Jul 17, 2017

The Last GOP Bill Condemned 28,600 Americans To Death (Approx), Media Ignores Story

How "Liberal" Media Helps The GOP With It's Fake Healthcare (More Examples Of The Corporate Media's Coverups) 
How Media Silence Helps With Right Wing Hate: The Laura Ingraham Example Of Explaining Away A Hate Crime Against A Young Muslim Girl  
Talking About The Healthcare Bill Or ANY GOP Policy WITHOUT The Context Of The Koch Brothers Pulling The Strings Is Disingenuous At Best

If you watch corporate news then you know that the latest GOP Corporate bill will leave 23 million Americans without health insurance. What you don't know is that 28,600 of those 23 million are expected to die. The word "death" is left out of "mainstream/liberal" coverage of the GOP bill while it was a dominate talking point for the GOP just a few years ago when they were lying. Clearly, the GOP can lie and get away with it while the "left" can't even get away with the truth (could GOP"conservative" people on the corporate news boards be affecting news presentation in a way that leaves more Americans unsafe and dead?).

So far only Democracy now has stated facts of the healthcare bill. i.e. Its a real life GOP death panel bill condemning approximately 28,600 Americans to death;

Information (Proofs)

News reports outlining what's really going on healthcare and the stuff GOP's media is leaving out or being silent about (like they did with Iraq) to create a possibility for the GOP to succeed at thier murder, death, kill policies, again...

Chuck Todd silent as Sen. John Cornyn repeatedly lies about Republican bill gutting health care Cornyn misleads about GOP bill’s effects, Republicans’ record on sabotaging the health insurance market, and Democrats’ willingness to offer improvements
When asked by Todd near the beginning of the interview what it says about the bill that the vote is so close that they need McCain’s vote to move forward, Cornyn decried that the bill has “become a partisan issue,” stating, “our Democratic friends are refusing to lift a finger to help their burdened constituents who are being hurt.” But Cornyn’s protestation rings hollow given the unprecedented secret process Senate Republicans used to draft the bill, which barred any Democratic input. And the process was designed from the start to pass with only Republican votes through the budget reconciliation process, without help from Democrats.
Later, Cornyn claimed Republicans are “offering a better alternative” to the current health insurance market, bemoaning that “we know millions of people are seeing sky-high premiums, [and] unaffordable deductibles, and fleeing insurance markets.” Yet the CBO predicted that if the BCRA passes, premiums would rise until 2020, and only decline after that because the insurance plans would cover fewer services, and thus would be worth less. And the bill would cause deductibles to climb even higher -- in some cases, up to 24 times higher.
At the end of the interview, Cornyn claimed Republicans are “willing to do what we can to shore up the system now, to stabilize it to make health care available to people now” and asserted that Democrats don’t want to make any changes. Cornyn’s first claim here is just ludicrous on its face; Republicans have spent years sabotaging the the Affordable Care Act, from ending risk corridor payments to insurance companies, to obstructing efforts by both states and the federal government to create the health insurance exchange marketplaces, and of course to some Republican-controlled states declining to participate in the Medicaid expansion and leaving many of their constituents uninsured. Insurers have even admitted that they are raising premiums and pulling out of exchanges because of the uncertainty in the market created by Republicans.
Democratic senators offered back in March to work with Republicans to fix problems with the insurance market if they agreed to drop their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And days ago, some House Democrats said they will introduce some fixes to the individual insurance market, which includes a reinsurance program to offset the costs of the sickest patients, removing uncertainty from the Trump administration's threats to end some cost-sharing subsidies, moving the open enrollment season, and offering a Medicare buy-in for some older Americans.
Todd allowed Cornyn to make these statements without any pushback. Republicans have been repeatedlycalled out for their lies and deceptions regarding their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act -- both by media outlets and even other Republicans. With the insurance coverage of millions at stake, interviewers like Chuck Todd must be better prepared to confront Republican lawmakers when they make their case with lies and misrepresentations.

CNN is paying Stephen Moore to lie to its viewers about health care If you're going to give Moore air time, at least fact-check him
Discredited economic pundit and former Trump campaign adviser Stephen Moore continues embarrassing CNN during news segments with his supposed policy expertise. Media Matters compared two of Moore’s recent appearances -- one in which he appeared alongside a credentialed policy expert, and one in which he faced only an ill-prepared network host -- and found distinct differences in the tone of each discussion. These differences demonstrate the dangers of news outlets continuing to rely on unscrupulous hangers-on from the Trump administration to comment on policy issues.
Over the years, Media Matters has chronicled Moore’s shoddy predictionsintentional misinformation, and misleading claims. Despite ample evidence of Moore’s gross incompetence as an economic analyst, CNN still hired him in January under the guise of “senior economics analyst” to serve as a sort of in-house surrogate for the Trump administration. Moore has spent his time at CNN undermining his colleagues and embarrassing his network while ceaselessly parroting the Republican Party’s agenda. His shameless defense of the president’s unfounded reasoning for withdrawing from the Paris climate accord even led Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs to blast CNN on its own program for maintaining a relationship with the pundit.
Moore’s two appearances late last week underscore how problematic he is as an employee of a news network and reveal how CNN ought to handle his future appearances.
During the July 13 edition of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, Moore was interviewed alongside University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee about the Republican-led Senate’s floundering proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Moore opened the segment by endorsing an amendment authored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), which experts believe would restrict coverage options and increase costs for Americans living with pre-existing conditions. He misleadingly blamed the ACA for increasing health care costs -- prices are actually "rising at historically low levels" since the law went into effect -- and encouraged the use of so-called “catastrophic” insurance policies, which provide limited packages to young individuals at low cost and are considered inadequate by health care experts. Luckily for CNN viewers, Goolsbee -- a former chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers and college debate champion -- was there to provide pushback to these false and misleading claims:
Compare Goolsbee’s repeated fact-check of Moore’s misstatements to another Moore appearance in which CNN did not host an economic policy expert to counter the conservative pundit.
On the July 14 edition of CNN’s Wolf, Moore sat for an interview with guest host Jim Sciutto, the network’s chief national security correspondent, to discuss the same topics and was allowed to promote his right-wing agenda virtually unchallenged. Moore falsely claimed that catastrophic health insurance plans could save middle-class families thousands of dollars and got away with an unsubstantiated guess that politically, the GOP bill’s reduction of insurance premiums outweighs the fact that it would strip coverage from 22 million people. When Sciutto questioned him about the fact that repealing ACA would harm millions of Americanswho receive Medicaid, Moore promoted the right-wing lie that “Medicaid is one of the worst insurance systems” and low-income Americans would be better off without it. Sciutto did not challenge Moore when he falsely claimed that the ACA repeal process in 2017 is “déjà vu all over again” compared to how the law was passed in 2010 when, according to Moore, then-President Barack Obama “had to buy those last couple of votes in Senate to get there.” In reality, the ACA passed 60-39 with the support of every Democrat in the chamber, whereas the current Senate bill has yet to get 50 supporters among 52 Republican senators:
Moore’s partisan talking points can be easily unraveled by competent analysts and experts; his attempt to promote the same right-wing fallacies about health care was rebutted by health care expert Andy Slavitt during the July 10 edition of New Day. In fact, his dissembling can be easily countered if the interviewer is adequately prepared. But since Moore is a professional misinformer who has spent years honing his craft, if an interviewer is ill-prepared, the segment can quickly devolve into Moore amplifying his routine talking points, which serve only his conservative political agenda.

