the ACA telling insurance companies what their policies must cover? Aren’t they being canceled because they don’t meet the ACA standards? Does j2t2 believe the insurance companies set those standards unilaterally?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 1, 2014 10:22 PM
Comment #376995

Weary, Murdoch has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. The real question is why you would trust him to supply you with information, are facts optional as long as he tells you what you think you want to hear? Do you leave your children/grandchildren with a child molester? Do you trust your money to the bank robber? Then why on earth would you trust News Corp with your news?

The fact is Weary the Koch Bros are running misleading ads that sound a lot like the one Rhinehold is using as an example. The source is questionable and the info is probably exaggerated so while you may want to discuss the issue based upon myths misinformation half truths and outright lies I don’t And I doubt Rhinehold does either.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 2, 2014 9:03 AM
Comment #376998



In order to properly compare the old plan and the new plan, there needs to be fuller disclosure of the costs and out-of-pocket maximums before claims that the new plan is “unaffordable” can be accepted at face value.


“Rather than knowing exactly what she would have to pay every month, she now is facing a roller coaster of expenses that vary with her health. She said she feels like a surprise is around every corner, since she keeps being hit with new out-of-pocket costs every time she needs treatment, or a test, or even an office visit.”

In order to properly compare the old plan and the new plan, there needs to be fuller disclosure of the costs and out-of-pocket maximums before claims that the new plan is “unaffordable” can be accepted at face value.
My coverage is 80/20. Blood work, I’m paying 20 percent. If I needed a bone marrow transplant, I would only be covered 80 percent. Everything, everything I do now, I have to pay a percentage of.”
In order to properly compare the old plan and the new plan, there needs to be fuller disclosure of the costs and out-of-pocket maximums before claims that the new plan is “unaffordable” can be accepted at face value.
“People are asking me for the numbers and I don’t know those answers — that’s the heartbreak of all of this. It’s the uncertainty of not having those numbers that I have an issue with, because I always knew what I was paying and now I don’t, and I haven’t gone through the tests or seen my specialist yet.”
In order to properly compare the old plan and the new plan, there needs to be fuller disclosure of the costs and out-of-pocket maximums before claims that the new plan is “unaffordable” can be accepted at face value.


…, and will update if we get more information.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 2, 2014 10:14 AM
Comment #376999

So, what was Murdock convicted of? Was it child molesting? …bank robbery? Do you know what he was convicted of, because I can’t find any mention of him being convicted of anything?

Maybe it’s all just the product of the cry baby competition complaining about their lack of ratings.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 2, 2014 10:29 AM
Comment #377003
We are not on disability, so none of this program effects us ever—so let it go.

Simpleheaded, your lack of understanding the ACA is exceptionally abysmal. You have stated this dozens of times and its as true as saying that the moon is made of cheese.

Rhinehold these negative stories coming out about the ACA are so misleading sometimes it is hard to believe what is true.

Some are, some aren’t, it is not hard to believe what is true, you go look it up and make an informed decision. It’s not that hard at all, really.

Your source the WSJ is now a Murdoch owned rag that is discredited and untrustworthy IMHO.

I know that is your opinion, and it is pretty much worthless really. You figure any source that you don’t agree with is untrustworthy so trying to find a source you agree with that says anything negative about anything Obama is pretty much impossible. You use your ‘discrediting’ as the fact that they are owned by Murdoch, but that is an ignorant view to take, IMO, other than for political expediency. Murdoch isn’t editing the paper, researching the stories, etc. Did some of his papers, dealing with celebrities, hack some phones of those celebrities to get information? Yes. That doesn’t mean that everything written by the paper isn’t factual and true. One has to do what they have to do with any source they use for news, examine it and determine if they missed something, look up alternative sources and compare. If you don’t do that, then your view is just as discredited as you claim Murdoch is.

I mean, hell, you use politicususa.com as your source… LOL

The part I don’t understand is how come it is the ACA that is blame for these problem.

Because the ACA is the law that these insurance companies now have to follow, a law that is ill-written and changeable on a whim by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It makes it nearly impossible to try to write laws that won’t end up putting themselves out of business. In fact, it almost makes one think that is the purpose.

It is the insurance companies that chose to stop coverage

Actually, it isn’t. The law said that they could no longer cover in the way that they and the insured had agreed upon. Continuing to offer that coverage would have landed them on the wrong side of the law.

In your example the insurance company said yes then backed out coverage, yet the ACA gets the blame. IT seems to me it is the free market at work.

You apparently have some new definition of a ‘free market’ than everyone else does.

The real question is why you would trust him to supply you with information

I trust no one to supply me with information, that is why I investigate any story or article I reference before I post it. And it is found out to be wrong later one, I admit it and either take the article down or modify it, just as any journalist SHOULD do. But just because a newspaper or person got something wrong before, I don’t dismiss everything they say as wrong later on, because everyone gets things wrong from time to time.

are facts optional as long as he tells you what you think you want to hear?

I was going to ask the same thing of you. How many times has President Obama been shown to be lying or wrong about something, yet you still seem to take what he says at face value. The same for many of the sources you supply, I could bring up all kinds of issues or errors with their editorial staff or history of being wrong, but that isn’t a valid way to counter news and facts, they should be countered with news and facts. How did we find out about John Edward’s affair, was it a ‘trusted news source’? Was it factual or not?

So tell me where anything in the articles that I have used for sources for my article is wrong.

The fact is Weary the Koch Bros are running misleading ads that sound a lot like the one Rhinehold is using as an example.

Actually, they don’t sound very similar at all. And I have not investigated the ad that Americans for Prosperity is running, so I can’t really comment knowledgeably about it, but your use of the Koch brothers as having run it (when it was a PAC that they started, there is no evidence that they, themselves, put the ad together and approved it’s running, though there is no evidence that they haven’t, so I don’t pretend to know) is more telling of your biases than it is of anything else.

I mean heck, look at Politicususa.com, they have a section on fighting Koch as if they are some sort of devil instead of people that they happen to simply disagree with, and have a section on ‘the war on women’ a made up straw man of the left. The author of the article is Justin Baragona, who worked on the Obama 2008 campaign and has no journalism experience any more than I have, in fact I have been writing longer than he has by over a decade. I’m not sure why you give him such high status as a ‘go to guy’. And as for the site, I would equate them to being about as trustworthy as CNSNews.com… I think you know how low praise that is.

Yet, despite that, I don’t assume that what he writes in this specific article is wrong, I would have to look it up. I don’t play the game that you seem to want to play, to dismiss anything anyone says if the source wasn’t a progressively leaning rag…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 2, 2014 3:21 PM
Comment #377025
Some are, some aren’t, it is not hard to believe what is true, you go look it up and make an informed decision. It’s not that hard at all, really.

There are a lot of facts going against you Rhinehold. It’s no secret that conservatives and libertarians alike are trying to repeal Obamacare. What is it now 43 attempts to repeal in the past 4 years? Holding the country hostage in yet another attempt to derail the program and so….

The myths, misinformation, half truth and outright lies emanating from the repubs/conservatives/libertarians on health care in general and the ACA in particular makes factual information hard to come by IMHO. The political movement that cried wolf so many times……

The simple fact is health insurance companies could have kept the insurance plan these people or kept the people with the modifications required to get their health insurance plans up to snuff but they chose not to , for financial gain. The choice was made to deny coverage to make money, the choice was made by the “free market”.

The one thing all these complaints about losing coverage have in common is they cost the companies and when presented with the opportunity the companies booted them. Blaming the law for the opportunist decision is a ruse.

Murdoch, Unbiased, fair and balanced and other lies. The corporate media controlled by Murdoch sued to be preserve their right to lie to the people and you guys stick up for them because I guess it is what you want to hear. Myself I believe they lose credibility as do you when you use them as a source.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 3, 2014 12:23 PM
Comment #377029
The simple fact is health insurance companies could have kept the insurance plan these people or kept the people with the modifications required to get their health insurance plans up to snuff but they chose not to , for financial gain. The choice was made to deny coverage to make money, the choice was made by the “free market”.

Possibly the biggest load of self-serving partisanship that I’ve heard in quite some time…

The law put in place minimums that insurance companies had to meet, preventing them from tailoring insurance policies to their customer’s needs to balance coverage and cost. If those existing policies did not meet those minimums, they were in valid. So if a woman who had cancer and could no longer have children, they could negotiate a policy that did not cover any childcare coverage in order to allow their policy to better cover her cancer or other old age needs.

