The election victory of Donald Trump took more than a few Americans by surprise. Many in the mainstream media were stunned and shocked. There is still much hand wringing in particular within the newsrooms that lean left and favor Democrats. They considered Donald Trump to be a crass, big-mouthed buffoon who could not possibly win the Presidency. Their choice, of course, was Hillary, who they helped so much to get elected. But in the end Donald Trump outsmarted them all.
Whether, Democrats and their friends in media will learn the lessons of the 2016 election remains to be seen. There are many reasons for Hillary’s defeat: Washington corruption, the Clinton Foundation, porous borders, a sluggish economy, Obama’s anti-business, anti-law enforcement agenda, a declining labor participation rate, political deception, private email servers, deleted emails, an incoherent foreign policy, IRS shenanigans. And don’t forget what is probably one of the most important reasons of all – the (Un)Affordable Care Act. It was a bad law that was shoved down the throats of the American people by one party and one party only – the Democrats. Not a single Republican voted for it when it passed the Democratic-controlled Congress in 2009.
One thing that Donald Trump capitalized on during his campaign is the American people’s growing distrust of mainstream media. There are well-founded reasons for that distrust. Many Americans see party advocates in the newsrooms rather than professional reporters. They see spin being reported rather than facts. Honest Americans do not want cheerleaders in the newsrooms masquerading about as impartial referees, yet that is what they see. And they see much more of it coming from the left.
One egregious offender is the New York Times. In a post-election letter to his readers Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the Times revealed some of the self-reflection that is going on in the newsrooms after Trump’s victory:
“After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome.”
Why does the Publisher of the New York Times think it important for his news organization to make estimations about our candidates and the support they have? That seems like a strange thing to say and begs these questions: What does Mr. Sulzberger think should be done with those estimations? And will those judgements determine how the news is to be reported? Will they be used to help elect their favorites in future elections?
Regarding what “forces and strains” drove the election outcome, I think it will be very difficult for liberals at the New York Times and elsewhere to come to terms with that. Many will never see things clearly through the prism of their ideological views. Many are victims of their own shortcomings.
With these things in mind we republish the following article, which was originally written, in part, to reveal the notorious bias of the New York Times. The article is about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and how it was sold to the American people. It makes example of the way liberal news outlets like the New York Times craft their reporting to advance an agenda. Since its publication three years ago, my family’s health insurance costs have skyrocketed. They have just about doubled since the implementation of ACA, and the coverage offered is far worse now than pre-Obamacare. It’s like paying a small mortgage each month. Millions of others are feeling the same financial punch of Obamacare. Our PPO was cancelled, forcing us into an HMO. The cheerleaders in media can spin the failures of liberal policies all they like, but reality of these policies always have a way of catching up with the rest of us.
The following article was originally entitled, “Stabbed in the Back for Our Own Good”
November 13, 2013
The New York Times editorial, Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping (Sunday, November 3rd 2013) was a blatant attempt to excuse President Obama’s (now infamous) broken health care promise. But it is much more than that and begs some scrutiny.
In an attempt to immediately deflect the discussion away from President Obama’s repeated dishonesty the Times began its editorial by pouncing on Republicans:
“Congressional Republicans have stoked consumer fears and confusion with charges that the health care reform law is causing insurers to cancel existing policies and will force many people to pay substantially higher premiums next year for coverage they don’t want. That, they say, violates President Obama’s pledge that if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that.”
Why did The New York Times refer to the Republican claims as “charges,” as if Republicans might be manufacturing some unproven fact? Nowhere in the rest of their editorial can I find any verifiable facts that disprove the claim that insurers are cancelling existing policies or that many people are being forced to pay substantially higher premiums for coverage they do not want. Based on that, I suspect the Republicans have been telling the truth. Based on the letter I received from my health insurer, I know they are. The Times may try to characterize Republican truth-telling as stoking fears and confusion, but to the millions of honest, informed people who have had their policies cancelled, many Democrats included, they appear ridiculous.