Calling the Senate bill “more moderate” than the House’s AHCA is a low bar and framing the Senate bill that way is deceptive. First of all, the House bill is nowhere close to moderate. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the AHCA would increase “the number of uninsured people relative to the number projected” under the ACA by 23 million by 2026. Additionally, under the AHCA, those with pre-existing conditions would be in jeopardy of losing coverage. At the very least, those with pre-existing conditions would face skyrocketing premiums. And those who want policies to cover essential health benefits, like maternity care and mental health and substance abuse services, are “likely to be priced out of the market,” according to NBC News. It would be hard to imagine a bill less moderate than the AHCA.
The Senate bill is largely a replica of the AHCA that also includes its own extreme measures. As NBC News reported, the Senate draft “makes deeper cuts” to Medicaid “in the long run” compared to the House bill. And according to the Center for American Progress, the Senate bill’s essential health benefit waivers would “erode or eliminate financial protections for about 27 million workers and their dependents,” including those who are in employer health care plans.
As Andy Slavitt, the former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, noted, “The Senate bill needs to be compared to current law, not the House bill.” People will die if this bill becomes law. That’s the context reporters should be using when discussing this new proposal.
The Republican Party’s plan to gut the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will disproportionately hurt people of color -- a fact television and print news outlets have almost completely ignored in their coverage of ongoing health care debates.
On May 4, President Donald Trump held a White House celebration with a predominantly white group of Republican members of Congress after the House of Representatives voted to fund tax cuts for high-income earners by cutting health care subsidies and loosening patient protections benefitting low- and middle-income Americans. On May 8, The New York Times reported that 13 white Republican men would draft the Senate’s version of a health care reform bill, which remained shrouded in secrecy until it was released on June 22. Almost as if taking their que from the GOP, broadcast and cable news outlets made little effort over the same time period to invite diverse guests to discuss the health care bill despite dedicating significant coverage to the issue.
In fact, according to new research from Media Matters, news outlets have almost completely ignored how GOP health care plans would disproportionately impact people of color. A Media Matters review of the major broadcast and cable news providers available via Nexis (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC) found only three significant stories from May 4 through July 9 on the health care bill’s disproportionate impact on communities of color. All three stories appeared on MSNBC's weekend program Politics NationMedia Matters conducted the same analysis of five major print newspapers via Nexis and Factiva (Los Angeles TimesThe New York TimesUSA TodayThe Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal) and found only four print articles -- three in the Times and one in the Post -- highlighting that the GOP plans to repeal and replace the ACA would harm these already disadvantaged communities.

During discussions of the health care bill released by Senate Republicans this week, several of the Sunday morning political talk shows failed to cover some of the detrimental consequences the bill could impose on millions of Americans, including premium increases for the elderly, cuts to essential health benefits, and the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
After drafting the bill with an “almost-unprecedented opacity,” Senate Republicans finally publicly introduced their health care proposal on June 22. The Senate draft comes over a month after the House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) on May 4. While the June 25 editions of the Sunday shows devoted a significant amount of time to covering the bill, and all mentioned the severe cuts to Medicaid and the spike in premiums that would be a result of the legislation, several left out a few key provisions of the bill that are incredibly consequential to vulnerable Americans:

When Republicans’ Senate health care bill looked like it was hurtling toward a vote two weeks ago, prime-time cable news largely neglected to cover several negative consequences of the bill and instead spent a disproportionate amount of time on the political process surrounding the legislation.
Media Matters reviewed the two nights of cable news coverage -- from 5 to 11 p.m. -- between the release of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) score of the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2016 (BCRA) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) announcement that the bill would be temporarily tabled until after congressional recess. We analyzed Nexis transcripts for individual statements -- defined as a single sentence -- about a wide range of reported negative impacts of the bill (including cuts to Medicaid funding, potential cuts to essential health benefits (EHBs), and a one-year freeze in federal funding for Planned Parenthood) and compared those to statements about the process surrounding the potential vote on the bill. We also reviewed coverage to see whether it included personal stories about people who would be impacted by the bill.
During those two nights of coverage -- when media outlets were under the impression the bill was imminently coming up for a vote and potentially taking a major step toward becoming law -- process overwhelmed policy:
  • CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News made more than four times as many statements about process as they did about the negative impacts of the bill.
  • There were over 33 times more statements about process than personal stories of those who would be most affected by the law.
  • None of the three networks featured statements about potential cuts to mental health benefits, special education programs, or the negative impact of the proposed legislation on people with HIV.

Sarah Wasko / Media Matters

Sarah Wasko / Media Matters

While the process surrounding the bill is a crucial part of the discussion (McConnell intentionally kept the drafting process secret and has been trying to rush the bill through the Senate), the extent to which process discussion eclipsed coverage of the impacts of the bill was staggering. On Fox News, the ratio between statements about process and statements about the negative impact of the bill was roughly 10-to-1, while on MSNBC and CNN, that ratio was nearly 5-to-1.

Cable news made over 1,800 statements about process

Over the two-day period, prime-time cable news made 1,835 statements about the process of passing the bill through the Senate. CNN made 792, Fox News made 274, and MSNBC made 769.

There were no statements on any network about cuts to special education programs in public schools

CNBC reported that out of approximately 11.2 million children in the U.S. who have special needs, “nearly 5 million rely on coverage from Medicaid and its Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.” The BCRA’s cuts to Medicaid, made by phasing out the ACA’s Medicaid expansion program, threaten the funding for this program. The Washington Post noted trepidation among school districts that say that in order “to fill the hole they anticipate would be left by the Republican push to restructure Medicaid, they would either have to cut those services or downsize general education programs that serve all students.” There were no statements made about these cuts on CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC.

There were no statements on any network about cuts to mental health treatment

Cuts to Medicaid and a rollback on essential health benefits (EHBs) means that people with mental illness would be receiving “less coverage for more money,” according to HuffPost. As the Center for American Progress (CAP) noted, “The CBO’s prediction matches the reality of the pre-ACA insurance market,” when “a significant number of people did not have coverage for … mental health services.” There were no statements about these cuts on CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC.

