Biased Kaiser News

[MedicareMillionair]

I agree with this view, and with MedicareMillionaire view that articles, etc. can be slanted to a view point. All I asked was for him to back-up his accusation that KFF is not honest.

I answered this above. Here is a copy and paste of that response:

"Not honest, meaning using opinion or manipulation of data over a period of time to push an agenda. Lots of polling data and statistics interpreted to create a desired outcome. You'll have to analyze that for yourself. If you look at the politicians and institutional figures at the helm of this organization and don't understand that they are the same as the politicians and others that constantly lie to Americans every day, you'll not get this post at all."

 

[leevena]

I answered this above. Here is a copy and paste of that response:

"Not honest, meaning using opinion or manipulation of data over a period of time to push an agenda. Lots of polling data and statistics interpreted to create a desired outcome. You'll have to analyze that for yourself. If you look at the politicians and institutional figures at the helm of this organization and don't understand that they are the same as the politicians and others that constantly lie to Americans every day, you'll not get this post at all."

Sorry for not being clear, my post was in response to the other (Vol) comment, not yours. I do remember your reply to me. It was my fault for following your posts, I now have you on ignore.

 

[rousemark]

I'll give you two examples of politicians on their board of directors; Bill Frist - US Senator, Kathleen Sebelius - Former HHS Secretary. Some may say that its great to have politicians in these influential positions, I don't believe that's true.

As for stories, you'll have to look at that over a period of time. You'll see the bias.

Bill Frist has not been a US senator since 2007. He is a internationally recognized surgeon with a medical degree from Harvard. His family owns the Hospital Corporation of America. He has the knowledge and expertise that most medical related organizations would want on their board. Having served two terms in the US Senate, one as Majority Leader should not disqualify him for life from serving in other capacities. Your depiction of him reflects your own bias.

As for bias, it is impossible to present news without some form of bias. Some are more blatant than others but those are the easiest to combat. It is the subtle presentation of bias that has the most effect on others.

 

[MedicareMillionair]

I used him as an example because he is Republican to contrast that I also named Sebelius, a Democrat. Everything you say is correct, but that doesn't make what I say incorrect.

 

[MedicareMillionair]

Sorry for not being clear, my post was in response to the other (Vol) comment, not yours. I do remember your reply to me. It was my fault for following your posts, I now have you on ignore.

Tough crowd

 

[kgmom219]

Tough crowd

If you can't take the heat....

However, I agree with Lee. I find KFF to be the least bias of the sources available. They seem to be factually correct and have the research to back it up. Would like to see some articles where you feel they are pushing the liberal agenda.

 

[scagnt83]

If you make a claim against someone or an organization, you should be able to back it up with facts and examples. Otherwise, it is just slander.

Who is or isnt on the board is irrelevant. Whats relevant is the info they disseminate.

Kaiser is by far one of the least biased resources for healthcare and health insurance info.

If someone thinks that Kaiser is biased (compared to the usual news outlet or special interest group), I would question their comprehension and experience with the issues at hand.

And I would especially question that if the person is unable or unwilling to give a single example to back up their claim.

 

[CALTCAgent]

Could you please provide examples?

Just curious, why does he have to provide examples ?

I mean this is an insurance discussion forum. Many things are accepted as fact on here.

Do we need an example to help him with the un-biased sources he was interested in ?

 

[leevena]

Just curious, why does he have to provide examples ?

I mean this is an insurance discussion forum. Many things are accepted as fact on here.

Do we need an example to help him with the un-biased sources he was interested in ?

Just curious, why does he have to provide examples ?

I mean this is an insurance discussion forum. Many things are accepted as fact on here.

Do we need an example to help him with the un-biased sources he was interested in ?

Because he stated that KFF is not honest. I agree that there is always a possibility of bias, at various degrees, but if you state they are dishonest you should be prepared to provide proof. I am not making a judgement, just want him to identify what KFF pieces are not honest.

 

[MedicareMillionair]

If you make a claim against someone or an organization, you should be able to back it up with facts and examples. Otherwise, it is just slander.

Who is or isnt on the board is irrelevant. Whats relevant is the info they disseminate.

Kaiser is by far one of the least biased resources for healthcare and health insurance info.

If someone thinks that Kaiser is biased (compared to the usual news outlet or special interest group), I would question their comprehension and experience with the issues at hand.

And I would especially question that if the person is unable or unwilling to give a single example to back up their claim.

"Not honest, meaning using opinion or manipulation of data over a period of time to push an agenda. Lots of polling data and statistics interpreted to create a desired outcome. You'll have to analyze that for yourself."

Did you read this above? If so, I'm wondering why you can't comprehend what I'm saying.

My comprehension and experience with the subject matter is quite adequate. Starting in 1990 selling health insurance and being consumer of health insurance products prior to that. From that time to present I have closely watched and/or participated as this industry evolved.

I'm quite confident with my position and I'm quite alright with you disagreeing with me. If you feel I've slandered the Kaiser Foundation, I'm ok with that as well. By the way I agree that they are not as bad as many news outlets as far as bias goes. I just wish, in certain areas, they did a better job.

If you want to search for examples, look for their promotion of the ACA vs the reality of the ACA. They are much more likely to defend it by stating how many people would lose coverage by a repeal, specifically the poor (which is a noble cause), than they are to point out the many middle class people that have been victimized by it's implementation. I've followed these articles for years and this is clear to me. They are proponents of nationalized healthcare.

I see fewer Doctors to serve more people. I see agents replaced by government grant organizations/Navigators which is simply a government money grab. I see a complete failure in implementation and sustainability. I see costs spiraling out of control. It's a mess and it's been that way since day one. This is not the story you'll read in the Kaiser news.

Thats my problem. Is this slanderous? I don't think so.

If you don't see this, I would question your comprehension and experience with the subject matter. I would question that you take the time to read these articles on an ongoing basis, year after year and interpret the information independently and accurately.

Lastly, why did you give me the Pinocchio nose when this is very much a matter of opinion and debate. There doesn't have to be a liar.