The law did put in a grandfather clause to allow those non-compliant policies to exist for a short time. However, ANY change to those policies, like adjusting cost to keep up with rising healthcare costs, caused those policies to become immediately non-complaint and therefore illegal to provide. The insurance companies could continue to provide those, for a short time, if they took a loss or didn’t add or change any coverage based on newer technologies, drug changes, etc.

That is why those policies were cancelled, the policies as written were no longer legal to provide. Their option was to be illegal, which takes them out of the market, or take a loss on those policies. All because of the law written by and passed by Democrats.

Murdoch, Unbiased, fair and balanced and other lies. The corporate media controlled by Murdoch sued to be preserve their right to lie to the people and you guys stick up for them because I guess it is what you want to hear. Myself I believe they lose credibility as do you when you use them as a source.

The only credibility that gets lost here is yours when you use YAHOO ANSWERS as evidence to support your claim. In fact, this is exactly the problem that I have with most people who comment on politics, they just aren’t interested in looking for the facts, they just want to distort for partisan reasons. This one paragraph is a perfect example of everything I have been railing about against you and others for weeks now.

Below is the link to the actual caselaw of the case mentioned in the Yahoo Answers article you posted…

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1310807.html

In December 1996, WTVT hired the appellee, Jane Akre, and her husband, Steve Wilson, as a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team.   Shortly after Akre and Wilson arrived at WTVT, they began working on a story about the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone (“BGH”) in Florida dairy cattle.   Their work on this story led to what could be characterized as an eight-month tug-of-war between the reporters and WTVT’s management and lawyers over the content of the story.   Each time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH.

In September 1997, WTVT notified Akre and Wilson that it was exercising its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause.   Akre and Wilson responded in writing to WTVT threatening to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) alleging that the station had “illegally” edited the still unfinished BGH report in violation of an FCC policy against federally licensed broadcasters deliberately distorting the news.   The parties never resolved their differences regarding the content of the story, and consequently, the story never aired.

In April 1998, Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging, among other things, claims under the whistle-blower’s statute.   Those claims alleged that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT’s attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract.   After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims.   The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury.   The jury rejected all of Akre’s claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC. The jury awarded Akre $425,000 in damages.

While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute.

The portion of the whistle-blower’s statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of” a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)(3).   The statute defines a “law, rule or regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or ․ any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.” § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997).  We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news-which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy”-does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.

So to sum up, the two individuals started to put together a documentary with a specific mindset in mind. When pressed to back up their charges with actual evidence, they refused. The station, getting fed up with them, fired them. One of the ‘reporters’ claim the reason that they were fired was because they threatened to go to the FCC for interfering with the news story, a story that NEVER AIRED. The defendant won an initial jury trial, but upon appeal it was found that while there were a lot of issues that the station had raised that could reverse the decision, the fact that the FCC rule against interfering with the story isn’t even a law, the initial charge and finding wasn’t legal in the first place.

So, to point out the problems with your claim…

1) corporate media controlled by Murdoch did not sue, the independently owned local station did.

2) they did not preserve the right to lie, the story was never aired.

3) they did not preserve the right to lie, the station was asking for documentation to back up the story before they would run it and it never appeared. If anything, they were preserving their right to make sure the story was right or choose not to air it.

4) all charges against them were dropped summarily because they were bogus and didn’t even make it to trial, except for the violation of the whistle-blowing statute.

5) the whistle-blowing statue didn’t apply, so the final charge was tossed on appeal.

If you want to make charges against people you don’t like keep doing so, that is your right. But if you want to be accurate and not come out as a full blown hypocrite, accusing someone of lying when you are the one lying, then you are going to need to rethink how you are presenting your viewpoint.

BTW, the search for the factual information that I found took me less than 2 minutes on a bing search. I’m guessing you found the yahoo answers article by doing a similar search along the lines of ‘fox news lies’. I’m sure you can find more, feel free, but take the extra few minutes to actually look the evidence up next time, ok?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 3, 2014 1:22 PM
Comment #377030

BTW, this is a much better example of a news organization fabricating a story, one that actually aired…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 3, 2014 1:39 PM
Comment #377033

Rheinhold,

The reason for the trend is incredibly simple:

The people who couldn’t or didn’t get insurance before the ACA are now getting health insurance. Those people who don’t want insurance were antagonistic to the concept in the first place and aren’t getting insurance.

It’s not that people without insurance are becoming more opposed to ACA, it’s that those not opposed to getting health insurance are getting it.

As for the supposed horror stories, like those of Julie Boonstra, not one has proven to be an actual horror story. In summary (sorry, no attribution available):

What the right wants are struggling average Americans, preferably women, facing financial devestation from health reform. So those are the tales they’re telling, even though they haven’t been able to come up with any real examples.

Posted by: Dave at March 3, 2014 3:03 PM
Comment #377044
The people who couldn’t or didn’t get insurance before the ACA are now getting health insurance. Those people who don’t want insurance were antagonistic to the concept in the first place and aren’t getting insurance.

Dave, that may be a big part of it, but that sort of presents a problem for the law. If these people are that against getting health insurance, and are willing to not get the tax credit for having health insurance, the law isn’t going to be able to work. Only by convincing these young individuals to get health insurance are you going to be able to adequately pay for the older individuals getting insurance on the individual market. With the cap at 4x the risk, soon you will find that in order for the system to work insurers are going to have to jack the price up even more for young individuals who would normally see even lower prices than they are seeing now, even a subsidy, if you qualify for one, won’t be enough to see the insurance costs increasing and driving those people who did buy into the market younger getting back out of it as soon as their enrollment period comes back around.

BTW, just found this out, you can’t cancel insurance that you have purchased on the market unless you have another plan. Meaning that your options are even more limited, you can’t take the no insurance option once you sign up until your year is up, because of the law. Which makes the desire not to sign up to begin with more desirable.

The problem is not just going to ‘go away’, no matter how much people want to believe that it will all work out in the end, no matter how much the math just doesn’t work.

As for the supposed horror stories, like those of Julie Boonstra, not one has proven to be an actual horror story

IN YOUR OPINION. But hey, as long as you think it’s a good deal for them, they should just suck it up and think so too, right? That’s how a good totalitarian defends their views to themselves. Personally I know nothing about Julie Boonstra’s story, this one has nothing to do with that one, something you might discover if you read it and saw who it was this was affecting.

But, let’s be specific. What specifically about the story *I* am talking about is invalid? I didn’t mention Julie Boonstra, j2t2 did, so I am unclear why you are injecting her into the discussion.

Another deflection attempt like those from j2t2, who has already trying to equate this story to one that he read was discredited by a partisan observer and label all Fox News outlets as liars by lying about a case that was adjudicated 5 years ago?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 3, 2014 4:16 PM
Comment #377049

BTW, how’s this for a concern about Obamacare?

The entire British National Health Service hospital patient database was uploaded to an online Google service, causing serious concerns about privacy.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 3, 2014 4:38 PM
Comment #377061
The law put in place minimums that insurance companies had to meet, preventing them from tailoring insurance policies to their customer’s needs to balance coverage and cost.

As you say “Possibly the biggest load of self-serving partisanship that I’ve heard in quite some time…”

The only credibility that gets lost here is yours when you use YAHOO ANSWERS

You are quick Rhinehold, here I thought that anyone using a Murdoch owned “news” as a source would be thrilled with YAHOO ANSWERS and we haven’t even began to get into Fox News and the long line of myth misinformation half truths and outright lies.


So, to point out the problems with your claim…

Rhinehold except for item 1 (on which you are correct;)) the rest of your story is not quite right. I did look it up on Lies fox news tells. Your summary is the appeals court and the local stations lawyers versions not the reporter version of the story.
http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/

Posted by: j2t2 at March 4, 2014 3:02 AM
Comment #377062

Rhinehold here is the tip of the iceberg., I stand by my statement “Your source the WSJ is now a Murdoch owned rag that is discredited and untrustworthy IMHO.”