MSNBC aired no statements about the one-year freeze on federal funds to Planned Parenthood

The GOP Senate bill called for freezing federal funds to Planned Parenthood for one year, blocking access to family planning and related women’s health services that the clinics offer to millions of Americans. Defunding Planned Parenthood on a state level has had detrimental effects on public health. When Indiana shuttered five Planned Parenthood facilities -- at least one of which did not offer abortion services -- in 2015, the state experienced “an unprecedented HIV epidemic caused by intravenous drug use” due to a lack of access to preventative and testing measures. In Texas, after cuts to Planned Parenthood funding, fewer women “received contraceptive services, fewer use highly effective methods, some have had unintended pregnancies, and some have had abortions they would not have had if not for these policies." There were nine statements about this freeze on CNN and two on Fox News. There were no statements about it on MSNBC.

Read more

Chris Hayes details how conservative media buried GOP's health care failure

CHRIS HAYES (HOST): Today it was big news in the country that the health care bill by the Senate was pulled, that's like sort of lead worthy news of any outlet that covers politics, liberal, conservative, anywhere in between. And I went over to Drudge, and there was nothing about that, it was about CNN. I went over to FoxNews.com and it was Barack Obama is taking too many fancy vacations. I went over to Breitbart, it was also about Jeff Zucker and the media. And it just seems striking to me, I don't think it's a coincidence right, that these two things are happening at the same time.

Right-wing media bury stories on Senate GOP delaying vote that would gut American health care

Conservative media outlets buried Senate Republicans’ announcement that they would delay the upcoming vote on their struggling health care bill, instead prominently covering stories about former President Barack Obama’s vacation, the European Union fining Google, and right-wing attacks on CNN.
On June 27, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate would delay a vote on its deeply unpopular health care bill. The bill, which would kick 22 million people off of health care, faced opposition from both moderate and far-right Republicans and had no Democratic support, making it unclear if it would pass through the Senate.
After the announcement, right-wing media decided to keep its focus on other stories, as was pointed out on Twitter:

On June 22, Senate Republicans released their proposed health care reform bill, titled the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BCRA). The bill was drafted in secret by a small group of white Republican men without input from women, minorities, Senate Democrats, or even the majority of Senate Republicans. Overall, the Senate bill is largely similar to the House’s earlier health care plan, the American Health Care Act(AHCA), in that it guts Medicaid spending, denies federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year, reduces subsidies for health care coverage, and offers a windfall in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
As if taking cue from the Senate Republicans, cable and broadcast news media have largely shut out women and minorities in their coverage of the Senate’s health care bill, focusing instead on white men to provide analysis and opinion. As Media Matters has documented, men comprised two-thirds of all appearances on prime-time cable news, broadcast morning and nightly news shows, and Sunday morning political shows during discussions of the Republican health care bill. The study also found that 87 percent of all appearances were made by white guests. Media Matters found this trend with guests continued on cable news into the first full day of coverage of the Senate bill’s release.
Medicaid cuts have a real impact on people’s lives -- impacts evident in rare examples of television news telling these stories. One such story was presented during the June 23 edition of CBS’ CBS Evening News, when reporter Mark Strassmann interviewed Jodi Maness, a 22-year-old mother and Medicaid recipient. He said she is worried about losing Medicaid and having to pay more for health care, saying that her biggest fear is the possible impact on her small children:

After the Senate GOP released a massive tax cut bill for the the wealthiest Americans disguised as a health care proposal, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected would kick 22 million Americans off their insurance, drastically cut spending on Medicaid, and raise premiums on seniors, Fox News used the opportunity to lie and spin on behalf of the Republican Party. For example, Fox hosts and guests have mockedlegislators who correctly pointed out that the Senate bill would increase mortality rates in the United States. Additionally, hosts and guests claimed that millions not having health insurance is “the American way,” lied that Medicaid wouldn’t be cut by the bill, and attacked former President Barack Obama for speaking out against the proposal, which would reduce all of the gains in insurance coverage his signature law created.
In stark juxtaposition to Fox News’ misinformation campaign, state and local media outlets have often properly covered the effects of the bill on citizens of their areas and debunked popular right-wing myths. Here are five of the best examples:
KMGH’s 7 News @ 10 PM (Colorado): Despite administration talking points, “the CBO’s big-picture analysis” on Obamacare “was right.” KMGH anchor Anne Trujillo debunked a claim from President Donald Trump that the CBO produced “inaccurate predictions on Obamacare,” noting that “the CBO’s big-picture analysis, that Obamacare would bring the uninsured rate down to a historic low, that was right.” From the June 26 edition of KMGH’s 7 News @ 10:

ANNE TRUJILLO (HOST): And the White House, once again, criticizes CBO today for its, what it calls “inaccurate predictions on Obamacare.” So we did some digging. And this is not a new argument from the administration. Back in March, our partners at PolitiFact ranked the criticism as “Half True.” And here’s why. In 2010, the CBO predicted 30 million more Americans would gain coverage by 2016. That number turned out to be 22 million, so off by 8 million. But PolitiFact says the CBO’s big-picture analysis, that Obamacare would bring the uninsured rate down to a historic low, that was right. PolitiFact also pointed out that the CBO could not have foreseen the Supreme Court’s decision on Medicaid expansion, which led 19 states to opt out.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Georgia): Senate health plan may leave 680,000 more Georgians without insurance. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that, according to health care analyst Bill Custer of Georgia State University, the Senate bill would cause approximately 680,000 Georgians to lose their health insurance coverage. From the June 26 article:
The Congressional Budget Office released its score of the Senate plan’s impacts late Monday. The nonpartisan office estimated that 22 million more Americans would be without health insurance at the end of 10 years if the plan becomes law. Georgia’s share of that figure is 680,000 or so, according to a health care analyst who has been following the debate, Bill Custer of Georgia State University.
Georgia advocates for rural hospitals, patients and others likely to feel the cuts howled.
“This legislation represents a giant leap backward from what Americans have come to expect and demand from their healthcare delivery system,” Earl Rogers, president of the Georgia Hospital Association, said in a statement.
“Cuts to Medicaid take resources away from the entire healthcare delivery system, so tough decisions will have to be made regarding which services to scale back or eliminate entirely,” he added, cutbacks “that will affect all patients.” [Atlanta Journal Constitution6/26/17]
Penn Live (Pennsylvania): “Senate bill for Obamacare repeal would ‘destabilize’ Pa. health care system: state official.” Penn Live, the online version of Harrisburg’s Patriot-News, noted that the state’s deputy secretary for human services estimated that the cuts to Medicaid would cost the state “about $4.5 billion annually.” In addition, “the cut would be especially damaging given the opioid addiction crisis, which is presently killing 13 Pennsylvania residents per day, according to Jennifer Smith, the acting secretary of drug and programs.” From the June 23 piece:
The Medicaid expansion that covers 716,000 people in Pennsylvania would be phased out over three years ending in 2024. The state could continue paying for the coverage -- the federal government now pays about 90 percent under Obamacare -- but it would be unaffordable, according to Brendan Harris, the deputy secretary of human services. He said on Thursday afternoon the state hadn't yet figured out the exact financial impact, but estimated the state would lose about $4.5 billion annually.
Eliminating the Medicaid expansion would impact drug and alcohol treatment. About 124,000 people covered by the expansion have accessed such treatment. The cut would be especially damaging given the opioid addiction crisis, which is presently killing 13 Pennsylvania residents per day, according to Jennifer Smith, the acting secretary of drug and programs.
Overall Medicaid spending would be capped. States could choose between a block grant or a per capita limit, although children with major medical needs would be exempt from the cap. Moreover, increases to Medicaid spending would eventually be based on increases in the consumer price index. Increases are presently based on medical cost inflation, which is higher than CPI increases. Asked whether that might have the positive impact of bending the cost curve downward, a state official said it would not. Rather, it would shift costs to medical providers and private insurers and create pressure that would harm services.
The income limit for people to receive federal subsidies to help buy coverage on the electronic exchange would drop to 350 percent of the federal poverty level, down from 400 percent. About 426,000 Pennsylvania residents have exchange coverage, with 80 percent receiving a subsidy, Insurance Commissioner Teresa Miller said. Also, subsidies would be based on 56 percent of the benchmark plan, down from 70 percent, which would lower their value, Miller said. Miller said the changes would increase the number of people who can't afford coverage.
Secretary of Health Karen Murphy said the cuts to Medicaid would "destabilize" the health care system in Pennsylvania and result in "hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs." Other impacts would include the loss of $22 million in annual funds that go toward disease prevention. [Penn Live, 6/23/17]
The News Journal (Delaware): ‘People will die’ under new health care proposal. An article in Delaware’s The News Journal quoted the director of Delaware’s Division of Public Health, who called the GOP’s legislation “simply inhumane” and said, “People will die.” [The News Journal6/23/17]
WLWT’s News 5 at 11:00 (Ohio): Senate bill would “allow insurers to charge older policyholders more.” A segment on WLWT’s News 5 at 11:00 explained that the CBO score found that 22 million Americans would lose their health insurance by 2026 under the bill, which would “end enhanced Medicaid expansion, eliminate coverage mandates, and allow insurers to charge older policyholders more.” In addition, the segment explained that “those in the individual market would be hit with dramatic increases for services.” From the June 26 edition of WLWT News 5 at 11:00:

Fox host lets Gov. Scott Walker falsely state that “28 million Americans will lose” health insurance if Obamacare stays - 28 million is the current number of uninsured people, and the CBO projects it would remain stable. Under GOP Senate plan, 49 million would be uninsured.
JULIE BANDERAS (HOST): Okay, health care. A lot of GOP governors, in fact, had piled on and had been secretly sort of planning coming out and trying to put pressure on their GOP senators of their states, and it seems it worked. Trump says that if the GOP can’t, you know, get a repeal now, then they'll maybe replace it later. The question is what happens in the interim and is that a good or bad idea?
GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Well, I think the best thing they have to do is keep their promise. You know, Republicans in the House and the Senate ran, just as the president did, on repealing Obamacare. It is collapsing. It is failing. One of the things I wish they'd talk more about is the fact that their own agency, the Congressional Budget Office says that 28 million Americans will lose their health care coverage if nothing happens, if Obamacare continues out there. We don't hear that typically from any of the other media sources out there. We need to let people know that Obamacare is failing. It needs to be repealed, it needs to be replaced with something better, and I still think they’ll get there. The House took a little while. Remember, it was about six weeks between the time when they first thought they’d vote until the end. It doesn't have to be this week or next but it has to be yet this year in 2017.

Right-wing media figures are trying to curry favor for the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) by attacking the Affordable Care Act (ACA), pushing lies about the BCRA, disparaging the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) or distorting its analysis of the legislation, and muddying the truth about the health care system in general. Here is a guide to the myths right-wing media are employing to sell the Senate Republican health care bill.

Read more details of facts here.

 ANNE TRUJILLO (HOST): And the White House, once again, criticizes CBO today for its, what it calls “inaccurate predictions on Obamacare.” So we did some digging. And this is not a new argument from the administration. Back in March, our partners at PolitiFact ranked the criticism as “Half True.” And here’s why. In 2010, the CBO predicted 30 million more Americans would gain coverage by 2016. That number turned out to be 22 million, so off by 8 million. But PolitiFact says the CBO’s big-picture analysis, that Obamacare would bring the uninsured rate down to a historic low, that was right. PolitiFact also pointed out that the CBO could not have foreseen the Supreme Court’s decision on Medicaid expansion, which led 19 states to opt out.


Right mocks left for telling the truth and the "lefts media" doesn't fight them back...

Fox & Friends mocks Sanders, Pelosi, and Franken for accurately saying people will die under GOP health care bill Fox hosts say it's "huge" that an insurance company (which will save money) endorsed the bill, but downplay the American Medical Association and AARP's opposition

STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): You hear the 22 million, it's like wow, that's a lot of people with no health care, right? Well, this is an opportunity for the people on the political left to use that number as a gigantic sledge hammer against the Republicans who are thinking about voting on it. Watch this right here from yesterday.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): I know this is a sensitive issue. I'm going to raise it. And that is that the horrible and unspeakable truth is that if this legislation were to pass, thousands of our fellow Americans every single year will die. 
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): We do know that the -- many more people, millions, hundreds of thousands of people will die if this bill passes. 
SEN. AL FRANKEN (D-MN): One to 2,000 people will die if you cut 750,000 people from Medicaid. So that means you're killing one to 2,000 -- killing them.
BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): Yeah, and I have here that everyone will die. Did you have that in number two?
DOOCY: Eventually, yes.
AINSLEY EARHARDT: Who told you that?
KILMEADE: I will add this. We asked that to Speaker [Paul] Ryan, directly, and Speaker Ryan does handle -- will tackle that 22 million directly. One thing also came across. Among the people -- the AMA [American Medical Association] not happy with it. The AARP is not happy with it, but Anthem came out and endorsed the -- Anthem health care, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, came out and endorsed the GOP plan right after the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] [report] came out.
AINSELY EARHARDT (CO-HOST): That's huge. That's a huge insurance company. That’s big.
DOOCY: It is, absolutely, but then the AMA came out and they said, "We don't like it."

