Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category
Considering their liberal leaning, it isn’t surprising that Vanity Fair is running interference for Obamacare. In their opinion, the “pressure will be on Republicans to fix the $3 trillion U.S. health-care system they have derided for years—and they will have no one to blame but themselves if the insurance market is upended and millions of Americans lose coverage.” Don’t pay attention to these ill-informed people.
This article doesn’t paint another sky-is-falling picture of the situation, saying “Nearly half of the coverage gains made during Obama’s presidency had nothing to do with ACA provisions and will survive repeal. Many other newly insured people will keep their coverage—if changes are made to health-care financing, and if two popular ACA provisions President-elect Trump has spoken favorably of are retained.”
Later in the City Journal article, it says “Previously eligible people enrolled in states that did and didn’t expand Medicaid. Gruber claimed that they signed up due to ‘the ACA’s streamlining of the application process for Medicaid, removal of onerous asset tests for determining eligibility for most applicants and increased public awareness about insurance coverage options.’ But improved enrollment procedures are not dependent on the ACA. These previously eligible enrollees will remain insured after the ACA is repealed.”
During a 60 Minutes interview, the New York businessman advocated retaining two of the bill’s more popular provisions: to ensure Americans with pre-existing conditions are guaranteed coverage and to allow young adults to remain on their parents’ plans until age 26. Trump’s pivot might reflect anything from a tenuous understanding of the bill to indifference on the topic. But it might also recognize what a giant, and public, pain in the neck repealing the bill will be. To fully dismantle the Affordable Care Act, Republicans would have to secure 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Democratic filibuster.
Fully dismantling the ACA will require 60 votes. Eliminating the individual and employer mandates won’t require 60 votes. It’ll only require 51 votes because those parts of the ACA were enacted through reconciliation. Also, the Secretary of HHS can issue waivers to let states ignore the ACA if they have a legitimate plan to replace the ACA. That doesn’t require any congressional action.
Republicans passed a bill last year that would’ve fixed the ACA. Predictably, President Obama vetoed the bill. If Senate Democrats want to march in lockstep to Sen. Schumer’s orders, they’ll be marching into political suicide in 2018. First, the ACA isn’t popular. In fact, that’s understatement. Next, 24 Democrats will be up for re-election in 2018, compared with 9 Republicans. Of those 24 Democrats up for re-election in 2018, 10 are from states that President-Elect Trump won. The question quickly turns into ‘will Democrats march in lockstep to Sen. Schumer if they know that they’re likely heading for defeat’? Third, Democrats know that people are pi$$ed at the skyrocketing premiums and unaffordable deductibles. Will Democrats really fight for a product that’s unpopular?
To be fair, I don’t think the ACA will be fully repealed. It doesn’t need to be. The ACA is already collapsing under its own weight. Making a few strategic changes to the ACA will finish it, at which point people that have been forced into policies they didn’t want will rejoice.
Anyone that thinks that replacing the ACA with another plan will be met with scorn is delusional. Then again, Vanity Fair published the article. They’re definitely known for being a left-leaning publication. How much credibility can a magazine have when they’re publishing this?
Technorati: Repeal and Replace, Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, Vanity Fair, Climate Change, Medicaid Expansion, Jonathan Gruber, Chuck Schumer, Democrats, Election 2018
I sat stunned while reading this article about the media getting things badly wrong about this past Tuesday’s election. The reason why I’m stunned is because it’s written by Will Rahn, a “political correspondent and managing director, politics, for CBS News Digital.”
Rahn’s article doesn’t pull punches. For instance, Rahn wrote “It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.”
Proof that Rahn didn’t pull his punches came when he wrote “This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking ‘we did it’ feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.”
After that, Rahn really unloads:
There’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel?
We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice.
That’s the definition of smugness. It’s why Trump was smart running against ‘the media’. Simply put, the media is corrupt. They’re complicit in attempting to rig the election. There’s little doubt that Mrs. Clinton counted on the media’s support to get her message out.