The editors at the Times want us to believe that the President merely “misspoke” on numerous occasions while out selling his health care plan to the public. Therefore, let us go back and review a little of the history of ObamaCare to see if this is correct. In a speech given on August 15, 2009 President Obama said this:
“No matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan you can keep it. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan you can keep your plan – period.”
Let’s examine very carefully exactly what the President said. Notice that when he made these statements he prefaced them by saying “No matter what you’ve heard,” thus putting forth the idea that all his skeptics were either uninformed or intentionally misleading the public about their ability to keep the same insurance coverage once the new health care law kicked in. Then at the end of these clear, carefully chosen, declarative statements the President emphasized the certainty of his pledge by saying “period.” When any person uses that word at the end of a statement everyone knows what it means (except perhaps the editors at the New York Times who think he merely “misspoke”) – ending a statement with the word “period” is a common rhetorical device intentionally used by a speaker to convince the listener that what the speaker says is going to happen, is going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts. End of story.
We now know as a matter of fact that the opposite was true. It was Obama’s skeptics who were correct. They were not the ones who were uninformed or intentionally misleading. I know this because I am one of the millions of privately insured people who recently received a letter saying, “because of these new (ACA) requirements, your current Individual and Family Plan will no longer be available after December 31, 2013.”
“A rough style with truth is preferable to eloquence without it.” — Cadwallader Colden
Not surprisingly, anger over the President’s broken pledge has caused the Administration to go into damage control. It has been trying to explain to us that what we remember the President saying is not actually what the President said. We are told that our memories are faulty.
As an example of his attempt to rewrite history the President gave a speech in Washington on Monday November 4th where he said, “What we said was you can keep it (your healthcare plan) if it hasn’t changed since the law passed (in March 2010).” Really now, because that seems different from what he said back in 2009 and 2010 when he was trying to sell his health care plan to the American people!
So we watch the video reruns of Mr. Obama’s speeches to refresh our memories. We would not want to be accused any further by Mr. Obama’s defenders of misrepresenting facts and demanding accountability based on faulty memories. Mr. Obama’s speeches have been preserved for all to see and hear. But when we watch these reruns we find they do not contradict our memories. In fact they support them.
Other examples of “the promise:”
“We will keep this promise to the American people – If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor – period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan – period. No one will take it away no matter what.” — President Obama speaking before the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009
“If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan – period.” – From President Obama’s weekly speech from the oval office, August 22, 2009.
These pledges sound very precise and very specific to me. He did not elaborate back then, before the law was passed, and say there might be millions of exceptions to his promise. But now the cancellation letters have gone out and a fact of ObamaCare is verifiable – millions of Americans will not be able to keep the plans they themselves chose and were happiest with contrary to the President’s repeated assurances – assurances that included an appeal from the President to disregard the warnings of his critics. On top of that, in most cases, the new replacement plans are far more expensive, which contradicts another foolish promise candidate Obama made in 2008.
Some estimates are that between 5 and 10 million people have already received notices of insurance policy cancellations. Regardless of the exact number, each one of those is a broken promise – millions of broken promises.
The other defense that some are asking us to believe is that back in 2009-2010 the President was simply uninformed about the fact that the new health care law would not allow millions of Americans to keep their health care plans? This idea was put forth by unnamed sources in the Obama administration as reported in a recent Wall Street Journal piece. But was President Obama merely just uninformed? If so, the American people have made a grave mistake in choosing their leader. A man who does not comprehend key aspects of what has been described as his “signature legislation” and his “greatest achievement,” should not be entrusted with remaking a health care system that involves 314 million free people.
If President Obama was more than just uninformed, which an honest view of the evidence must bear out, then one must conclude that he deliberately misled the American people. The following facts will show without any doubt that he was aware of the probability that insurance policies would be cancelled under the Affordable Care Act though in almost every instance he refused to share this detail with the American people.