I know it’s not Fox news or Yahoo Answers but they still have some integrity ;)

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/03/top-news-corp-executive-admits-unethical-behavi/198308

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/03/foxs-latest-attempt-to-revive-the-myth-of-obama/198319

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/09/why-murdoch-cant-escape-the-stench-of-scandal/194776

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08/23/roves-latest-column-highlights-the-wall-street/189533

Posted by: j2t2 at March 4, 2014 3:59 AM
Comment #377066

Rheinhold,

I don’t know what you mean by “cap at 4x risk”. The reality has always been the target was to have 40% of new signups be in the healthier 18-34 age group. Unfortunately, that proportion to date has been about 25-27%.

“It is critical to remember that we are still early in the open enrollment period,” Caroline Pearson, vice president at Avalere Health, an independent consulting firm, told TPM. “We have always assumed that older and sicker individuals would be the first to enroll, and younger, healthier people would enroll closer to March
According to the Keiser Foundation even if the proportion doesn’t adjust the financial model for the ACA will remain fiscally sound at this signup proportion with small rate increases on the order of 1-2%.

I brough up Boonstra because she is just the latest examples of the AFP-Kich Borthers lie machine. There have been zero actual “horror stories” from ACA sign-ups. Not one hasn’t been easily and immediately shown to be a false flag fabrication. These are not my opinions, they are quantified facts. For example Boostras case was supposed to be about how a leukemia patient was being forced to pay unafforadable increases in her health care costs and lose her doctor. However, her doctor is in her new plan, her premiums dropped $6348 but her out of pocket limit became $6350, an increase in $2. So if she had zero medical expenses this year, her costs went up $2. But for every co-pay she used to make, for every co-insurance she has to pay, she is saving money. So, any reasonable person can conclude, there is no “horror” here. In fact, it’s all good news for Boostras because now she can’t be booted from her insurance like she most likely would have before ACA.
However, I would love to hear a horror story from yours. I’ll agree to review two, if you have any, and see if they hold up.


I also don’t see how “totalitarian” comes into play for requiring health insurance. Failing to join results in a fine, not going to jail or a gulag or a concentration camp. You’re free to protest all you want and say whatever you want. Please explain how this is “totalitarian”.

Posted by: Dave at March 4, 2014 10:26 AM
Comment #377068
The law put in place minimums that insurance companies had to meet, preventing them from tailoring insurance policies to their customer’s needs to balance coverage and cost.
As you say “Possibly the biggest load of self-serving partisanship that I’ve heard in quite some time…”

I’m not sure why you are having such problem with facts, you are starting to sound like simpleheaded in your understanding of the ACA.

Rhinehold except for item 1 (on which you are correct;)) the rest of your story is not quite right. I did look it up on Lies fox news tells. Your summary is the appeals court and the local stations lawyers versions not the reporter version of the story.
.

The appeals court version is the one that adjudicated the case and listed the facts that were found during the trial. Sure, the reporters tell a different story, but that doesn’t mean at all that they are factual in any way. If their ‘story’ had any facts behind it, they would have presented it at trial and it would have been in the public record. As it stands, all charges by them were summarily dropped as having no evidence…

Please tell me in detail how the local station lied, when it never aired the story?

I know it’s not Fox news or Yahoo Answers but they still have some integrity ;)

Erm, Media Matters has ‘some integrity’? The organization that is funded by partisan operatives including George Soros, run by David Brock who state, for the record, that they are a progressive organization dedicated to getting conservative pundits taken off of the air? An organization that is affiliated through David Brock with a superPac American Bridge 21st Century.

As a super PAC, American Bridge can accept unlimited donations and is largely funded by major Democratic donors and labor unions. Billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros, a well-known supporter of liberal causes, was the group’s largest donor for the 2012 cycle, contributing $1 million. Close behind, at $850,000, was Anne Earhart, an oil fortune heiress who has contributed to other liberal outside spending groups such as Priorities USA and the House Majority PAC. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees also donated a total of $575,000.

Earhart has continued to lead the way for American Bridge with a $400,000 contribution in June of last year. Other top donors for 2014 include Paul Egerman, a software entrepreneur who chaired Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s 2012 campaign finance committee, and Stephen Silberstein, founder of Innovative Interfaces, a library services technology company, who also has contributed to Democratic-leaning groups such as Planned Parenthood Votes, Senate Majority PAC, House Majority PAC and America Votes Action Fund.

All told, American Bridge spent about $338,000 on independent expenditures and electioneering communications in 2012, all of which went toward attacking Republicans. The group had raised about $5.9 million as of Feb. 17, 2014, about a third of the way toward its $17 million goal. The majority of PAC funds are used for tracking and recording Republican candidates as part of an extensive opposition research operation. The group shares its research with top Democratic independent expenditure committees, such as Priorities USA Action, Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC, for advertising.

You tell us that the Koch brothers are untrustworthy and then try to tell us that Media Matters has any integrity?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/

Founded by Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “conservative misinformation” in the press, Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.

Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”

“The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”

“If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game,” agreed another source with firsthand knowledge.

Reached by phone, Sargent declined to comment.

“The HuffPo guys were good, Sam Stein and Nico [Pitney],” remembered one former staffer. “The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington].”

“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”

“Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed.com] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources. Staffers at Media Matters “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith, they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”

Smith, who refused to comment on the substance of these claims, later took to Twitter to say that he has been critical of Media Matters.

Reporters who weren’t cooperative might feel the sting of a Media Matters campaign against them. “If you hit a reporter, say a beat reporter at a regional newspaper,” a Media Matters source said, “all of a sudden they’d get a thousand hostile emails. Sometimes they’d melt down. It had a real effect on reporters who weren’t used to that kind of scrutiny.”

A group with the ability to shape news coverage is of incalculable value to the politicians it supports, so it’s no surprise that Media Matters has been in regular contact with political operatives in the Obama administration. According to visitor logs, on June 16, 2010, Brock and then-Media Matters president Eric Burns traveled to the White House for a meeting with Valerie Jarrett, arguably the president’s closest adviser. Recently departed Obama communications director Anita Dunn returned to the White House for the meeting as well.

It’s not clear what the four spoke about — no one in the meeting returned repeated calls for comment — but the apparent coordination continued. “Anita Dunn became a regular presence at the office,” says someone who worked there. Then-president of Media Matters, Eric Burns, “lunched with her, met with her and chatted with her frequently on any number of matters.”

Media Matters also began a weekly strategy call with the White House, which continues, joined by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. Jen Psaki, Obama’s deputy communications director, was a frequent participant before she left for the private sector in October 2011.

Every Tuesday evening, meanwhile, a representative from Media Matters attends the Common Purpose Project meeting at the Capitol Hilton on 16th Street in Washington, where dozens of progressive organizations formulate strategy, often with a representative from the Obama White House.

When people talking about ‘talking points’ and how they are distributed, Media Matters *IS* the example to use of that.

Now, that doesn’t mean that everything they say is wrong, it can be a starting point for investigations, but they have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar too many times making accusations that weren’t exactly ‘true’. Just like any similar organization, like Media Research Center (a conservative mirror organization) or the Koch Brothers.

But to suggest that they have ‘integrity’? That’s a perversion of the word that turns it 180 degrees on its ear.

I’m sorry, but your hypocrisy is really starting to show here, j2t2. Blast Fox News and Koch as being completely untrustworthy and then try to pass off Media Matters as having some sort of integrity?

Simply amazing…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 4, 2014 2:24 PM
Comment #377069
I don’t know what you mean by “cap at 4x risk”.

What I mean is that the premiums that an insuree has to pay can not be more than 4 times the lowers premium that is offered. Since the only way to do this and keep from operating in the red is to overcharge the lowest risk, healthiest segment of the customer base, that means that the young healthy individuals getting coverage are footing the bill for the older unhealthy individuals each year, when they can least afford it.

I brough up Boonstra because she is just the latest examples of the AFP-Kich Borthers lie machine.

Having not mentioned her, or anything from the “AFP-Kich Borhters”, I again am unsure why you are bringing her into the discussion.

However, I would love to hear a horror story from yours. I’ll agree to review two, if you have any, and see if they hold up.

I provided one in the article, feel free to look at it and comment on it. Otherwise, it is of little use to keep bringing in stories that aren’t part of the discussion…

I also don’t see how “totalitarian” comes into play for requiring health insurance.