This interview is must watch TV:
I don’t dispute the fact that Gov. Dayton’s proposed rebates for a suspected 123,000 Minnesotans will shrink the sticker shock of these Minnesotans’ premium increases. I’ll even give Gov. Dayton credit for his sleight-of-hand trickery that’s made the ACA’s other problems disappear.
This Our View editorial helped remind me of Gov. Dayton’s and the DFL’s deception.
What caught my attention was the paragraph that said “The proposal would provide monthly rebates — 25 percent of their insurance costs — in 2017 to people who are buying individual insurance policies and do not qualify for federal tax credits. Dayton said the state assistance would, in most cases, greatly reduce the 2017 price increases from an average 55 percent increase to a 16 percent increase.” That paragraph is itself deceptive. The rebates would only reduce the size of people’s health insurance premiums if they buy their insurance through the individual market. The next paragraph finishes highlighting the deception:
Meanwhile, the governor also said the Affordable Care Act and MNsure have been the targets of criticism leading up to the election. We say don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, the ACA and MNsure need to be corrected. We’ve got a process in place, albeit a flawed one. Why start from scratch with something new?
What baby? There’s nothing but bathwater. The first fatal flaw of the ACA is that it’s premised on the theory that young healthy people would purchase expensive health insurance policies with coverages they don’t need at prices they can’t afford. The other fatal flaw of the ACA is that it’s premised on the theory that older people with pre-existing conditions wouldn’t buy health insurance in the numbers that would sink the ACA.
Other than that, the ACA is built right. This paragraph is just pure DFL propaganda:
And Dayton is right to note the changes resulting from the ACA that have benefited millions of people — not just those on MNsure. Those benefits were felt by people covered by their employers’ insurance, those on public programs, and those buying their individual coverage either through or outside of the health exchanges.
Minnesota’s pre-ACA system already did a fantastic job of offering health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. While it’s true that the nation wasn’t doing a fantastic job, that isn’t the Minnesota governor’s responsibility. His first responsibility is to Minnesotans.
It’s noteworthy that Minnesota in the ACA’s direction when the ACA should’ve moved in Minnesota’s direction. The ACA threw out a system that was working beautifully and replaced it with a system that’s a total failure. That’s the situation where politicians threw the baby out with the bathwater.
This video from 2+ years ago highlights how the ACA was failing Minnesotans:
It’s time to throw the DFL out with the proverbial bathwater.
The hysteria over Donald Trump’s quip to Hillary that she’d “be in jail” is frightening because it’s coming from across the political spectrum. From Vox to Charles Krauthammer, the cries that Trump wants to implement a banana republic system of justice is simply deafening. Bre Payton’s article highlights the flawed logic of that hysteria, saying “They seem to be forgetting that throwing the book at one’s political opponents is what Democrats do all the time. Here’s 16 times Democrats tried to prosecute their opponents for political gain, not justice.”
She then cites David Daleiden as her first example, saying “After publishing undercover footage of Planned Parenthood harvesting organs from the bodies of aborted babies and discussing agreements to sell those baby organs, Daleiden became public enemy number one for Democrats. A Texas district attorney tried to charge Daleiden and his investigative partner for organ trafficking, a misdemeanor, and tampering with a government record, a felony.”
Then she noted this:
California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who had Daleiden’s home raided after the videos emerged, had financial ties with Planned Parenthood.
Charles Krauthammer’s rant was frightening, too:
As we’re seeing, we aren’t living in polite society. The institutions of government got exposed as corrupted with the FBI’s faux investigation of Mrs. Clinton. Trump simply said what’s on the minds of most conservatives: that Mrs. Clinton would be in jail if the FBI had conducted a thorough investigation.
That isn’t proof that Trump wants to create a banana republic. It’s an expression of frustration by the people that they don’t trust government to do the right thing.