Vox's Kliff: Cable news shows "very little coverage of what [the Republican health care bill] actually does" Sarah Kliff: "People will lose health insurance because this bill spends a lot less money on expanding health insurance"

BRIAN STELTER (HOST): Secrecy, confusion, and now second thoughts from some within the Republican Party. That's the story so far of the Senate health bill. It was drafted behind closed doors, and now it is public and being criticized from both the left and the right. Here's my question. Do voters know what's actually in the bill, what the bill actually does? If not, whose fault is that? A recent CBS poll conducted after the House passed its version health care reform but before the Senate bill was unveiled, found that 76 percent of Americans haven't heard enough about the GOP health plans to know what they do. Only 23 percent said they have a good understanding of what's really going on. Seems like everybody could use a cliffs notes version of what's going on. So, who better to give us that than Sarah Kliff? She’s the senior policy correspondent at Vox, the author the of the great Voxcare newsletter. Sarah, great to see you.
SARAH KLIFF: Yeah, thanks for having me.
STELTER: I know vote counting is likely to dominate cable news this week, since Mitch McConnell is pushing for a vote before the July 4 recess. Others are saying that’s too fast. Right now five GOP senators are not on board yet -- is all the vote counting getting in the way of the policy talk?
KLIFF: I think it is. This has been constantly true about the Affordable Care Act. That when you look at analysis of cable news coverage of health care, you see a lot more coverage of who is going to vote for it, will this senator or that senator get on board. What kind of tweaks they want. And you see very, very few -- very little coverage of what the bill actually does. You don't see questions about who will lose health insurance, how will health insurance change. And I admit, it's complex stuff, it is hard to cover in short fast, segments. But I think a lot of people are missing out on what this actually does when it becomes kind of this political back and forth. One of my colleagues at Vox recently did a video about how we kind of cover the health care debate like it’s an episode of House of Cards. The drama is around, is it going to pass, it’s not around what does the legislation actually do..
STELTER: You were pretty blunt in a recent column for Vox, you said I covered Obamacare since the very beginning. Quote, “I've never seen lying and obstruction like this.” Who is lying?
KLIFF: So I think there is a lot of lying from Republicans about what this bill actually does. And a lot of that comes from the president. He has given a number of interviews where he says, you know, this bill will cover everyone, or his health secretary, Tom Price, has said Medicaid won't be cut, no one will lose Medicaid. Everything we know about this bill suggests that is not true. People will lose health insurance because this bill spends a lot less money on expanding health insurance. And I think there are a lot of people who get confused by this. I've spent a decent amount of time over the past few months in an area of southeastern Kentucky that voted for Trump, but also has very heavy Obamacare enrollment. There are a lot of people in that area who are expecting that this health care bill will make their health insurance better. But everything we know about it is those people will be really disadvantaged by this health care plan.

On the June 26 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Ainsley Earhardt flip-flopped twice on Medicaid cuts, supporting, then debunking, then returning to supporting the White House’s false claim that the Republican health care bill doesn’t cut Medicaid funding.
During the first hour of the program, the hosts repeated a debunked claim from Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Donald Trump, that the Republican Senate’s health care bill does not cut Medicaid funding. Doocy claimed that those covered by Medicaid under the Obamacare expansion “will continue [being covered] in the future,” and Kilmeade added later that “we don’t even have that money” to fund the Obamacare Medicaid expansion “to begin with,” but the Republicans’ bill is “still increasing it” to guarantee coverage for the needy.

In the second hour of the program, Doocy asked Fox News contributor Dr. Nicole Saphier if “the Senate health care bill, as it stands this morning,” cuts Medicaid or not. Saphier claimed that it “depends on who you ask, [but] I’m going to say there will be cuts to Medicaid” because “you’re not taking away real-time dollars, however what you’re gonna see is a slowing of spending in the future.” Doocy attempted to diminish her claim by noting that it will be up to states to decide how to handle Medicaid, but Saphier said that “we’re not quite sure” how states will respond to the cut in federal funding.
Saphier’s analysis resembles that of several panelists on CNN’s New Day, who highlighted that the Senate is “handing a gigantic -- by one estimate $43 billion check -- I should say bill -- to the governors and asking them to figure out how to pay for this,” and that several states, “if they don't have the money to do that federal match, then they can just jump out of this altogether.” The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score of the House version of the bill clearly states that “several major provisions affecting Medicaid would decrease direct spending by $880 billion over the 2017-2026 period, … culminating in 14 million fewer Medicaid enrollees by 2026, a reduction of about 17 percent relative to the number under current law.” 

Shortly after Saphier debunked the White House’s false talking point, the hosts had Kellyanne Conway on the program to “set the record straight” because “if you watch the mainstream media this morning, they’re saying that you were caught in a lie.” Conway maintained that “it’s not a lie” because “it is slowing the growth of Medicaid” although it “continues to be funded.” She noted that “Medicaid over time would be unsustainable and unaffordable because Obamacare failed to bring costs down for health care, so these states are having a very difficult time meeting the bills.” Conway attacked “detractors and Trump haters” for “call[ing] me a liar because they don’t want to do the homework and look at what’s actually happening to Medicaid,” as Saphier did minutes earlier. 

JOHN KING (HOST): The Trump White House is trying to help sell the Senate Republican health care plan. And as they do, they’re using some only-in-Washington math and this bold promise: "If you like your Medicaid, you can keep your Medicaid."
KELLYANNE CONWAY: These are not cuts to Medicaid, George. This slows the rate for the future and it allows governors more flexibility with Medicaid dollars because they're closest to the people in need. If you are currently in Medicaid, if you became a Medicaid recipient through the Obamacare expansion, you are grandfathered in. We're talking about in the future.
KING: Now, does that pass the fact check? CNN Money's Tami Luhby joins us to separate the spin from the substance. Tami, you just heard Kellyanne Conway, she says if you’re in Medicaid now, you can keep your Medicaid. Is there such an ironclad clause?
TAMI LUHBY: Well the real issue here, John, is federal funding for Medicaid. The House bill would continue paying states more for low-income adults on Medicaid expansion at that time. So it's likely that many of those folks could stay enrolled at least for a few years. The Senate bill, however, does not do that. But what a lot of people may not realize is that both the Senate and the House would greatly reduce federal support for the overall Medicaid program, which covers more than 70 million people. And states will have to decide how to handle this drop in funding.
KING: So walk us through those numbers, then, or "slower growth" as Kellyanne Conway says. Conservatives say it’s all about giving flexibility to the states. Does that work?
LUHBY: Well let me read you what the National Association of Medicaid Directors board said about the Senate bill today. “No amount of administrative or regulatory flexibility can compensate for the federal spending reductions that would occur as a result of this bill.” So yes, states would get more flexibility, but they’d get a lot less money, too. The CBO [Congressional Budget Office] says the House will would mean an $834 billion cut over the next 10 years compared with current law. That's a 24 percent decrease. We're waiting for the CBO score of the Senate bill later today. But look, many of these states are cash-strapped as it is. So they would likely have to tighten up eligibility, reduce benefits, or cut payments to doctors and hospitals just to deal with these cuts from D.C.
KING: And so as you look ahead to that possibility, what's the scope of the universe of people we're talking about? How many people get their health care through Medicaid and Obamacare's Medicaid expansion?
LUHBY: Well the largest group covered by Medicaid is children, nearly 35 million of them. That’s two in every five kids in America. There are also 27 million adults, 11 million of whom were part of the Medicaid expansion program. And there are nearly 19 million who are disabled or elderly. But most of the money is spent on the disabled or elderly. More than 60 percent of all Medicaid dollars go to care for these two groups.