By definition?

Failing to join results in a fine, not going to jail or a gulag or a concentration camp.

The threat of violence is just as nefarious as violence itself. What happens if you choose not to pay the fine, Dave? We pay the fines because we know what happens if we don’t. That’s the overshadowing threat of violence that exists with government. In fact, that is what government is, force. It is the only thing that government can do that non-governmental organizations cannot. And why it should be limited.

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” — George Washington.

Although, perhaps the better term would be authoritarian in this case?

In either case, the government is making the decision for you, determining if you should engage in some activity or not that affects you and no one else. Like telling people that they can’t eat, what they can drink, how to care for their own health, how to defend their body and property, how to care for disease, what drugs they can ingest, what media they can consume, etc… All things this government, specifically progressives, have been doing for some now.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 4, 2014 2:36 PM
Comment #377070

Interesting article:

Remember, Obamacare is the law of the land. And there’s absolutely no messing with it. Unless you are the Obama administration, and it’s an election year.

In The Hill, Elise Viebeck reports on the latest delay anticipated for the health care legislation:

The Obama administration is set to announce another major delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act, easing election pressure on Democrats.

As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements.

The explanation for the rumored delay is purely political. There’s not even a pretense of a policy justification:
Prolonging the “keep your plan” fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall.

The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day.

The White House is intent on protecting its allies in the Senate, where Democrats face a battle to keep control of the chamber.


Is there a sound legal basis for such a delay? If so, we’ve yet to hear about it.

This tweak is also of dubious legality — by which I mean, the plain text of the law flatly prohibits it. Section 1401 of the text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says that the law’s subsidies shall be available “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311” of the law. The administration has already reinterpreted this section once, changing it to mean an exchange established by a state or the federal government. It is now intent on entirely ignoring the requirement that the subsidies be offered through an exchange.

Both of these administrative edits follow the further delay of the law’s employer mandate requirements that the administration announced in February. (For the record, that change was also illegal.)

None of this was supposed to happen! At the end of December, as Obamacare’s coverage provisions were about to kick in, Kathleen Sebelius said that despite the rocky launch, things were working smoothly with the law, and she did not any anticipate any additional delays. As is always the case with Obamacare, everything’s working fine, until it isn’t.


Posted by: Rhinehold at March 4, 2014 2:43 PM
Comment #377088

Rhinehold;

a - I have no idea what horror story you referred to. I read your posts again, I don’t see it.

b - There is no difference between fines for not having health insurance and problems you have for not paying your income tax, or property tax, or water bills. Again, totalitarian and authoritarian simply do not apply here. Just because you don’t like it you have to follow the rules or leave or suffer the punishments. I was stuck with W for 8 years despite his henous policies. Just like if I could I wouldn’t pay for 80% of the military nor would I pay more as a percentage of my gross income in taxes that Romney and the rest of the

c - Cap @ 4x risk does not mean what you think it means. You mentioned fiscal soundness of the health care system. I pointed out the real basis of concerns. Controlling the range of premiums isn’t bad, it’s just a talking point.

d - The healthy pay more than they use because they cover the unhealthy on the chance they become unhealthy. That’s exactly how insurance works. It sounds like you want to go back to the days where hospitals refused to care for patients if someone didn’t have a checkbook when they showed up in the ambulance. No insurance and can’t prove the ability to pay? You’re kicked out on to the street to die or maybe get lucky at a free clinic.

Posted by: Dave at March 4, 2014 9:34 PM
Comment #377091
I’m sorry, but your hypocrisy is really starting to show here, j2t2. Blast Fox News and Koch as being completely untrustworthy and then try to pass off Media Matters as having some sort of integrity?

Rhinehold, you don’t sound sorry. SO lets start with what integrity, the quality of being honest, means with regard to the source of information we use. We both know Fox is laughable when it comes to honest reporting, in fact they tell us they are fair and balanced. Yet the poor quality of their “journalism” has left many Americans dumbed down. They have attacked Obamacare (seeings it is the theme of this thread)amongst everything else with myth misinformation half truths and outright lies for quite sometime now. Yet they tell us it is not so. Total lack of integrity.

Mediamatters on the other hand dos not claim to be fair and balanced. They do the country a favor by exposing the lack of integrity of Fox News. They do so up front,

“Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”

http://mediamatters.org/about

They exhibit integrity with the truthfulness of their intentions. We don’t see them deceiving their audience with any “fair and balanced” BS like Murdoch’s News Corp. In fact they tell us they are watchdogs for the media exposing conservative misinformation, not a news organization informing their listeners of the events of the day.

So IMHO it is your hypocrisy that is showing here Rhinehold. That is what you should be sorry about.

BTW I still stand by my original statement. I will have to get to the Koch Bros later. But in a nutshell they too hide their funding of those that use myth misinformation half truths and outright lies to further their extremist causes.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 5, 2014 12:26 AM
Comment #377093

Oh yeah and like I have been saying all along,

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/18/foxs-obamacare-victims-arent-victims-at-all/196498

Posted by: j2t2 at March 5, 2014 1:19 AM
Comment #377098

Here’s a great web page that Media Matters has just started. Perhaps it can help stem the tide of misinformation coming from conservatives but I doubt that as it is outside the bubble and it can never ever be considered trustworthy by the wingnut crowd.

MYTHODPEDIA FROM MEDIA MATTERS

I can understand why conservatives defend the misinformation and lies that are regularly used by Limbaugh, Hannity, Lip glossed blondes, Bill’O and all the rest after all they really have no clue of the damage that it does to this country. They do it with a wry smile on their faces as if they know what they do is wrong but are just so caught up in their lies that they take pleasure in the untruthfulness of it.

Posted by: Speak4all at March 5, 2014 11:02 AM
Comment #377100

Whoops, looks like the link I put out is broken. Not sure what happened but I was just at the site a few minutes ago. Some great stuff there, I hope they can get the link working.

Posted by: Speak4all at March 5, 2014 11:05 AM
Comment #377101

Speaks the linkd worked for me. WHop wold have thought 46 pages of myths misinformation half truths and outright lies so soon. Well… I would have but any on the right surprised?


Rhinehold re the Koch Bros.- Honesty is the key here and when you donate millions to political groups, run adds candidates didn’t want and so forth whilst hiding the fact it seems to me they are lacking in integrity. I know these guys are supposedly libertarians and fund the Cato Institute so you may be butt hurt over this bit but it is JMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 5, 2014 12:45 PM
Comment #377102
I have no idea what horror story you referred to. I read your posts again, I don’t see it.

It’s quoted in the second half of the article, the link is near the top. Not sure what you are missing.

There is no difference between fines for not having health insurance and problems you have for not paying your income tax, or property tax, or water bills.

Agreed, those are all government using its force power to make people do something. Well, except water bills, if the water company is a private company (I personally don’t have a water bill). But if you don’t pay your water bill, the private company goes to the government through the court system and as them use their power to make you pay. So in a way it is.

Again, totalitarian and authoritarian simply do not apply here.

I think we have some sort of disagreement on the words… Authoritarian is using a policy to make citizen’s personal choices for them, do you disagree with that? OR do you have a different definition for authoritarian that you don’t see being applicable here, and why?

Just because you don’t like it you have to follow the rules or leave or suffer the punishments.

If the government makes a law that states that you have to work out 30 minutes every day, would that be authoritarian or not? It’s not about whether *I* want to pay for something or not, it is using the force of government to make those decisions to do something that I find authoritarian, whether I would do what they want me to do anyway or not. I defend the rights of everyone, not just me… Too few people see things that way though, apparently.

I was stuck with W for 8 years despite his henous policies.

Almost all of them continuing for the last 6 years. :/ I guess it just matters who is doing it for some people.

Just like if I could I wouldn’t pay for 80% of the military nor would I pay more as a percentage of my gross income in taxes that Romney and the rest of the

Except you aren’t nor every have been.

“More precisely, in 2010, somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of Americans had a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 13.9 percent. In 2011, somewhere between 95 and 97 percent of Americans had a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 15.4 percent, at least according to the latest IRS data from 2010.”

Never was able to figure out what people had a problem with. Other than those who were comparing apples to oranges and not understanding how taxing works.

Cap @ 4x risk does not mean what you think it means.

Actually, it does specifically mean what I stated.