The Associated Press ran a piece entitled, “Promises, Promises: Obama’s Health Plan Guarantee.” The story ran on June 19, 2009. The date here is key. It began:
“WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama rarely equivocates when he promises that his health care plan will let people keep the coverage they have. His vow sounds reassuring and gets applause, but no president could guarantee such a pledge.”
President Obama spoke to the public on numerous occasions after that AP story and it is clear he did so to intentionally counter his numerous skeptics. That is why in his speech of August 15, 2009 he prefaced his pledge on health care by saying, “No matter what you’ve heard…” Skepticism of the President’s pledge was widespread at this time; he was at the center of the public debate on health care, so he was well aware of his skeptics’ arguments. He couldn’t escape them. Does anyone seriously believe, even at The New York Times, that the President did not question whether his promise was going to be kept or not? Whether he was aware specifically of the AP story is not important, the proof that he was intentionally answering his skeptics leaves not a shadow of a doubt that he was aware of their warning that insurance plans would have to be cancelled if the Affordable Care Act was in fact passed.
Did the President not examine the question and see that the outcome would allow only two possibilities, that he would either honor his promise (since he was the one making it) or that he would not or could not honor the promise? I maintain that an honest man does not pretend that he can make promises that he knows are not within his power to keep, because that is also a form of deception. Like this one from candidate Obama in 2008: “And if you already have health care then we’re going to reduce costs an average of $2500 per family on premiums.”
The same Associated Press report contained this bit of news:
“Earlier this week (June 2009), the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million people would have to seek new insurance under a Democratic plan that a Senate committee is working on, because their employers would no longer offer coverage.”
Does anyone, including the highly intelligent editors at The New York Times, honestly believe that President Obama was not aware that the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report contradicting his bold promise?
At the Health Care Summit held in Washington on February 25, 2010 (again the date here is important) Republican Congressman Eric Cantor argued his point of disbelief in the President’s promise this way:
Congressman Cantor: “When we were here about a year ago across the street you started the health care summit by saying one of the promises you want to make is that people ought to be able to keep the health insurance that they have…well the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) sent a letter I think it was to leader Reid about the Senate bill and in that letter it suggested that between 8 million and 9 million people may very well lose the coverage that they have because of this, because of the construct of this bill.”
President Obama responded: “The 8 to 9 million people that you refer to that might have to change their coverage, keep in mind out of the 300 million Americans that we’re talking about, would be folks who the CBO estimates would find the deal in the exchange better. Would be a better deal. So yes, they would change coverage because they’ve got more choice and competition. So let’s just be clear about that…”
This rare admission proves that the President was, in fact, aware of the bipartisan CBO estimate that showed that millions of Americans would lose their plans if the bill were to become law. But the following month when speaking before an audience at George Mason University the President Obama just couldn’t bring himself to publicly acknowledge this damning little detail. Instead, with his usual deceptive eloquence he repeated the fraudulent pledge:
“Now, I just — I just want to be clear, everybody. Listen up, because we have heard every crazy thing about this bill…. But when it — it turns out, at the end of the day, what we’re talking about is common-sense reform. That’s all we’re talking about. If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. – March 19, 2010.
It’s clear that by this time President Obama was well aware that there would be millions of exceptions to his promise, that people would have their insurance policies cancelled, but he refused to go there. The dirty little secret is that everyone who had a hand in crafting the Affordable Care Act knew that people would have to be forced out their private plans and into the exchanges in order for the new health care law to succeed. But sharing this detail of the Affordable Care Act at any point during the months long public debate could only serve to weaken the chances that the bill would become law. Team Obama, which of course, includes the New York Times simply made the calculated decision to conceal the truth in any way possible until after the passage of the bill. In my book that’s called fraud.
The question then, is what level of dishonesty will the American people tolerate from their leaders and the people in the press who can make or break politicians? The president knew that the Affordable Care Act was going to force insurance companies to cancel policies and raise premiums because of certain new requirements, yet made repeated pronouncements to the contrary to get his pet legislation passed. He is no different from a used car salesman that knowingly covers up a major flaw in a car he is about to sell, even after being questioned by the customer about any known problems.
