From the March 25 edition of MSNBC's The Reid Report:
Loading the player reg...
From the March 25 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
Loading the player reg...
The Wall Street Journal gave credence to Hobby Lobby's scientifically-disproven view that emergency contraceptives are abortifacients by privileging the claims of the corporation, currently fighting to expand corporate personhood with the notion that the Affordable Care Act's "contraception mandate" violates its religious liberty.
On March 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, a case that could allow secular, for-profit corporations an unprecedented religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) "contraception mandate," which requires all insurance plans to cover preventive health services without co-pays, including birth control. The owners of Hobby Lobby argue that the contraception mandate will force them to violate their religious beliefs by requiring them to offer insurance that covers forms of emergency contraception -- namely the morning after pill and IUDs -- that they incorrectly equate with abortion.
The Wall Street Journal's Jess Bravin privileged that falsehood on March 24, highlighting Hobby Lobby's beliefs without mention that the science is settled against the corporation: IUDs and the morning-after pill are not akin to abortion:
The companies' owners, who are, respectively, evangelical and Mennonite Christians, say they consider emergency contraceptives--"morning after" pills and some intrauterine devices--to be forms of abortion, which is anathema to their religious beliefs. For the corporations to win, the court must find that including such contraceptives in company-sponsored insurance would "substantially burden" their owners' religious exercise, unjustified by a "compelling government interest."
On the eve of Supreme Court oral arguments over the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirement that businesses offer insurance plans that include contraception coverage as part of their preventive services, Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano falsely claimed that abortion and euthanasia are part of this coverage.
On the March 24 edition of The Kelly File, Napolitano said of the case (emphasis added):
NAPOLITANO: As everybody knows, the Affordable Care Act requires anybody that employs 50 or more people to provide health care for them that includes contraceptive services. Contraceptive services means contraception, euthanasia, and abortion.
Napolitano is completely wrong. As the Kaiser Family Foundation explains, the preventive coverage includes "FDA approved contraceptives," and "abortion coverage is specifically banned from being required as part of the essential benefits package." The only drug approved by the FDA to induce abortion is not included in this coverage. Further, medical providers and insurance companies are legally protected under the Affordable Care Act if they choose not to provide euthanasia or assisted suicide services to patients.
The issues of abortion and euthanasia are not relevant to the cases currently before the Supreme Court. The cases -- two separate lawsuits involving Conestoga Wood Products and the craft-store chain Hobby Lobby -- focus on the question of whether corporations have the same religious protections as individuals. The companies have claimed they cannot be forced to provide health coverage for contraceptives as mandated by the ACA.
Watch the segment below:
From the March 24 edition of MSNBC's The Reid Report:
Loading the player reg...
Right-wing media distorted an AP story about narrow health care networks to falsely claim that most or all enrollees in the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) exchanges cannot access elite cancer treatment facilities.
On March 18, the AP released the results of a survey it had conducted which found that access to cancer centers such as New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering and Houston's MD Anderson would be restricted for some patients who purchased coverage on the ACA's health insurance exchanges.
Right-wing media outlets distorted the story with headlines like the New York Post's "Nation's elite cancer hospitals off-limits under Obamacare." Fox News' Fox & Friends highlighted the story as well, but deceptively omitted some of the AP's wording to claim only four cancer centers could be accessed through coverage purchased from the ACA's exchanges:
Nothing in the AP report says that any of the cancer treatment facilities are excluded from all of the exchange plans in a given state, like the New York Post and Fox suggest.
What's at issue is a reality of the health insurance industry known as narrow networks. Narrow networks generally offer patients more affordable coverage but provide coverage at fewer hospitals and doctors. While the ACA is having an impact on narrow networks, they existed before the law was implemented as a way for insurance companies to control costs. The truth is that a hospital being included in a particular plan's network is a decision that's made between the provider and the insurance company, and the choice to restrict access to certain providers, especially high-cost providers, is one that insurance companies have been making for decades.
