Misleading headlines on Obamacare

The headline should have been "Medicaid budget increased by $25 billion for 2018."  On page 17 of the attached budget document, it shows Medicaid at $403 billion for 2018 versus $378 billion in 2017.  The $880-billion cut that was plastered all over the news comes from previous ten-year projections versus Trump ten-year projections.  The only actual number is the $25-billion increase.  The obvious reason for the headline is to push an agenda.  One of the main reasons we are broke is because not only don't they cut much, but a cut in projected increases is portrayed as a disaster.  The media are a major culprit in pushing this agenda.

Maybe the media could point out that all of Obama's budgets were DOA and that there were a few years during Obama's tenure where the Democrat Senate didn't pass a budget at all.  Sort of like Illinois.

On May 25, headlines were splashed all over the place that the replacement for Obamacare would cause 23 million to lose coverage by 2026.  For one thing, if there is no law forcing people to buy it, some will obviously choose not to buy it.  Why does the media post a headline like that implying that the number is accurate instead of a wild guess at best?  The CBO is notoriously inaccurate, but the headlines imply accuracy.  Why don't the media tell people how far off the Obamacare projections were?

In 2010, the CBO predicted that by 2016, twenty-three million would be covered by Obamacare exchanges.  The actual number was 10.6 million.  In 2010, the CBO predicted that the cost of Obamacare would be $948 billion in its first ten years.  By 2014, they had raised the projected costs to over $2 trillion.

Not once has any reporter asked Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, or any Democrat how the massive cost overruns in Obamacare could be paid for.  Why do the media and Democrats all of a sudden pretend about the deficit when they haven't for at least eight years?

The obvious reason that most headlines and articles are written as they are is to influence instead of inform.  Almost all reporting today is to push an agenda instead of report facts.  It would be much easier and cheaper if the AP, the WaPo, and the NYT along with the networks plastered Democrat talking points and liberal think-tank propaganda instead of pretending they are actual reporters doing research.

The headline should have been "Medicaid budget increased by $25 billion for 2018."  On page 17 of the attached budget document, it shows Medicaid at $403 billion for 2018 versus $378 billion in 2017.  The $880-billion cut that was plastered all over the news comes from previous ten-year projections versus Trump ten-year projections.  The only actual number is the $25-billion increase.  The obvious reason for the headline is to push an agenda.  One of the main reasons we are broke is because not only don't they cut much, but a cut in projected increases is portrayed as a disaster.  The media are a major culprit in pushing this agenda.

Maybe the media could point out that all of Obama's budgets were DOA and that there were a few years during Obama's tenure where the Democrat Senate didn't pass a budget at all.  Sort of like Illinois.

On May 25, headlines were splashed all over the place that the replacement for Obamacare would cause 23 million to lose coverage by 2026.  For one thing, if there is no law forcing people to buy it, some will obviously choose not to buy it.  Why does the media post a headline like that implying that the number is accurate instead of a wild guess at best?  The CBO is notoriously inaccurate, but the headlines imply accuracy.  Why don't the media tell people how far off the Obamacare projections were?

In 2010, the CBO predicted that by 2016, twenty-three million would be covered by Obamacare exchanges.  The actual number was 10.6 million.  In 2010, the CBO predicted that the cost of Obamacare would be $948 billion in its first ten years.  By 2014, they had raised the projected costs to over $2 trillion.

Not once has any reporter asked Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, or any Democrat how the massive cost overruns in Obamacare could be paid for.  Why do the media and Democrats all of a sudden pretend about the deficit when they haven't for at least eight years?

The obvious reason that most headlines and articles are written as they are is to influence instead of inform.  Almost all reporting today is to push an agenda instead of report facts.  It would be much easier and cheaper if the AP, the WaPo, and the NYT along with the networks plastered Democrat talking points and liberal think-tank propaganda instead of pretending they are actual reporters doing research.

RECENT VIDEOS