Here Brian Kilmeade argues that dying for stupid things like lack of healthcare for accidents etc. "makes us free"! (so much for "we the people" wanting a better unioin wheny ou want a bunch of them dead for being poor)

Fox & Friends falsely claims Senate GOP health care bill doesn't cut Medicaid Brain Kilmeade: "Technically less people are going to be covered because you don't have to get insurance. Because people like this thing called freedom of choice, which I think we fought for"

BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): The big question too is, this week is going to be the CBO [Congressional Budget Office], I mean, today. We're going to find out what the CBO says --
STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): How much it costs.
KILMEADE: And that's when a lot of Republicans -- how much it costs -- and that's when a lot of Republicans run for cover because the CBO's going to say without a mandate, technically less people are going to be covered because you don't have to get insurance, because people like this thing called freedom of choice, which I think we fought for. So now all of a sudden that's going to make other people say, well, like [Sen.] Dean Heller [(R-NV)], "I think I'm going to maybe not go along with this" unless he's pressured. Other people on the fence for different reasons than [Sens. Rand] Paul [(R-KY)], [Ted] Cruz [(R-TX)], Mike Lee [(R-UT)], and Ron Johnson [(R-WI)], is [Lisa] Murkowski [(R-AK)], [Susan] Collins [(R-ME)], and [Cory] Garnder [(R-CO)]. They want more Medicaid. The conservatives saying, "Why are you leaving the Medicaid expansion? We can't afford it." Those are the ones that are already on the record saying, "I can't vote for this." So for the exact opposite reasons, two camps are on separate sides. 
DOOCY: And so why is Medicaid so difficult? Because half the Republican-run states went for the Medicaid expansion. They took the money. The other half did not. Now here's the thing --
KILMEADE: Well eight, eight overall.
DOOCY: Here's what you have to keep in mind: If you are currently getting Medicaid through the expansion program, through the Affordable Care Act, it will continue in the future going forward. At least that's what [White House counselor] Kellyanne Conway was trying to convince George Stephanopoulos of yesterday when he was essentially interrogating her over potential cuts to that program.
AINSLEY EARHARDT (CO-HOST): So Republicans would argue that they're doing the best that they can and they're trying to come up with a new plan because what's happening with Obamacare is not working and it's failing. And people are paying too much and insurance companies are pulling out. So they have to do something. So whether or not the Republicans can come together, can agree on this, can some of those five that say they're not voting for it, can the president -- will his calls to those individuals, to those senators, will it make a difference?

CNN's April Ryan slams GOP health care process for excluding women Ryan: "On the Senate, they have 13 white men ... they might need to expand their pool to women"
ANA CABRERA (GUEST HOST): So, what has been your sense of the White House strategy in terms of how they've gone about this, and -- are they sticking with that strategy, changing it? Do you have an idea?
APRIL RYAN: Well, the issue is how do you knock down premiums? You know, you talk about tax cuts and things like that, but where does the money come from? So, you have to figure out the ways and means to pay for this, you have to figure out how not to knock people off.
They have to go back, they have to talk to groups to find out how do you fix this, so there won't be such a drastic problem. You've had the House bill, now you've got the Senate bill, both of them are knocking people off.
And not only that, Medicaid is affected, and it's not just minority groups, it is white people who supported this president, the core base that will be affected by this.
So, they've really got to go in and dig in hard and come up with ways to work this out. On the Senate, they have 13 white men, you know, they might need to expand their pool to women. I mean, we understand preventative care for any issue is not really in the package. We also understand the issues of mammograms and prenatal care are not there.
So, maybe they need to expand a little bit more and figure out how to tweak what's here and add a little bit more, but right now they're putting their heads together and they're talking about what they can do to fix it.

Here a Fox hosts basically says that there is no use for politicians as anyone is going to die anyways so why right bills top make life better for everyone? (i.e. why write bills for "we the people" when they are going to die eventually anyways)

Fox host dismisses dangers posed by Republican health care bill because "we're all going to die" anyway Kennedy Montgomery: "There's no way unless they are absolutely psychic ... they don't know who's going to die or how many people"

 LISA KENNEDY MONTGOMERY: You know what, at least they are not employing any hyperbole at all. No exaggeration, no hysteria. You know what the crazy thing is? We're all going to die. And they can't predict -- there's no way unless they are absolutely psychic and have a party line to heaven, they don't know who's going to die or when or how many people.

1) Fox’s Ainsley Earhardt: The CBO report “was extremely positive.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends6/27/17]
2) Fox’s Eric Bolling: “The whole mainstream media will say, Oh, my God, 22 million people, [but] that’s over the course of a decade.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends6/27/17]
3) Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist: Discussing Americans who will be left without health insurance is “like referring to people being kicked out of East Germany when the wall came down.” [Fox Business Network, After the Bell6/26/17]
4) Fox’s Chris Stirewalt: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should “forget the 10 years out and 23 million this and that many billion -- that’s mostly flummery.” [Fox News, America’s Newsroom6/27/17]
5) Senate health care bill consultant Lanhee Chen: “Yes, the 22 million [without insurance], that’s going to get all the headlines. People are going to be talking about that. Not really substantially different, though, from the House bill.” [MSNBC, Deadline: White House6/26/17]
6) Fox’s Bolling: “In the CBO scoring, besides the 20 million uninsured, … Planned Parenthood is defunded for a year and there’s a whole, whole heck of a lot of tax relief, so there’s some for both [sides].” [Fox News, The Fox News Specialists6/26/17]
7) Trump adviser Matt Schlapp: “It's ironic; it's many Democratic voters who say they are pro-choice and they should have the right to make health care decisions over their own body. Somehow, it's wrong when they decide, 'Hey, I'm going to make my own decision to not get health insurance.'” [Fox News, America's News Headquarters6/27/17]
8) Fox’s Greg Gutfeld: “We will now be compared to Stalin killing 22 million people. … We know the CBO exaggerates. [The number of uninsured will] probably be closer to five than 22.” [Fox News, The Five6/26/17]
9) Noted voting rights misinformer Kris Kobach: “I see that CBO score as a shot in the arm for the Republican bill. … They can say to their constituents the Senate bill is better.” [Fox News, The Fox News Specialists6/26/17]
10) Fox contributor Jonah Goldberg: “If I understand Nancy Pelosi correctly, that means 14 million people will be committing government-forced suicide.” [Twitter, 6/27/17]
11) National Review’s Doug Badger: The Senate bill will “emancipate” “23.2 million Americans who paid, avoided, or ignored the individual mandate … from IRS oversight, and liberate an additional 15 million people (if you believe CBO) from coverage they’d rather not have.” [National Review6/26/17]
12) Fox’s Jon Scott: If millions of Americans do not have health insurance, “that's kind of the American way.” [Fox News, Happening Now6/25/17]