On March 25, Hobby Lobby, a secular, for-profit corporation, plans to wrongly argue before the Supreme Court that emergency contraception, a form of preventive service like birth control that all health insurance policies must cover under the Affordable Care Act, amounts to abortion, and thus violates the corporation's religious liberty. Here's what media should know about the contraception at issue.
Right wing media have repeatedly pushed the myth that contraceptives are affordable and accessible for all women, denying the disproportionate barriers to access many women experience -- access which is currently facing further challenges in the Supreme Court.
From the March 24 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:
Loading the player reg...
USA Today allowed a deeply misleading op-ed to endorse the conservative plaintiffs challenging the Affordable Care Act's "contraceptive mandate" before the Supreme Court in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, without disclosing the author's professional connections to Hobby Lobby's owners.
On March 23, USA Today published an opinion piece by Ken Starr, former Clinton-era independent counsel and current president of Baylor University, arguing in favor of Hobby Lobby, the for-profit, secular corporation currently challenging the availability of women's preventive services in health insurance under the ACA. And yet USA Today did not disclose the fact that as part of its religious mission, Baylor has a professional relationship with the owners of Hobby Lobby.
Baylor explained its partnership with the Green family, Hobby Lobby's founding owners, in its alumni magazine:
Over the past few years, the Green family has become involved with the university through Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR) and the Green Scholars Initiative (GSI). A partnership with the family has established Baylor as a major research partner and an academic home for the GSI's primary undergraduate program. Baylor plays a leadership role in providing undergraduate and graduate coursework and research.
The website of the Green Scholars Initiative confirms this close relationship between the Greens and Baylor.
This professional connection between Hobby Lobby and the author of an op-ed supporting the business' position before the Supreme Court should have been disclosed by USA Today, especially in light of Starr's extremely biased explanation of the case and outright inaccuracies. From his op-ed:
Fox News invited Paul Wolfowitz, a former Bush administration official and current development scholar for conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, to push the repeatedly debunked claim that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may actually increase the number of uninsured.
On March 23, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Wolfowitz, an Iraq War architect who noted his past employment with the World Bank had little to do with health care, to weigh in on the ACA enrollment numbers.
Wolfowitz baselessly claimed that the health reform law may increase the number of uninsured Americans:
WALLACE: We haven't heard from you on Obamacare as former head of the World Bank. What do you think of how it has gone so far?
WOLFOWITZ: I wouldn't say the World Bank has much to do with it. But you know, it seems to me, I hear numbers, I think it's correct, that five million people had their plans canceled, the ones they were promised they could keep. Presumably, some of that five million of new enrollees are just people who got kicked out and are back in. This was supposed to reduce the number of uninsured. It may actually have increased the number. I think Nancy Pelosi famously said we have to pass the bill so you'll know what is in it. Well, they've passed the bill, there's are so many changes by administrative fiat, I don't think the authors any longer know what's is in it. It's -- you cannot reform 17 percent of the economy with 900 pages of legislation that nobody's bothered to read.
But the suggestion that the ACA may have increased the number of uninsured Americans has been debunked by multiple fact checks. On March 17, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler weighed in on a similar claim from Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) that there has been "a net loss of people with health insurance," writing that Boehner's claim "flies in the face of the facts" and issuing it "four pinocchios" -- the rating it issues for "whoppers." Kessler also cited two data points that demonstrate how the ACA has increased the number of people with insurance:
So what does this add up to? Taking the lowest-range estimates, we still end up with nearly 9 million people added to the insurance rolls, more than enough to swamp Boehner's 6 million figure, which as we noted is a pretty useless number to begin with.
- 3.4 million -- HealthCare.gov sign-ups, assuming 80 percent paid, though February
- 2.4 million -- lowest estimate for new Medicaid enrollment through January
- 2.2 million -- young adults added to parents' plans (2010 average to first two quarters of 2013)
- 500,000 -- off-exchange enrollments
Charles Gaba, a blogger who has tracked the state-by-state numbers at ACAsignups.net, including known off-exchange enrollments, meanwhile calculates the actual current figure though mid-March at nearly 14 million. Even if you take a conservative estimate for paid plans and reduce the number of young Americans added to plans, you end up with about 13 million. That makes Boehner's "net loss" claim seem especially absurd.