With all of the conjecture and opinions that surround each presidential debate, it’s easy to find opinions on who lost the most as a result of last night’s presidential debate. While it might be popular to say that Hillary was last night’s biggest loser, I’d argue that Jonathan V. Last is last night’s biggest loser. This article is a pants-on-fire diatribe that’s demolished Last’s credibility, at least temporarily.
One of Last’s first credibility-straining rants came when he said that Trump “became the first presidential candidate in the history of our Republic to promise that if elected he would attempt to have his opponent face criminal prosecution. Actually, he went a bit further than that, telling Clinton that if he is president, ‘You’d be in jail.’ Which, by the by, should terrify you and be disqualifying all on its own.”
Last’s implication is clear. He’s implying that Trump wants to deny Mrs. Clinton her due process rights by becoming judge, jury and executioner. What Last left out is the fact that Trump also said that he’d instruct his attorney general to hire a special prosecutor, theoretically to start a grand jury investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s mishandling of classified and top secret emails on her private server.
It isn’t surprising to know that most legal experts think that the fix was in to protect Mrs. Clinton because she’s the Democrats’ presidential nominee. When FBI Director Jim Comey announced that there wouldn’t be a criminal referral to the Justice Department, he mentioned that after citing all of the damning evidence he’d accumulated during the FBI’s half-hearted investigation. It isn’t a leap to think that Mrs. Clinton would be wearing prison orange if her name was Hillary Smith.
Therefore, I’m not the least bit terrified by Mr. Trump’s statement. Here’s another statement that’s questionable:
Which means that there wasn’t really a “winner” at the debate. Clinton was terrible. Trump was marginally worse. But the big loser was the Republican party. Because the worst-case scenario for November 9 is not that Hillary Clinton wins—again, that cake is baked. It’s that if the party does not cut Trump loose, then Democrats also take over the Senate. And carry the House.
I heard that BS last spring. The ‘Trump is too toxic and he’ll bring the GOP down with him’ storyline disappeared. Contrary to Last’s opinions, the American people are perfectly capable of differentiating between Mr. Trump and their senator and their congressman.
Saying that Trump is capable of taking down the GOP majority in the House is fanaticism that’s totally unprovable. Last’s statements aren’t just lacking in credibility. They’re lacking in anything remotely resembling substantiation.
If Last doesn’t plan on voting for Trump, that’s his right. It isn’t his right, though, to make wild-sounding insinuations about a candidate’s motivations, at least without demolishing his own credibility.
Technorati: Jonathan V. Last, Media Bias, Donald Trump, Republican Party, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Party, Jim Comey, FBI Investigation, Due Process Rights, Judge, Jury And Executioner, Justice Department, Election 2016
When I read the headline to this Our View editorial, I almost had another heart attack. In this morning’s St. Cloud Times, the Editorial Board wrote that “It’s time to move away from MNsure.” Of course, the subtitle said “Do NOT scrap the entire Affordable Care Act. The truth is it has brought many good things to health insurance and access to care. But parts need to be revamped at the federal level.”
Actually, part of the problem is that the ACA, aka Obamacare, is administered from the federal government. I wrote here that Minnesota’s system was working beautifully until we created MNsure. It was doomed from the start.
For instance, the Times’ editorial says “Business Insider last month noted arguably the biggest reason for increases: Federal statistics show about 15 percent of adults ages 25-44 do not have insurance. Remember, a key component of the ACA was getting these mostly healthy people to buy in or at least pay a fine through their taxes. Clearly, that’s not working.”
Any system that requires the federal government to put a gun to people’s heads is stupid. It’s rational, though not always prudent, for young people to choose not to buy insurance. That’s why the penalty was implemented. When the government takes actions that limit people’s abilities to make their own decisions, things go wrong quickly.
Then the Times said this:
Perhaps a more stringent penalty is needed or a carrot, not a stick. Regardless, federal lawmakers need to find ways to get more of these people swimming in the pool of insured Americans.