You mentioned fiscal soundness of the health care system. I pointed out the real basis of concerns. Controlling the range of premiums isn’t bad, it’s just a talking point.

It’s a reality, not a ‘talking point’. It is a change to how insurance works and is not a cost loser for companies. It is an attempt to inject ‘fairness’ into the equation, which as a result costs other people more money than it would have.

The healthy pay more than they use because they cover the unhealthy on the chance they become unhealthy. That’s exactly how insurance works.

Yes, it is pretty much a gamble that people choose to make. Or, as we are told now, not free to choose to make.

It sounds like you want to go back to the days where hospitals refused to care for patients if someone didn’t have a checkbook when they showed up in the ambulance.

LOL, I love the false choice you make to make your point. ‘It sounds like you want to go back to when we used to eat each other to survive a long winter’ or some other nonsensical nonsense. *sigh*

No insurance and can’t prove the ability to pay? You’re kicked out on to the street to die or maybe get lucky at a free clinic.

Except that isn’t the way it was, nor was it the problem that the progressives made it out to be. The fact is that it was a very small percentage of our healthcare costs that resulted from people being seen at hospitals without the ability to pay, somewhere around 3%. And before the ACA, the hospitals could not reject anyone who needed life-saving care due to how much they could pay for it. In fact, most hospitals never did that anyway, they were largely set up as charitiable endeavors and were in the business of taking care of anyone who came in regardless of how or if they could pay, it was made up with donations and a small fee on those who could pay. In fact, it was a pretty good way of dealing with the issue, much better than what we are seeing now where hospitals are now ‘in networks’ and doctors are moving to be associated with hospitals in order to eliminate some of their documentation requirements put on them by government regulations.

The fact is that the better solution to all of this is to have everyone buy catastrophic insurance (an option that is not possible going forward) and then choose, if they want to, to purchase better insurance. Insurance, as it is, is most often a ripoff… If people were paying directly for their healthcare, instead of insurance or government making those payments, then they would shop around on the items they want to shop for (better service or adequate service for less money, etc) be able to see who they want to see and go where they want to go for their health care. As a result, health care costs would then become lower as people were actually shopping around for better deals for themselves.

But the false choice fallacy that has been presented to the American people by those who want to control our health for future authoritarian desires (what they eat, how much they exercise, what they drink, etc) has put us on a path that is going to be a much bigger issue to divest from when the time comes when it will happen…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 5, 2014 2:43 PM
Comment #377103
Rhinehold, you don’t sound sorry.

I am immensely, IMO this is what is wrong with modern politics, this kind of hypocrisy. Which is what I am usually fighting against more than anything else…

SO lets start with what integrity, the quality of being honest, means with regard to the source of information we use.

Integrity is not just ‘the quality of being honest’. But if you want to define it as just that, then you are still wrong here. Media Matters has been caught in lies, half-truths and editing evidence to support their views.

We both know Fox is laughable when it comes to honest reporting, in fact they tell us they are fair and balanced.

First, their ‘balanced’ was not in their reporting, but to be a balance against the liberal reporting of the rest of the media. But we’ll gloss over that for now since it really isn’t part of the issue…

Yet the poor quality of their “journalism” has left many Americans dumbed down.

As has MSNBC, CBS and other news journalism that apparently Media Matters doesn’t care about.

They have attacked Obamacare (seeings it is the theme of this thread)amongst everything else with myth misinformation half truths and outright lies for quite sometime now.

And other sources, like MSNBC, CBS and others have supported Obamacare with myth misinformation, half truths and outright lies. It’s the current state of ‘journalism’ in this country and it makes me very sad.

Mediamatters on the other hand dos not claim to be fair and balanced. They do the country a favor by exposing the lack of integrity of Fox News. They do so up front

Yet they lose all ‘integrity’ by attacking non-journalists (like Hannity, Limbaugh and O Reilly) and claim that they are journalist and are supposedly providing ‘news’. They aren’t. They aren’t after bad journalism, they are after anyone who they disagree with who are giving their opinion. And succeed in convincing people like you that FOX is the only one doing this, ignoring Shults, Maddow, et al.

So IMHO it is your hypocrisy that is showing here Rhinehold. That is what you should be sorry about.

Except I am the only one not being hypocritical on the topic. So your charge seems to be lacking…

BTW I still stand by my original statement.

Of course you are, facts be damned.

I will have to get to the Koch Bros later. But in a nutshell they too hide their funding of those that use myth misinformation half truths and outright lies to further their extremist causes.

As does Media Matters, in that it works in coordination with the liberal political leaders, including the White House, to coordinate messages for political partisan gain. Which calls into question EVERY SINGLE charge that they lay against anyone of a conservative nature, because they have been and are willing to lie and misrepresent what those individuals are saying to make their political charges stick. They fund superPACs for political gain and are effectively just an arm of the Democratic party.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 5, 2014 2:53 PM
Comment #377105
Here’s a great web page that Media Matters has just started. Perhaps it can help stem the tide of misinformation coming from conservatives but I doubt that as it is outside the bubble and it can never ever be considered trustworthy by the wingnut crowd.

MYTHODPEDIA FROM MEDIA MATTERS

I can understand why conservatives defend the misinformation and lies that are regularly used by Limbaugh, Hannity, Lip glossed blondes, Bill’O and all the rest after all they really have no clue of the damage that it does to this country. They do it with a wry smile on their faces as if they know what they do is wrong but are just so caught up in their lies that they take pleasure in the untruthfulness of it.

If an organization were put into place who was trying to stem the tide of partisan misinformation, like say Factcheck, and be concerned about integrity in journalism, I would be all for it (and do support Factcheck as having that type of integrity, even when I might occasionally disagree with them).

But when you have an organization that is partisanly trying to attack and damage, personally, the people that they disagree with by being willing to lie, misrepresent and fudge the facts, that organization no longer has any integrity AND should never be used as a one stop place for any kind of factual information.

Here is how I use Media Matters, as I do use them from time to time. If someone makes a statement, I’ll look it up and see if anyone on the ‘other side’, and people who are politically agnostic like Factcheck, has researched what they said and what they found out. I will then evaluate what THEY say to see if that is factual or not. Through that process I make a pretty good effort to make sure I am not just a parrot of a political organization, like Media Matters is…

A great example, Krauthammer a few weeks ago made a charge that President Obama had signed an executive order that … did something (I can’t even remember what it was now). I looked for someone who had researched it already, found a few and saw them say that no executive order existed. I looked further to see what dates it was supposedly signed and then looked at the executive order website to determine what was signed and what it really said. The fact is that there is no evidence of any such executive order being signed and it was a result of someone emailing a BS ‘article’ about it that wasn’t factual in any way. So I dismissed the charge, it was not a proven one.

That is how it should be. Simply dismissing what someone else says just because of their political affiliation or the news organization they are working for (though this wasn’t a ‘news show’ that it was said on, it was an opinion show, something that Media Matters and yourself seem to be unable to differentiate). But you should also check the facts before assuming that things that people say while espousing their opinion is true as well. Which is why I always support what I say with evidence and facts when possible to ensure that anyone who disagrees with me can know where I am developing that information from.

But in the same way that Krauthammer was wrong in this regard, I see every single pundit on MSNBC, all progressives on this site and other liberal media (like Media Matters) trying to tell me that Citizens United was decided on the idea of ‘corporate personhood’ and that it said that corporations were people. It didn’t say anything like that AT ALL. I know this because I actually read the decision of the court and what they said, not just parrot what someone else who read it said.

The problem isn’t just Fox News, and that has always been my point. I don’t use them as a source, by themselves, just as I would not use MSNBC or CBS or ABC as a single source of information. And I would NEVER use Media Matters as single source either, they have been caught lying way to many times in order to personally destroy people’s lives, and that makes me sick.

But apparently you guys are missing that, you think that the problem is CONSERVATIVE media, but apparently liberal media is just no problem at all… That’s a hypocrisy that I just can’t stomach.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 5, 2014 3:10 PM
Comment #377106

BTW, we can just look at the very first entry on the ‘Mythopedia’ to see part of the problem there…

They list the ‘myth’ that Bork was ‘smeared’ when he was nominated to the Supreme Court.

