Biased Kaiser News

[MedicareMillionair]

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.

I assure you I can take the heat. If you'll notice, I didn't have to ignore anyone. Debate is always based in disagreement. I just wish people could debate without getting upset.

Funny how you went to the "liberal" issue. I never mentioned either liberal or conservative, republican or democrat prior to your posting "pushing their liberal agenda". Was that Freudian?

I did however later disclose to scagent83 one my primary issues is the ACA, Which I do have more of a conservative opinion as a result of my being an insurance agent and understanding this topic extremely well.

 

[somarco]

Anyone would be hard pressed to find a completely objective news/research group. Like others have stated, I find KFF to be more objective than most but they do seem to develop research intended to prove a premise.

Polling should be suspicious no matter the source. Depending on WHO is being polled and HOW the questions are worded, it is easy to skew the results in one direction or another.

In the last election most of the pollsters were incredibly wrong. They ASSUMED HRC would win and selected groups with a Democratic slant. Also polled heavily in Dem areas which supported their view that HRC would win.

None of them took into account the crowds Trump was attracting vs HRC and her running mate, whoever that was . . .

If you want a "research" group with a decided slant look at Pro Publica.

I recently ran across an article that linked to PP. Data quoted in the article seemed to be objective. Signed up for their newsletter.

So sorry I did.

Bunch of leftist garbage.

Unsubscribed a few days later.

 

[leevena]

"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.

So if KFF is dishonest because they have a viewpoint and push that viewpoint, then is not everyone dishonest, including you? I mean you are advocating a viewpoint, correct?

 

[kgmom219]

If you want a "research" group with a decided slant look at Pro Publica.

I recently ran across an article that linked to PP. Data quoted in the article seemed to be objective. Signed up for their newsletter.

So sorry I did.

Bunch of leftist garbage.

Unsubscribed a few days later.

I almost spit out my coffee reading the first sentence. "BOB signed up for Pro Publica?"

They aren't leftist. They are almost commie.

 

[MedicareMillionair]

So if KFF is dishonest because they have a viewpoint and push that viewpoint, then is not everyone dishonest, including you? I mean you are advocating a viewpoint, correct?

I'm not going to disagree with that. I definitely have a strong opinion about the government trying to take over the economy. Don't think for a minute that they are caring people that are worried about the healthcare of the population. It's all about government power. As a matter of fact, I'm sure they would be quite happy if people died as long as it swayed public opinion in their favor.

Foolish American public!

 

[scagnt83]

"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.

Sorry to offend you via emoji.

A lie is a statement not substantiated by facts or evidence. You have provided zero evidence of your assertion.

-----

Now you claim they manipulate data to make it fit a certain agenda. That is your opinion, fine. But the KFF is known in the industry as one of the best sources of health insurance and health care info that has the least bias slant to it.

So you are making claims that most experienced agents disagree with. If you want to be taken seriously, provide examples.

-----

You go on to say you are upset that they dont bash ACA. That is not what actual journalism does. What you want is an opinion piece ranting about the same things you think. That is not news, that is not non-biased journalism.

----

Your one "example" is they claim poor people would lose coverage if ACA is repealed.

That is not bias, that is a very well known fact.

ACA expanded insurance coverage for the poor via Medicaid Expansion Funding, CSR Funding, & Individual Tax Credits.

That is fact. It created subsidies so citizens under 400% of Poverty Level could have "affordable coverage" either through private insurance or through Medicaid, depending on income level.

You are upset at a fact.

The broader question of ACA being a disaster or a saving grace is a much larger conversation. And goes beyond just a single issue. I dont disagree with a lot of what you said about ACA. Im not a fan of it. But Im also a realist who does not disregard the facts at hand and does not allow their opinion to blind them to the facts.

You are upset they are not producing opinion pieces. Specifically, opinion pieces that line up with your personal opinion. That is what "non-bias" actually is, the reporting of facts without personal bias.

-----

Just for fun, I went to the KHN website to see an example that might line up with your opinion. Didnt really find much. Did find this though: Overlooked By ACA: Many People Paying Full Price For Insurance 'Getting Slammed'

 

[rousemark]

I almost spit out my coffee reading the first sentence. "BOB signed up for Pro Publica?"

They aren't leftist. They are almost commie.

Define "almost".... They are totally .... Of course that is just my right wing opinion..

 

[MedicareMillionair]

Sorry to offend you via emoji.

A lie is a statement not substantiated by facts or evidence. You have provided zero evidence of your assertion.

-----

Now you claim they manipulate data to make it fit a certain agenda. That is your opinion, fine. But the KFF is known in the industry as one of the best sources of health insurance and health care info that has the least bias slant to it.

So you are making claims that most experienced agents disagree with. If you want to be taken seriously, provide examples.

-----

You go on to say you are upset that they dont bash ACA. That is not what actual journalism does. What you want is an opinion piece ranting about the same things you think. That is not news, that is not non-biased journalism.

----

Your one "example" is they claim poor people would lose coverage if ACA is repealed.

That is not bias, that is a very well known fact.

ACA expanded insurance coverage for the poor via Medicaid Expansion Funding, CSR Funding, & Individual Tax Credits.

That is fact. It created subsidies so citizens under 400% of Poverty Level could have "affordable coverage" either through private insurance or through Medicaid, depending on income level.

You are upset at a fact.

The broader question of ACA being a disaster or a saving grace is a much larger conversation. And goes beyond just a single issue. I dont disagree with a lot of what you said about ACA. Im not a fan of it. But Im also a realist who does not disregard the facts at hand and does not allow their opinion to blind them to the facts.

You are upset they are not producing opinion pieces. Specifically, opinion pieces that line up with your personal opinion. That is what "non-bias" actually is, the reporting of facts without personal bias.

-----

Just for fun, I went to the KHN website to see an example that might line up with your opinion. Didnt really find much. Did find this though: Overlooked By ACA: Many People Paying Full Price For Insurance 'Getting Slammed'

I give you an "A' for your effort. We obviously disagree on this matter in many ways.

 

[somarco]

I almost spit out my coffee reading the first sentence. "BOB signed up for Pro Publica?"

They aren't leftist. They are almost commie.

Isn't Leftist = Commie?

Can't recall the article or link now. Something about Medicare.

Hey, we all make mistakes.

I normally get my news from HuffPo and Comedy Central. You got a problem with that?

Glad I provided something entertaining for a Sunday afternoon for you and Rouse.

 

[scagnt83]

I give you an "A' for your effort. We obviously disagree on this matter in many ways.

You disagree that ACA expanded Medicaid? You disagree that it gave CSRs to Insurers and Tax Credits to Individuals with low incomes?

You disagree that non-biased journalism is void of opinion?

You disagree that the article I linked to paints ACA in a bad light?