Biased Kaiser News

[MedicareMillionair]

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?

The reason I state I disagree is that your argument completely misses the point of what I say. I believe that I have very much backed up what I state. You want one article to prove a point when I repeatedly point out it's the trend. If you don't see it, it's because you're probably biased and don't want to. It's not one article that where you can say "I gotcha". For some reason you can't grasp this concept.

You point out one article that somehow proves a point. I believe it's the trend over years that forms opinion. People think the NY Times is correct when they've been conditioned to follow their interpretation of what is true or not. Others view and accept the Fox News interpretation. Finding one article or story from these organizations to prove a point is silly. That both of these organizations have had stories praising the opposition is irrelevant.

Likewise I believe the same is true of KFF and their bias. That you believe "most experienced agents" disagree with me is irrelevant as well.

I will point out that my one example of poor people losing coverage vs middle class being victimized is valid although you disregard this because you missed the point or intentionally disregard the point. I never said that there was a problem with their stating that poor people will lose coverage. I actually qualified this by including that this was a noble cause to champion the poor. Go back and read it! You further state that I was upset about this. I clearly never said this. This just simplifies things for you to make what I say easy to attack.

Instead, I clearly point out that to constantly point this out without giving equal weight to the rest of the story is very, very biased. Your bias prevents you from actually reading what I write.

You stating that I want an opinion story that ranting about the same things I want is a bit of a stretch as well. What I'd like to see is a clear honest interpretation of what is true. I do believe that there is much more wrong with the ACA than right. I do believe that KFF has a bias that would be contrary to this.

As I said before, if you fail to see this I don't believe that you clearly understand the the subject matter.

Perhaps the reason the creators of the ACA were so adamant that abortions be covered under this law is that the ACA is an actual abortion of the healthcare industry.

By the way, many of the poor are not covered at all under the ACA due to it's shoddy construction. They authors of the law simply passed that responsibility onto the states. You can argue this point as well, but it's a fact. So, A poor person in one state is covered, but a poor person living one mile down the road on the other side of the state line is screwed. Great job! Maybe, just maybe, had they created a better law it might actually have worked and not been a catalyst to changing the political direction of this country.

 

[scagnt83]

I will point out that my one example of poor people losing coverage vs middle class being victimized is valid although you disregard this because you missed the point or intentionally disregard the point. I never said that there was a problem with their stating that poor people will lose coverage. I actually qualified this by including that this was a noble cause to champion the poor. Go back and read it! You further state that I was upset about this. I clearly never said this. This just simplifies things for you to make what I say easy to attack.

Before you said Kaiser was biased. Your example was an article saying that poor people would lose coverage if ACA was repealed. Which is a fact.

I never claimed you have a problem with poor people losing coverage. You are the one who keeps repeating that you dont.

Let me ask you a question: What is the point of this thread? Did you post it just to hear yourself speak? Did you actually want to engage in discussion? Or did you just want everyone to agree with you?

If you want an actual discussion, then give examples to back up your position. That is what professionals do when discussing industry subjects. I, along with other forum members, have said we dont see the same bias as you do. So if you want a discussion, you should provide examples. If you want to just hear yourself talk, then have fun.

By the way, many of the poor are not covered at all under the ACA due to it's shoddy construction. They authors of the law simply passed that responsibility onto the states. You can argue this point as well, but it's a fact. So, A poor person in one state is covered, but a poor person living one mile down the road on the other side of the state line is screwed. Great job! Maybe, just maybe, had they created a better law it might actually have worked and not been a catalyst to changing the political direction of this country.

This shows a disconnect on the issue and failure to logically link the cause and effect.

Medicaid is state run.
ACA gave the states money to expand Medicaid coverage.
Take away ACA, and the expanded Medicaid coverage goes away.

So yes, the people are covered by the State. But the State is only covering those people because of the federal legislation called ACA. The repeal of that federal legislation would take away that expansion. The two (medicaid expansion & ACA) are linked together as one through legislation.


You mention the issue of gaps from one state to another. That is not the fault of ACA. That is the fault of state Governors who took a "moral stance" (political stance) against it. They chose not to accept the extra funds and chose to leave that segment of poor people without insurance (above Medicaid qualification but below ACA qualification).


Say what you want about ACA. Im not a fan of it either. I didnt support its passage and would like to see a better alternative put in place. But the gap you speak of was created by state Governors. ACA provided coverage for that segment. Those states chose to deny them coverage.

 

[MedicareMillionair]

What is the point of this thread? Did you post it just to hear yourself speak? Did you actually want to engage in discussion? Or did you just want everyone to agree with you?

.

The point of the post was to give my opinion on the bias of a media source. I posted it so that others could receive this opinion and perhaps be swayed to consider my viewpoint. I am engaging in discussion, quite extensively. Yes, I would like everyone to agree with me. That's a bit of a joke, I would never expect everyone to agree with me.

Was this posted to just here myself speak? No. I really do believe strongly in my thoughts on this matter and I shared them with a forum that encourages this activity.

Sorry I'm not answering your questions the way you demand they be answered. You want exact articles. Two reasons I'm not doing this. The first is what I stated repeatedly. It's the theme of KFF that I point out not one article. Two, I don't feel it necessary to respond as you demand I do.

Your looking for the acute pain (one article), I'm stating it's a chronic condition (consistent bias in one direction). I know it's a terrible analogy, but I've tried to state it other ways and you won't accept it.

I understood your position some time back which is why I said we have different perspectives on this matter. We can go back and forth for eternity and I don't think this will change.

 

[VolAgent]

The point of the post was to give my opinion on the bias of a media source. I posted it so that others could receive this opinion and perhaps be swayed to consider my viewpoint. I am engaging in discussion, quite extensively. Yes, I would like everyone to agree with me. That's a bit of a joke, I would never expect everyone to agree with me.

Was this posted to just here myself speak? No. I really do believe strongly in my thoughts on this matter and I shared them with a forum that encourages this activity.

Sorry I'm not answering your questions the way you demand they be answered. You want exact articles. Two reasons I'm not doing this. The first is what I stated repeatedly. It's the theme of KFF that I point out not one article. Two, I don't feel it necessary to respond as you demand I do.

Your looking for the acute pain (one article), I'm stating it's a chronic condition (consistent bias in one direction). I know it's a terrible analogy, but I've tried to state it other ways and you won't accept it.

I understood your position some time back which is why I said we have different perspectives on this matter. We can go back and forth for eternity and I don't think this will change.

If the goal was to change someone's opinion, you are doing a horrible job of it. "Because I said so." doesn't really work that well on children, much less adults. However, if you can present evidence to support your opinion, you might actually have a shot. Right now you are doing a good job of strengthening the opinion of those who disagree with you.

 

[MedicareMillionair]

If the goal was to change someone's opinion, you are doing a horrible job of it. "Because I said so." doesn't really work that well on children, much less adults. However, if you can present evidence to support your opinion, you might actually have a shot. Right now you are doing a good job of strengthening the opinion of those who disagree with you.

I can accept that criticism. What can I say other than I tried.