Their source? A NYTimes article (unbiased?) and their own mediamatters website that in turn references that NYTimes article. It also states that 6(!) Republicans voted against him. Well, hey, that must mean there was no smearing done at all!

NONE of that has anything to do with whether he was smeared… I was profoundly against Bork’s nomination (because of his stated ignorability of the 9th amendment, which he shares with the progressives of this country, btw), but having watched what happened at the time, to somehow suggest he wasn’t ‘Borked’ (which is where that term came from) is just relying on people being stupid and accepting what they say without any real facts.

The term is in the dictionary… “1988, Americanism; after Judge Robert H. Bork, whose appointment to the Supreme Court was blocked in 1987 after an extensive media campaign by his opponents.”

Before Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell’s expected retirement on June 27, 1987, some Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form “a solid phalanx” to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward.

Following Bork’s nomination to the Court, Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork declaring:
Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy … President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

Bork responded, “There was not a line in that speech that was accurate.” In an obituary of Kennedy, The Economist remarked that Bork may well have been correct, “but it worked.”

Television advertisements narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy’s speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork’s nomination. The rapid response to Kennedy’s “Robert Bork’s America” speech stunned the Reagan White House, and the accusations went unanswered for two and a half months.

During debate over his nomination, Bork’s video rental history was leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote about it for the Washington City Paper. Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.

Yeah, no smearing going on here AT ALL. This is the problem with Media Matters, they are NOT about being accurate or representing facts, they are about brainwashing people…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 5, 2014 3:28 PM
Comment #377112

Oh, and this happened:

The Obama administration will allow some health plans that fall short of Obamacare coverage requirements to continue past the November elections and through most of President Barack Obama’s second term.

The decision, announced Wednesday by federal health officials, extends for two years an earlier decision by the White House to let people keep their existing health plans through 2014, even if those plans fell short of the Affordable Care Act requirements.

Without the change, Democrats worried that another wave of canceled health policies would hit in October, stirring up another round of controversy as the midterm elections approached.


If you like your plan, you can keep your plan…until 2016. If your state insurance commissioner agrees.

So, the timeline thus far goes something like this: President Obama signs a law into effect, promises that it won’t do something he knows full well it will do, and insists to opponents that it can’t be undone because it’s the law of the land; then when it eventually does that thing that he promised it wouldn’t do, and Democrats start to panic about the unpleasant political consequences, he responds by altering its implementation using dicey legal authority.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 5, 2014 5:40 PM
Comment #377139

So Rhinehold what is your point? It seems to me you have went from Obamacare is bad, as is so typical of conservatives and libertarians to Media Matters is evil because they do what they say they are going to do. Oh and I am a hypocrite because I prefer the information from Media Matters instead of the myths misinformation half truths and outright lies of Fox news and the Syndicate that is supported by the Koch Bros..

What you guys on the right seem to forget is scale. You are so intent on proving me to be a hypocrite you forget the grand scale on which both Fox and the Koch Bros operate. You miss th3e big picture, the claims about Obamacare from the right and the extreme right are for the most part exaggeration hyperbole and the rantings of the misinformed that actually believe the Koch Bros and Fox News. You guys are the little boys that cried wolf so many times we think it was your fathers that did the same crying when Medicare was introduced in the sixties.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 6, 2014 12:20 AM
Comment #377141

Seeings as we have went so far afield here is an example of why Media Maters has so much more integrity than the conservative movement and the libertarians who encourage them Rhinehold. Integrity and hypocrisy are entwined with the right wing as birds are entwined to fathers Rhinehold.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/05/the-fox-news-segment-that-enraged-congressman-c/198345

You cannot ask the people of this country o believe you when you with hold information from other members of Congress yet make then available to Fox News to twist and distort.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 6, 2014 12:30 AM
Comment #377142
It seems to me you have went from Obamacare is bad, as is so typical of conservatives and libertarians to Media Matters is evil because they do what they say they are going to do.

No, it went from me making an observation about Obamacare and the uninsured to you deflecting to Murdoch and the Koch Brothers are evil and have no integrity, which I pointed out was irrelevant if the information is correct (which it is) to you using Media Matters to again make your irrelevant point, saying that they had integrity, to me pointing out that Media Matters has no integrity.

Now, if you want to address the original point of the article, please feel free, but don’t kid yourself into suggesting that the divergence from the point of the article was done by me… The record is there for all to see. If you are going to play that game I’m going to just start deleting off topic posts you make in the future to avoid you trying this deflection game of yours.

Oh and I am a hypocrite because I prefer the information from Media Matters instead of the myths misinformation half truths and outright lies of Fox news and the Syndicate that is supported by the Koch Bros.

Yes, you are ok with myths, misinformation, half truths and outright lies from Media Matters because you agree with what they say and you deplore the myths, misinformation, half truths and outright lies from Murdoch and the Koch Brothers because you disagree with that they say.

That’s pretty much the definition of a hypocrite there, j2t2…

What you guys on the right seem to forget is scale.

No, the only one who isn’t seeing the ‘scale’ is you, because you focus on Media Matters who only cares about conservative misinformation. You ignore the extreme plethora of misinformation from the left because you won’t use any source that shows that to you. You build a little echo chamber for yourself and believe what you want to believe, despite the evidence to the contrary. Heck, I could get 46 pages of a wiki with just things that Ed Shultz has done and said…

The real sad part of all of this is that in order to feed these echo chambers that people like yourself have created and live in, you have demonize those you disagree with. Make them less than human. Make them ‘evil personified’. Media Matters has no qualms with actually destroying the lives of those it disagrees with, not just pointing out they are wrong and mocking them, they want them fired, destitute, in jail, etc. They want to ruin their lives.

And that’s inhuman. That’s the beginning of the end, IMO.

BTW:

What you guys on the right seem to forget is scale

What you seem to forget is that I’m to the left of you on more issues than I am on the right of you… You can’t even see that clearly. From civil rights, to LGBT issues, to free choice, to equal treatment of individuals, so on and so forth. That’s how deluded you seem to have become in your hatred of all things ‘not progressive’. On the issues, we probably agree on more things than not. And instead of recognizing that, you play these games simply for partisan reasons…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2014 12:34 AM
Comment #377143

LOL, j2t2, stuff like that NEVER happens with Democrats…

http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2013/s1305.pdf

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/


The report also indicates that Burke said that Dodson’s decision to talk to Congress about Fast and Furious was “unbelievable.” Though he resigned from his post as a U.S. Attorney in 2011, he would later tell congressional investigators that he viewed leaking the document as a “mistake.”

Burke was the first official to leave his position in the Fast and Furious scandal. Additionally, emails were uncovered in which Tracy Schmaler, the Director of the Department’s Office of Public Affairs, who resigned her position at the DOJ, demonstrated that she had worked with Media Matters for America in order to smear Dodson and other Fast and Furious whistleblowers along with members of Congress and the media who sought to investigate the scandals of the Obama DOJ.

Righteous indignation only works if you are not playing the other side of the game…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2014 1:04 AM
Comment #377161
One of the things we still don’t know about Obamacare is how many of the people who have signed up for coverage under the law were previously uninsured. The administration, which has long emphasized that the central goal of the law is to expand coverage, says it isn’t tracking that information. “That’s not a data point we are really collecting in any sort of systematic way,” a senior federal health official told reporters earlier today.

At least for now, then, we have to rely on imprecise, outside data. And as The Washington Post reports this afternoon, two new surveys suggest that the uninsured are not exactly turning out in droves:

The new health insurance marketplaces appear to be making little headway so far in signing up Americans who lack health insurance, the Affordable Care Act’s central goal.

A pair of surveys released on Thursday suggest that just one in 10 uninsured people who qualify for private health plans through the new marketplace have signed up for one — and that about half of uninsured adults has looked for information on the online exchanges or plans to look.

One of the surveys, by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., shows that, of people who had signed up for coverage through the marketplaces by last month, just one-fourth described themselves as having been without insurance for most of the past year.

This is preliminary information; there’s still a month to go in the sign-up process. And it’s a survey sample, not a comprehensive look at the entire sign-up population. Even still, however, it seems to indicate that the sign-ups we’ve seen so far haven’t been concentrated amongst the long-term uninsured.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2014 4:08 PM
Comment #377174

Rhinehold, “they did it to” is your reasoning!. At issue is the claim that Obamacare is the reason Blackwood’s mom couldn’t get her medicine. The conservative media, including Fox News, has given us many of these types of stories that when checked prove to be less than truthful to put it kindly. They have cried wolf to many times to be trusted by anyone.