POPPY HARLOW (HOST): So, you do have the American Medical Association, AB, and AARP who just slammed this in their statements last night, right? AMA came out and said sort of the first principle of doctors is "do no harm," and this bill does that, to paraphrase. But you have one of the biggest insurers in this country, Anthem, coming out yesterday saying this, "based on our review we believe the Senate discussion draft will markedly improve the stability of the individual market," and the CBO actually found that as well. It says, "this will stabilize the individual market." Is that a saving grace? 
A. B. STODDARD: Well, that's a macro argument if you're talking about those seniors Jackie is referring to in rural parts of these different states that are more purple, you know, center right, not far right, where senators are listening to constituents talking about how my premiums might go down, but these packages are going to offer me less, which means I'm going to still pay more. And that's more for the vulnerable, more for the elderly, more for the sick, and that is really a hard argument to make about market stabilization coming from people at Anthem when you're talking to constituents who say, I know what you're doing. You're going to lower premiums by taking away essential benefits and you're going to take away the things I had before. They're going to run me out of the market because I'm not going to be able to afford the coverage that I need, the specifics saying that you should be mandated into the coverage. So that's the difficult argument. We're not really hearing a lot of, get government out of health care arguments from conservatives these days. It's really a fight over how much a hit to Medicaid is going to affect vulnerable constituents.

ANDERSON COOPER (HOST): Governor Granholm, what about that? [Does Planned Parenthood] need the money? JENNIFER GRANHOLM: Of course they do, because they provide -- first of all, let's just be super clear about this and do not mesh it. Federal funds are not used by Planned Parenthood to conduct abortions. Period. It is against the law. But what they do provide is for 2.4 million women to have access to cancer screenings like breast cancer, like cervical cancer and, in the areas where there are no federally funded clinics, Planned Parenthood is the primary provider. So, to -- really as a part of this health care bill, this is utterly cynical. You have 13 guys in a backroom talking about how they're going to find every way possible to hurt women's health, and this is one of the primary ways they are doing it in addition to slashing Medicaid, which covers half of the births in this country.


AINSLEY EARHARDT (CO-HOST): It's the senators that represent states where Medicaid is very, very popular in their states, and they don't want to vote for something that's going to cost or going to take Medicaid away from people who really rely on it.
STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): Sure. Absolutely, and that --
BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): But it's not taking it away, as you know. They're increasing the spending 20 percent, but it's not the free money that we were throwing to all those states. We are $21 trillion in debt. The last president had no business throwing that money out there. 
EARHARDT: From what I understand though, it is taking Medicaid away, because what [White House counselor] Kellyanne Conway was saying is that you've given -- President Obama gave and gave and gave, and gave so many entitlements, and now Republicans, they're going to have to pull some of it back. Because it was going to people who didn't need it. 

Is this guy a doctor with peer reviewed studies to confirm his assertions?...

Fox's Siegel: "Really poor people really need Medicaid. But do they need a wheelchair every two years? I don't think so" Marc Siegel: "I'd scale [Medicaid] back to basic services. What does a person really need?"
MARC SIEGEL: No disincentive for overuse. No co-pays. No deductibles. In states that have the Medicaid expansion, emergency room visits are up by nine percent. Now, hospitals like that because patients that used to be uninsured now have their Medicaid card, but they're flocking into the ERs to get services they don't often need. Did you know, Brian, that 15 percent of Medicaid patients are prescribed an opioid every year? Now, that's the doctor's fault for overprescribing, but Medicaid allows doctors to overprescribe. And that's one of the secret stories that we're breaking right now, is that the opioid epidemic is tied to Medicaid as an enabler. Doctors are the problem. Medicaid is enabling it. 
BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): So, Dr. Siegel, if I've put you in charge of fixing it, where do we start? 
SIEGEL: Well, I'd scale it back to basic services. What does a person really need? Look, there's a lot of disabled patients, a lot of children that are on Medicaid. There's people that -- really poor people really need Medicaid. But do they need a wheelchair every two years? I don't think so. I want to scale back the excess. And then, as Medicaid director Seema Verma has said quite smartly, let's have premium buy-ins in the Medicaid expansion states for services beyond what you need. How about a bridge-to-jobs program?
KILMEADE: What does that mean? I'm sorry, can you tell me, what does that mean? Premium buy-ins?
SIEGEL: It means if you want more than the basic services. 
SIEGEL: And have you some income -- OK? -- we're talking about the Medicaid expansion states. Then you can pay a premium to get more than you would just freely be given. And, also, we need bridge-to-jobs programs in the Medicaid expansion states because people that don't have jobs, Brian, get their Medicaid card, and they say, "I don't want to give it up. I don't want to give up that Medicaid because I can't afford to take that job. I won't get as good of health care."

To support GOP Senate health care bill, Fox shames Medicaid recipients Fox has a history of shaming low-income Americans

Here a Fox hosts argues that killing less people is good but he clearly accepts some people have to die to push his fake economics (Koch agenda - more on that soon)...

Fox Business' Charles Gasparino: "Just because they don't get insurance doesn't mean they don't get health care" Neil Cavuto: If Republicans can find a way that only 10 million people or less lose insurance, "they're off to the races"

CHARLES GASPARINO: I think what Republicans have to come to some consensus about is can we do this as an iterative process, can we move the ball to the right side of the ledger meaning more conservative by giving states more rights, by curtailing Medicaid to being for people who really can't afford it, not able bodied people, can we move it enough in that direction that they can appease everybody.
NEIL CAVUTO (HOST): You know what I think it's going to take Charlie? I think it all comes down to the number of people who supposedly will not have health insurance ten years out. Now even though it's at best a guess what the CBO does this, anyone does this, they've got to come up with a figure that the CBO scores lower than 22 million who would presumably be without insurance. We should stress that the plan as it is now means 20 million more Americans will have insurance in 10 years, it will just not be the 42 million more that the CBO estimates would be the case if they left the thing alone. So still more people can get in, but I think it comes down to that. That if they can get that down to the single digits, or single million digits I should say, then they're off to the races. I think that will be the decider. I don't think that alone should but that's going to be the decider.
GASPARINO: Well, it's funny you mention that because whenever I talk to my sources they throw out a number like, "oh, CBO says 23 million." You know what I'm saying. I mean that number has some salience in this debate. I don't know why it should because we're moving people to the right, we're making sure, just because they don't get insurance doesn't mean they don't get health care. I mean listen, people didn't have insurance in the past, they got health care.
CAVUTO: Fully agree with that, fully agree. But that's the game we're playing and it's a silly game, an unrealistic one because you'd assume with this plan, fewer people will have insurance, more people will just not as many as the CBO thought would have been the case if we stuck with what we have, there's no guarantee of that.
GASPARINO: Look I want everybody to have insurance, kumbaya but there's a cost benefit, there's a cost analysis here, the conservatives are very much aware of that.