“Undoubtedly the very best administration must encounter a great deal of opposition; and the very worst will find more support than it deserves. Sufficient appearances will never be wanting to those who have a mind to deceive themselves.” – Edmund Burke
People need to realize the danger our country is in when a major news source like the New York Times decides to provide cover for and manufactures excuses for the repeated dishonesty of a President of the United States? I have no beef with the fact that The New York Times is run by people who have a different vision for America than I do. But I do have a problem when they encourage deception and provide cover for it at the highest levels of government for the sake of implementing their world view. They are just as guilty of deception as the President is. They rationalize their lack of honesty and integrity because it is being done (in their minds) for a greater cause. They will never admit this in public.
The late William O. Baker, patriot genius and former leader of research at Bell Labs once warned: “The very media, founded on communications and automata, especially television, can communicate illusion as well as reality, and that is all right as long as we know the difference.”
The problem is that too many people allow themselves to be easily manipulated by news outlets like the New York Times and therefore do not know the difference between illusion and reality.
So what additional cover was the Times’ Nov. 3rd editorial attempting to provide for Barack Obama and his administration? Listen to what was written in order to justify the cancellation of millions of insurance policies:
“Some had deductibles as high as $10,000 or $25,000 and required large co-pays after that, and some didn’t cover hospital care.”
How many is some? Show us the data NYT! They would have us believe that only the most rotten, worthless insurance plans were the ones being cancelled. It is a bogus argument because I can tell you my deductible was $1250 with my portion of the copay being 20%, plus it included coverage for hospital care. Their extreme example does not characterize my health care plan, nor, I suspect millions of others who are having them cancelled. But the Times probably figures it can get away with this false argument because it will not be detected by the majority of people who are allowed to keep their plans (for now).
The title of the editorial itself, Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping, is a glaring example of the New York Times’ complete arrogance and the great disdain they have for people who simply want to retain the freedom to make their own decisions rather than being coerced by their government. Somehow the technocrats and their cheerleaders at the NY Times have so much confidence in their abilities that they think they know what health care plans are best for millions of individuals. This is the kind of arrogance that motivates them. Their superior version of what America should be must be imposed on the masses for their own good even if it means deceiving the people in order to attain their goals.
Then the Times editorial made this stab at the backs of millions of Americans, “And premiums may well rise, in part because insurance companies must accept all applicants, not just the healthy.” The Times knew this all along as did President Obama. They were all well aware of the Congressional Budget Offices’ warnings. Some of us have been warning about the consequences of ObamCare all along, yet it was we who were maligned for speaking the truth and continue to be maligned by this administration and their media lap-dogs.
When the Times editors were actively working to get Barack Obama elected for the first time in 2008 did they believe candidate Obama when he said that his health care plan would save the average family of four $2500 per year? Perhaps they knew it was an impossible dream, but in the morally loose world of The New York Times editorial staff perhaps that too was an acceptable lie on the march towards socialized medicine.
And the New York Times is still at it spreading confusion and propaganda about ObamaCare. One recent story tried to draw a parallel between the Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina to the flawed implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It’s utterly ridiculous to compare a government’s response to a chaotic, unpredictable natural disaster like Katrina to a self-inflicted, man-made law that this administration has had 3 ½ years to prepare for. The story also demonstrates how defensive the Times has become – they can hardly bring themselves to do a story about the failures of the Obama administration without somehow dragging the Republicans into it.
Now we get this report just out today from the Wall Street Journal: “United Health drops thousands of doctors from insurance plans.” I suspect that the Obama administration’s damage control has only just begun. It will be interesting watch the propaganda machine at New York Times as it continues to defend the indefensible.
I am working on a title for my next post. I’m thinking of calling it: “The New York Times – a propaganda machine not worth keeping.”