So I questioned the WSJ as it is a sister company of Fox and a right wing rag owned by the discredited Rupert Murdoch. After all they told us the agent for the insurance carrier told her she would get the medicine yet one they got the money they denied her. Then you tell me it is due to Obamacare! Did Obama himself demand of the insurance carrier to deny her the medicine they agreed to pay for? Did he insist they go for profit over people? Have you once considered the insurance companies may be blowing smoke up your ass?

Your repeated response is to say PoliticsUSA or (whatever I link to)isn’t a trusted source in your opinion. Yet I’m partisan and you of course aren’t.LOL. SO to make it short this has continued with Media Matters and so forth but the fact is you haven’t been able to verify the WSJ story has merit.

You refuse to believe the right wing media and its followers have been barraging the country with myths misinformation half truths and outright lies on Obamacare for year. Instead you say “They do it to”. Yet I’m the hypocrite because I don’t respond to your silly “they did it to” nonsense because it isn’t relevant to whether the WSJ article is factual.

You try to convince me it is, but it isn’t. IN fact in a backwards logic kinda way you are saying the WSJ article is as misleading as the other right wing media outlets have been because you believe Media Matters lack integrity! For being upfront about what Murdochs companies do hiding behind the journalism front. It’s like Bill O’Reilly competing with the Comedy channel and you condemning Colbert or Stewart for exaggerating ,”they do it to”.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 6, 2014 11:52 PM
Comment #377187
Rhinehold, “they did it to” is your reasoning!.

I have to apogize to you j2t2, I have spent a lot of time writing a lot of words trying to make sure you clearly understood what I was saying making my point, I thought, very clear.

That you come to this conclusion shows my failure to combine those words in the right way to make it so clear that you could understand it. I will try to do better in the future. I’m not sure how, but trying again after failure is the only way to succeed…

So I questioned the WSJ as it is a sister company of Fox and a right wing rag owned by the discredited Rupert Murdoch.

No, you rejected the article (actually opinion piece) out of hand because it was published in the WSJ, who you say is discredited, and supported your evidence of discrediting by using discredited sites… It was quite humorous to watch, to be honest.

After all they told us the agent for the insurance carrier told her she would get the medicine yet one they got the money they denied her.

Actually, that’s not what happened at all, reading fail.

Then you tell me it is due to Obamacare!

Did I? I don’t remember saying any such thing. The policy she did have was cancelled because of Obama, but that’s ignored by you apparently…

Did Obama himself demand of the insurance carrier to deny her the medicine they agreed to pay for?

I would have to look at the law, though most likely that would have been written by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Did he insist they go for profit over people?

There is no evidence, anywhere, that the insurance company went for ‘profit over people’. Who’s making things up now?

Have you once considered the insurance companies may be blowing smoke up your ass?

There is nothing in the article to suggest the insurance company was blowing anything anywhere.

It’s interesting that this is what you take away from the article written. It’s been a topic of study by many to read the same thing to separate people and see what they get out of it, it tells a lot about a person.

The fact is that there is nothing in the article that is wrong, misleading or unfactual.

1) His mother’s insurance policy, which had been worked out directly with the insurance company, was cancelled because it did not meet the requirements of the new ACA law. (The administration then illegally changed the rules and tried to get insurance companies to reissue those policies that will be illegal again in a year, but far too late for most people who already got insurance to replace them).

2) Trying to obtain the specific information that she needed was not possible because the website was down. (Knowing there were website issues, both federally and at the state level, the administration could have delayed the individual mandate and insurance requirements for a year as it had done with the employer mandate, but for political reasons did not).

3) She finally found a plan that looked like it would cover the drug, but wasn’t sure so talked to the insurance company to get confirmation. However, the agents didn’t have access to the plan formularies, they couldn’t tell her about that specifically until she bought it. It is not clear if that is because the insurance requirements are still being written on the back end by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (they are changeable by her when she wants to change them), or they were finalized but just so recently that they didn’t have them available yet. Had the company written all of those formularies as they used to do, they would have been available… It’s kind of like trying to tell someone what is in a White Elephant gift. If you put that specific gift together, you could say, but if you didn’t, you would have to rely on who did to tell you.

4) In February, she was told that no only did the policy not cover her specific drug, it wouldn’t cover any of her cancer related treatments or surgeries. That seems strange to me, since that was supposed to be a part of every policy offered under the ACA going forward… Most likely, IMO, it is a mixup because of the systems having to be changed and that it will get resolved and she will be covered, but at a great personal expense to her family at this specific time.

Now, let’s remember, the mother here is a Family Medicine Center manager, she has dealt with insurance for years professionally… If she had that much trouble navigating through the system, the question is how many other people are experiencing the same horrible experience, or worse!

Your repeated response is to say PoliticsUSA or (whatever I link to)isn’t a trusted source in your opinion.

*sigh* My repeated response was you can’t say one source isn’t trusted and then turn around and say another is just because of their political affiliation alone. You can’t condemn Murdoch and then ignore when your source for condemning them is doing the same, if not worse…

SO to make it short this has continued with Media Matters and so forth but the fact is you haven’t been able to verify the WSJ story has merit.

Has ‘merit’? The ‘WSJ story’ is an OPINION PIECE written by the person in question directly, it is clearly their personal experience in dealing with the system… How does it not have ‘merit’? That’s like telling me that your opinion of the movie Gravity doesn’t have merit, isn’t it?

You refuse to believe the right wing media and its followers have been barraging the country with myths misinformation half truths and outright lies on Obamacare for year.

I actually never even addressed that charge, so your assertion that I refused to believe something is mistaken, per usual. I also stated that I don’t take anything that they say at face value, just as I wouldn’t from just about any other source.

Instead you say “They do it to”. Yet I’m the hypocrite because I don’t respond to your silly “they did it to” nonsense because it isn’t relevant to whether the WSJ article is factual.

Exactly my point! It isn’t relevant. You dismissing it because it was in the WSJ is no more relevant than whether or not Media Matters is the brain directing the White House’s talking points throughout the country. Which has been my point THIS ENTIRE TIME.

The point is is *THIS* article factual or not. Tell me, j2t2, what specifically in this opinion piece is not factual!

IN fact in a backwards logic kinda way you are saying the WSJ article is as misleading as the other right wing media outlets have been because you believe Media Matters lack integrity!

I wouldn’t call that ‘logic’ in any perverted sense at all.

I’ll repeat again. Dismissing anything said by anyone out of hand because of the source is wrong. However, accepting anything said by anyone as being true unless the source is IMPEACHABLE, is wrong as well. What I do, as I have stated several times, is take any charge or article written and do a cursory examination of it. If the article has no source details, I will pretty much dismiss it. I then view the source material to see if it says what the reporter says it says. Oftentimes I see a ‘reimagining’ of the facts here. I then check to see what others have said about it to determine if someone else has already found a flaw or debunked it. If they have, I check their sourcing in the same manner… This process really doesn’t take that long, especially in today’s age, and has prevented me from being caught by hoaxes, misinformation, mistakes, partisan attacks, etc.

BUT, as I said, if you dismiss it out of hand just because of the source alone and go no further, you are destined to be caught into the echo chamber of your own making, ignorant of what other people think, unchallenged in your views and turning your brain into a soupy mush that will eventually ooze out of your ears.

BTW, there are very VERY few IMPEACHABLE sources, and even they get things wrong. I’m thinking Snopes and Factcheck as about it really. And even their articles I give a quick examination too, as I have seen them be wrong as well. But they show much more integrity than any current new source, including WSJ, Media Matters, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NY Times, TPM, etc…

It’s why I have caught many friends and family on facebook reposting articles from spoof sites as facts, why eating oranges won’t cure cancer, people come to me to ask if hoverboards are available now, did so and so really say or do that, etc. Because I will look at the facts and examine them properly, instead of just accepting or dismissing out of hand. I am a child of the Age of Enlightenment, not the Age of Romanticism that permeates the unthinking emotive mindsets of today.