Politifact similarly rated the "net loss" claim "false." As its March 18 article noted, Boehner's suggestion omitted several "important factors," including Medicaid enrollments, young adults who have been able to remain on their parents' plans, and notably, what happened to people who received cancellation notices because their insurance plans were not ACA compliant:
Some of those policies, about half, were restored when Obama administratively allowed canceled plans to continue for another year and later through 2016.
Many others were moved to new plans, either through their insurance company or by purchasing a new policy on the marketplaces set up for Obamacare. The administration estimated that of the people with canceled plans, just 500,000 were left without coverage, and catastrophic coverage was extended to those individuals.
That's not to say this wasn't a difficult ordeal for people who lost their plans, especially if they thought the law would allow them to keep their coverage. But most of them were able to find new plans, meaning Boehner's 6 million uninsured people basically vanishes.
In the four years since the signing of the Affordable Care Act, right-wing media has engaged in a campaign to undermine the law in any way possible, frequently resorting to lies, myths, and misinformation. Among the most prominent and long-lasting of these myths are claims that the law amounts to socialized medicine, will harm the economy, provides federal funding for abortions, kills thousands of jobs, and of course, creates death panels.
To find out the truth behind other health care reform myths, visit Media Matters' Mythopedia project.
From the March 22 edition of Fox News' Cashin' In:
Loading the player reg...
Right-wing media outlets have seized on an anonymously sourced and highly speculative article in The Hill that dubiously proclaimed health care premiums are going to "skyrocket" under the Affordable Care Act.
In a March 19 post on The Hill's Healthwatch blog with the headline "O-care premiums to skyrocket," Elise Viebeck quoted anonymous health insurance industry officials to claim that "ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration."
The article and its claim about rising premiums was hyped across the right-wing media. National Review Online claimed "there's only so much massaging of the truth and flat-out lying that one can do before the headlines catch up with the deceit." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey cited The Hill, writing, "ObamaCare has bent the cost curve all right, but sharply upward -- and in 2015, expect them to not just bend but absolutely 'skyrocket.'" Fox Nation highlighted the post under the headline "300%: Insurance Industry Predicts Skyrocketing ObamaCare Premiums":
Despite the certainty implied by the post's headline, the reality is far more complicated. While Viebeck chose to play up the claims made by her anonymous insurance industry sources, the article also cites health policy experts who pointed out that it's far too early to make predictions about "expected rate hikes":
The Las Vegas Review-Journal used the story of a Nevadan who had trouble with his state's exchange to bash "the intentionally flawed design" of the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange system while incorrectly claiming that people are forced to use the state exchanges to access coverage.
A March 19 editorial relayed the story of Larry Basich, an enrollee in the Nevada health insurance exchange who has paid his premiums but has not been provided coverage due to administrative errors by the exchange's contractor, Xerox. The Review-Journal editorial used Mr. Basich's story to call the exchanges "intentionally flawed" and claim Mr. Basich's problems could be solved if he was allowed to shop outside the exchange through a private insurer (emphasis added):
Mr. Basich's problems go to the failure of Obamacare nationwide and the intentionally flawed design of the exchanges. The government wanted to create a system that allowed some people buy insurance without seeing the actual price. That requires connectivity with federal databases to determine subsidy eligibility. Buying insurance and collecting subsidies are two entirely separate issues, and should have been treated that way. Would Mr. Basich be in this predicament if he'd simply been allowed to buy insurance through an insurer instead of the exchange?
The editorial continued on to link Mr. Basich's problems "to the failure of Obamacare nationwide" leading it to explain that the only real solution is the repeal and replacement of the ACA.
However, the Review-Journal is incorrect in its assertion that Mr. Basich was not allowed to buy insurance privately outside of the exchange. The option to purchase insurance outside of the exchange has always been available and unrestricted. In fact, due to the flawed roll out of the exchanges, the Obama administration has retro-actively extended the tax credits previously available on the exchanges to customers who were frustrated with enrollment and purchased insurance privately.