Prior to Minnesota getting stuck with MNsure, 93%-94% of Minnesotans were already insured. That’s the highest percentage in the nation. Of those who didn’t have insurance, more than 50% of them were eligible for taxpayer-subsidized insurance. Why wouldn’t we want to stick with that?
Nearly 100% of Minnesotans were insured. We weren’t getting hit with 50%-67% annual premium increases. We didn’t have to subsidize a website that didn’t work. I’d love hearing the Times explain why we shouldn’t ditch MNsure and the ACA, then return to the system we had.
Again, it’s time to move away from MNsure and transition to the federal exchange. Quite simply, the state exchange’s costs continue to outweigh its benefits.
This is stupid. The fix is to abandon the ACA and replace it with the system we had that was working. That system must include a high risk pool that’s subsidized to lower the cost for healthy people.
Vox has had credibility issues since its inception. That problem isn’t going away anytime soon, thanks to German Lopez’s tweet in which he insists that “Conservative blogger gets upset at violence and riots, demands mass murder, gets suspended from Twitter — and people defend him. Okay.”
As usual, Ed Morrissey is all over this in this post. The difference between Ed’s post and German Lopez’s tweet is that Ed took the time to get the details right. One of those details was to quote Glenn Reynolds, the man who wrote the original tweet. On his own blog, Glenn Reynolds wrote “I’ve always been a supporter of free speech and peaceful protest. I fully support people protesting police actions, and I’ve been writing in support of greater accountability for police for years. But riots aren’t peaceful protest. And blocking interstates and trapping people in their cars is not peaceful protest — it’s threatening and dangerous, especially against the background of people rioting, cops being injured, civilian-on-civilian shootings, and so on. I wouldn’t actually aim for people blocking the road, but I wouldn’t stop because I’d fear for my safety, as I think any reasonable person would. ‘Run them down’ perhaps didn’t capture this fully, but it’s Twitter, where character limits stand in the way of nuance.”
When groups of people are attempting to surround a vehicle and there’s been reports of violence, it’s foolish to sit still and hope for the best. Continuing to drive is the best way of staying alive, which would be my highest priority at that moment.
It’s clear that the Grand Forks Herald won’t hesitate in taking sides in the special session fight. Their editorial takes Gov. Dayton’s side without hesitation.
That’s stated emphatically when they wrote “The sticking point was Southwest Light Rail. And Southwest Light Rail now has been taken off the table. On Friday, Dayton and House Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, met and talked about renewed prospects for a special session. Local Reps. Deb Kiel, R-Crookston, and Dan Fabian, R-Roseau, should encourage Daudt to come to terms with the governor at last.”
Why isn’t it Gov. Dayton’s responsibility to come to terms with Speaker Daudt? The legislature passed a wildly popular tax bill that Gov. Dayton pocket-vetoed. The House passed a bonding bill that had significant bipartisan support. That legislation didn’t get to Gov. Dayton’s desk because DFL senators sabotaged the bill that would’ve paid for fixing some of the most dangerous stretches of highway in Minnesota.
If anyone is responsible for the bonding bill not getting passed and the Tax Bill getting vetoed, it’s the DFL and Gov. Dayton. They’re the ones that put a higher priority on funding SWLRT than on fixing dangerous highways. If people get injured on the highways that would’ve gotten funded by the bonding bill, it’s on the DFL’s heads.
Republicans’ priorities were fine. I’m being charitable in saying that the DFL’s priorities were misguided. It’s as if Gov. Dayton wants to be an ideologue rather than being the governor of the entire state of Minnesota. Shame on him. Shame on the Grand Forks Herald for siding with Gov. Dayton.
It wouldn’t be right if one of Hillary’s liberal defenders didn’t write a story about how the coverage of HRC’s collapse was the product of “age-ism and sex-ism.” This morning’s article was written by Eleanor Clift, one of the most blindly partisan writers in DC.