I said very early on in the comments, if you want to address the actual facts of the article, please do so. I welcome that. And if I find that it is wrong or I am wrong, I would take it down and admit to it. But you didn’t want to do that, you wanted to launch into an attack on all ‘right wing media’ with the inference that left wing media isn’t just as bad and they could be trusted. I would recommend on avoiding that tactic with me in the future…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2014 2:45 PM
Comment #377192

BTW, there has been a few people who have taken to trying to debunk the article I linked to. However, their criticisms themselves have some issues as they interject a lot of opinion in them themselves, something that shouldn’t really be part of a debunking factcheck. However, even they admit that this situation is different…

Since we recently expressed perplexity about how easy it is to debunk most (if not all) Obamacare horror stories being retailed by Republicans and other critics of the Affordable Care Act, it’s only fair to take a look at this one. It’s not quite like many of the others, which present as victims people who actually are clear beneficiaries of the act. By contrast, Blackwood’s mother appears to have been genuinely abused by the health insurance system.

I agree with their assessment that the unknown part at this point is why was the original policy cancelled in the first place.

I disagree with the ‘slam’ that Virginia didn’t have their own site, it was part of the law that they weren’t required to, but since the federal site was such an unmitigated disaster and other state sites were as well, that it is an irrelevant charge to make.

Further, the nonsensical suggestion that a single payer system would have resulted in better customer service ignores the reality of what people have to go through dealing with Medicare, the VA, the IRS, DMVs around the country, etc. Thinking that customer service would improve with a monopolied governmental solution is laughable on its face.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2014 3:01 PM
Comment #377197
No, you rejected the article (actually opinion piece) out of hand because it was published in the WSJ, who you say is discredited,..

What I said was “Rhinehold these negative stories coming out about the ACA are so misleading sometimes it is hard to believe what is true. Your source the WSJ is now a Murdoch owned rag that is discredited and untrustworthy IMHO. It seems when we see these stories from the extreme right wing they have been exaggerated or falsified. Here is an example.”

And lord knows I am right. The conservatives and libertarians have been spreading myths misinformation half truths and outright lies since before it became law. They are truly the little boys who cried wolf.

After all they told us the agent for the insurance carrier told her she would get the medicine yet one they got the money they denied her.

Actually, that’s not what happened at all, reading fail.

From your link-
“With no other options, she bought the plan and was approved on Nov. 22. Because by January the plan was still not showing up on her online Humana account, however, she repeatedly called to confirm that it was active. The agents told her not to worry, she was definitely covered.

Then on Feb. 12, just before going into (yet another) surgery, she was informed by Humana that it would not, in fact, cover her Sandostatin, or other cancer-related medications. The cost of the Sandostatin alone, since Jan. 1, was $14,000, and the company was refusing to pay.”

You dismissing it because it was in the WSJ is no more relevant than whether or not Media Matters is the brain directing the White House’s talking points throughout the country. Which has been my point THIS ENTIRE TIME.

“Exactly my point! It isn’t relevant.”

The issue is the WSJ and the right wings attack on Obamacare, Rhinehold, with the ongoing myths misinformation half truths and outright lies. If you deny this is happening then shame on you. It causes the village to not believe the little boy when he cries wolf. The WSJ is in that group, to not question the veracity of the link is to allow it to continue to make believers out of the foolish. Media Matters has been quite clear on its mission, which is to point out conservative medias myths misinformation half truths and outright lies. It doesn’t claim to be a news organization like Fox an others.

Dismissing anything said by anyone out of hand because of the source is wrong. However, accepting anything said by anyone as being true unless the source is IMPEACHABLE, is wrong as well.

We can agree. However I have written off Fox, Breitbart and anything Murdoch as being a waste of time and effort Rhinehold. The track record is to long to do otherwise,IMHO. They have cried wolf to many times on to many issues to continually be given more chances.


Posted by: j2t2 at March 7, 2014 4:06 PM
Comment #377199
From your link-

Since you are quoting from a different part of the article than the one relevant to the issue, I’ll quote the actual full part without the ‘selective’ editing…

The repeated and prolonged phone waits were Sisyphean, the competence and customer service abysmal. When finally she found a plan that looked like it would cover her Sandostatin and other cancer treatments, she called the insurer, Humana, HUM +1.66% to confirm that it would do so. The enrollment agent said that after she met her deductible, all treatments and medications—including those for her cancer—would be covered at 100%. Because, however, the enrollment agents did not—unbelievable though this may seem—have access to the “coverage formularies” for the plans they were selling, they said the only way to find out in detail what was in the plan was to buy the plan. (Does that remind you of anyone?)

With no other options, she bought the plan and was approved on Nov. 22. Because by January the plan was still not showing up on her online Humana account, however, she repeatedly called to confirm that it was active. The agents told her not to worry, she was definitely covered.

And she was covered by the plan, but the plan didn’t cover what she had specifically asked if it did, because the agents didn’t know, as detailed in the section you didn’t quote.

The issue is the WSJ and the right wings attack on Obamacare, Rhinehold, with the ongoing myths misinformation half truths and outright lies.

No, that was YOUR issue that you wanted to interject into what I posted. I hadn’t posted any of those other ‘attacks’ or referenced them in any way. This topic I brought up was THIS SPECIFIC INCIDENT. I have no problem with debating that topic, in a different thread, as there are some serious problems with those who say that they have debunked the original articles, some were right and some where wrong, but they are each different and should be debated on their own merits. You want to dismiss all because of some, simply not logical.

Media Matters has been quite clear on its mission

Actually, no it hasn’t. I haven’t seen anything on Media Matter’s site about how they doctor and lie to make it appear that others are lying, nor do I see anything about how they work with White House officials to smear anyone who disagrees with the White House. Nothing at all about how they actually coordinate the daily talking points of the liberal media. Can you show me where they are upfront an honest about those things, j2t2?

It doesn’t claim to be a news organization like Fox an others.

Interesting, because they refer to their workers as ‘reporters’. Hannity, Limbaugh and OReiley don’t even have the balls to do that, since they aren’t news reporters, they are commentators giving their opinions. Media Matters says that what it prints are facts, but when they doctor them and manipulate them for partisan reasons, they kind of lose out on being credible, don’t you think?

I have written off Fox, Breitbart and anything Murdoch as being a waste of time and effort Rhinehold

Hmm, and what do all of those things have in common, j2t2? Basically, anyone who isn’t reporting liberal news is not to be read, ever, under any circumstance, by you.

Where do you get news critical of liberal media sources, j2t2?

That is what the definition of what an echo chamber is…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2014 4:38 PM
Comment #377231
In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own. — Alexis De Tocqueville

A bit ironic, but apt.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 9, 2014 12:45 AM
Comment #377333

Oh, and:

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/reid-wrong-on-afp-criticism/

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrongly blamed the conservative group Americans for Prosperity for promoting a “false” story of a woman whose insurance premiums went up $700 per month. AFP didn’t feature that woman’s story in any of its ads.
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 15, 2014 6:07 AM
Comment #377376
Since you are quoting from a different part of the article than the one relevant to the issue,….

Really! not relevant! The extra paragraph you added holds the women herself responsible for not receiving the medication she thought was covered. The issue is it is all Obama’s fault. OBamacare is the devil for any and all mistakes we make.

And she was covered by the plan, but the plan didn’t cover what she had specifically asked if it did, because the agents didn’t know, as detailed in the section you didn’t quote.

This is an insurance company fail Rhinehold. Of course the fail is to their benefit, funny how that works.

Once again Rhinehold, if you cannot see the campaign being waged against Obamacare by conservatives and libertarians the past few years then you do need to get your partisan blinders off. They have subjected the American public to an all out propaganda blitz, filled with myths misinformation half truths and outright lies. To the point any sane person would disregard anything they would say print or think on the matter. Because I dare suggest that might be the case here is nothing more than a prudent question after the years of abuse by the right wing. IMHO you guys have made your bed and know you are refusing to lay in it.

BTW what is more partisan Rhinehold, writing off those that continually abuse their responsibilities as journalist or supposed journalist or protecting them? IMHO when you refuse to see the sheer volumes of myths, misinformation and half truths and outright lies coming from Fox/Murdoch and Breitbart and defend them as credible then it is you that is the partisan. Your opinion has been formed for you at that point.

Last word is yours.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 17, 2014 11:48 AM
Post a comment