Here the argument is basically, "if people are going to die anyways why save them", very Christian of her/them/gop...

NEIL CAVUTO (HOST): If you have any concern about this, then you're heartless or clueless. For example, these arrests going on Capitol Hill are those who say essentially that, the Republican efforts to sort of change this. This is their way of saying, look, what Republicans are coming up with is tantamount to murder. How do you counter an argument like that?
BRE PAXTON: Well, I think you could counter an argument by saying simply that you're wrong. Denying someone Medicaid is not going to kill them. People die on Medicaid all the time. I think we need to say that coverage isn't the same thing as healthcare. Many people who are on Medicaid, they get denied coverage and treatment from doctors all the time because of reimbursement for healthcare professionals is really crummy, right? A lot of times they're forced to go to emergency rooms and wait times have expanded very drastically, right? A lot of people in emergency rooms who are waiting to get seen and die while they're in the waiting room, right? 

1. Hiding

Since the Senate bill was unveiled on June 22, there have been 15 appearances by Republican senators on the major Sunday morning political talk shows -- ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, CNN’s State of the Union, Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, and NBC’s Meet the Press. Of those appearances, only two senators expressed support for the bill: Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Pat Toomey (R-PA). Other appearances by Republican senators included Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Ron Johnson (R-WI), all of whom have publicly stated that they do not support the bill. Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ) and Ben Sasse (R-NE) also appeared on Sunday shows to discuss the bill, but gave no indication of whether they’d support it in its current form.
For context, there are 52 Republican senators and, according to The New York Times, 17 of them have publicly said they would support the bill -- yet only two have gone on the Sunday political talk shows to defend it. It’s understandable why they would want to stay away from the shows; after all, the bill is incredibly unpopular.

2. Attacking the CBO

Republicans who have been willing to go on the Sunday shows to discuss the bill have borrowed a play right out of right-wing media’s playbook: attack the CBO. Days after the bill was released, the nonpartisan CBO published its report which stated that the bill “would increase the number of people without health insurance by 22 million by 2026.” Amid the bad news, some Republicans took to the Sunday shows to lash out at the office.
On the July 2 edition of CNN’s State of the Union, Sasse attempted to discredit the CBO’s findings, claiming that while the CBO is “good at certain kinds of analysis,” when “analyzing macro, long-term, highly complex dynamic social programs, they’ve almost never been right.”
Additionally, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who helped pick the man who is now in charge of the CBO, suggested that the CBO did not “look at the entire plan” and left out additional reforms the Republican Party intends to offer (which the GOP have not articulated yet):
This tactic of attacking the CBO has been employed several times by others in the Trump administration and its right-wing media cronies to drum up support for the bill.

3. Spreading flat-out lies

With their backs against the wall, Republican lawmakers have resorted to flat-out lying in an attempt to garner support for the bill. During his appearance on Fox News Sunday, Barrasso invoked the conservative mediacanard that “Obamacare is collapsing every day,” despite the fact that this talking point has been repeatedlydebunked.
Toomey also lied about the bill on Face the Nation, saying “The Senate bill will codify and make permanent the Medicaid expansion.” As Politico’s Dan Diamond pointed out, “The GOP bill ends funding for Medicaid expansion in 2024, and bill’s additional cuts projected to reduce coverage for millions”:
Republicans are utilizing these strategies of hiding, attacking, and lying because they cannot defend it by telling the truth and arguing on policy merits; the bill is set to kick millions off insurance plans while giving a tax cut to the most wealthy. And other Republicans who are uncomfortable using these strategies have stopped appearing on TV. Journalists, especially on the Sunday shows, need to ask why Republicans can’t stand behind the bill they are trying to jam through the Senate, before it’s too late.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) Americans will face greater hardship if Republicans in Congress succeed in reversing the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) patient protections and expansion of Medicaid -- and this is especially true for people living with HIV -- yet, print and television news have almost completely ignored their stories.
LGBTQ Americans deal with higher rates of poverty, greater need for Medicaid, and higher rates of HIV infection than the general population. Republican plans to decimate Medicaid and roll back patient protections will create disproportionate impacts for LGBTQ Americans. Yet, according to new research from Media Matters, major print and television news outlets have been virtually silent on how GOP health care proposals may harm members of the LGBTQ community.
Media Matters reviewed major broadcast and cable news providers (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC) available via Nexis from May 4 through July 13 and found only two significant segments discussing how the Republican health care rollback would affect LGBTQ people and only two other unrelated segments discussing how the rollback would affect Americans living with HIV. A Media Matters review during the same period of time of print newspapers available via Nexis and Factiva (Los Angeles TimesThe New York TimesUSA TodayThe Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal) found only three print articles that discussed how the GOP health care plan may affect the LGBTQ community and/or people living with HIV.
A July 12 analysis from Media Matters found a similar lack of reporting by major television and print news outlets on how communities of color may be affected by Republican health care proposals. Additional Media Matters research has found that television news missed an opportunity to report on the unprecedented nature of the Senate’s health care secrecy and that television coverage had drowned out reports on how the legislation would impact tens of millions of Americans in favor of airing stories focused on the bill’s political machinations. Previous Media Matters research revealed that newspapers kept reports on health care off the front page during crucial periods of debate and that broadcast and cable news coverage neglected to consider diversity when booking guests to discuss health care-related topics.
Did ISIS even manage to kill 100 Americans? I don't think so.


Funny thing is, the GOP got away with calling Obamacare 'a bill with death panels' when the GOP were the ones not allowing funding to keep ill Americans alive. Now they are actually condemning Americans to death and the media won't cover it so they are still getting away with it. It's pretty clear whose in charge of America and killing its people, i.e. the GOP...

The GOP hunted for personal horror stories about Obamacare... now that they are literally throwing everyone off healthcare the left isn't even bothering to get people who could die on the news! The difference, the GOP pushes lies and truths that don't apply to them since they don't seek to get ANY American healthcare (or just want most to be without it and some to die) while the "lefts" media talks about how the GOP, people talking seriously about passing bills to kill people, are doing their "job". By comparison, ISIS has killed LESS Americans and they get alot of bad coverage. Apparently, as the GOP demonstrates, the right way to kill Americans is with bad gun policies and no healthcare.... shopping heads off not allowed... however, the GOP WILL kill more people and get away with it. Oh! The power of money and owning the media. (BTW, if the media is reacting to me, thats great! I will never stop trying to get the media for treason. if they don'y want to tell the American people the truth its not my fault. I'm just gathering evidence of treason, murder and incompetence. No big deal).

Of course, this isn't the first time media has ignored real news in favor of news that favors the criminals of the GOP.

Is this healthcare murder strategy just another GOP/Fox Eugenics program? Or is there another reason for the GOP Nazis attack on America to this degree?

GOP in a nutshell...

GOP Economics

GOP's War On Healthcare

No comments:

Post a Comment