When the article’s first paragraph starts by saying “When Hillary Clinton began mapping out her presidential campaign, she knew that clearing the hurdle to become the first woman commander in chief would be paramount. What she didn’t know or fully understand 18 months ago was how her age would work against her in subtle and cruel ways, and how ageism and sexism can combine in a double whammy undermining her candidacy”, it’s a safe bet it won’t be objective. It’ll be a compilation filled with spin and liberal ideology.
Here’s the simple truth. There’s a ton of media coverage of Mrs. Clinton’s fainting because a) she’s the first presidential candidate who’s fainted at a campaign event in recent history and b) the video of her fainting was published. The same reaction would’ve happened had Bill Clinton been the candidate that’d collapsed.
Further, considering the fact that the Clinton campaign switched stories multiple times, the average person didn’t buy the campaign’s spin. They weren’t doctors but they knew Mrs. Clinton wasn’t a healthy person.
That’s because the average person who saw Hillary faint while trying to get into that van knew that Mrs. Clinton was suffering from something other than a heat stroke. They might not have figured out that Mrs. Clinton likely had a neurological event but they knew she hadn’t fainted because of the heat at the event. The people didn’t buy the spin like the compliant media did, which is proof that the media’s reporting on Mrs. Clinton shouldn’t be trusted. Here’s a perfect example of that bias:
Unfounded rumors spread by Donald Trump and his allies about Clinton’s allegedly poor health and lack of stamina found their mark Sunday in a video gone viral that shows Clinton stumbling as aides help her into a waiting car.
Let’s rewrite this accurately:
Rumors spread by Donald Trump and his allies about Clinton’s well-documented severe health issues found their mark Sunday in a video gone viral that shows Clinton unconscious as aides help her into a waiting car.
Mrs. Clinton didn’t stumble. People who’ve fainted don’t stumble into a vehicle. They’re dragged into a vehicle. The agenda media’s devotion to Mrs. Clinton is unwavering. Thankfully, there are still enough people who question the Agenda Media’s ‘reporting’.
This St. Cloud Times editorial shows how out of touch the Times is with St. Cloud voters. The editorial opens by saying “Driven by residents’ input after last fall’s defeat of the bond referendum to build a new Technical High School, St. Cloud schools Superintendent Willie Jett is welcoming a reasonable potential solution to one of the biggest concerns residents have raised: What happens to the current Tech campus?”
That’s nothing but hot air. I’m betting that few people asked about what would happen to the “Tech campus” if the referendum passes this fall. (It won’t.) I’m betting that even fewer people care that “the district is willing to keep a school district presence there.” That’s a peripheral issue at best. Most people want to know if building a new school is necessary They’re questioning that because spending money on a new Tech HS will cause their property taxes to skyrocket.
The people that’ve contacted me or that’ve spoken out on this want to know if this is the best option going forward. Simply put, they aren’t certain it is. That’s why they defeated it last fall. The School Board has spent the past year making the same unpersuasive arguments that it made before. People want answers to specific important questions. They don’t care about answers to peripheral questions. This is their problem:
District leaders are open to the recommendation from a very high-powered panel that the district move its administrative offices and Welcome Center into the portions of Tech built in 1917 and 1938.
This “high-powered panel is just as out-of-touch with voters as the School Board. It’s a case of the blind leading the blind. This high-powered panel has spent years not listening to people. Now they’re expected to hear what people find most important? This high-powered panel couldn’t find the American mainstream if they had a GPS and a year’s supply of gasoline.
The plan came from a panel made up of outgoing school board member Dennis Whipple; St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis; Mike Gohman, president of W. Gohman Construction; Patti Gartland, president of Greater St. Cloud Development Corp.; Teresa Bohnen, president of St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce; and Henry Gruber, a longtime St. Cloud business owner.
I know these people. Of this panel, I’d only trust Mike Gohman and Henry Gruber. The rest, I wouldn’t trust as far as I could throw them if I had 2 broken arms and a bad back.