In the lead up to the ACA passing in March 2010 dairies were posted fast and furious around here. What makes the ACA unique is that the fight over the bill continues. It's been over three years since President Obama signed the law, but here we are with a bunch of sore losers still acting like they can kill the bill law.
I had reservations three years ago, but the ACA is outperforming many a health care worker's expectations. Since I work in health care and teach college courses to health care workers, it became my mission to make sure all the students I have understand ACA.
If you understand the politics of Miami-Dade County, Florida, you'd know that the Hispanic community is splintering. Older Cubans are still predominantly Republicans who constantly accuse Democrats of being communists. The younger generations, not so much. The rest of the Hispanic community is comprised of all the nations of South America and don't assume they are Republicans. South Florida is the blue part of Florida. Nonetheless, support for the ACA is partisan here.
Anytime I teach a class that deals with medical billing, administration, compliance, medical ethics, medical legal issues, HR, health care customer service (my transcripts and credentials let me teach a lot of health and medical classes): any class that I can connect to the ACA; the first assignment is for the students to do a complete analysis of the healthcare.gov website. I have a list of questions they must answer about the ACA. When my conservative supervisors first complained to me, I successfully pointed out that we don't have to agree with the law, but we do have to comply with it. You can't comply with a law you don't understand. If we are teaching allied health, we must include this law in our curriculum otherwise, we'd not be in compliance with our accrediting authority. They backed off and later I ended up giving workshops to other allied health instructors on how to present the ACA (it hasn't made it into our text books yet).
Hardliner conservatives disrupt my classes, but this is one unit out of 12, so the controversy always passes quickly. When someone tries to insert the politics into our classroom discussions, I firmly move the conversation back to implementation. When a student spews Faux News bunk, I can shut it down with facts and assigned readings of the pertinent sections of the law, federal register and HHS web sites. I take a WIIFM (What's In It For Me) approach and present the law as how it helps medical business and the patient. Sometimes the financial argument that wins the day. The increase of patients with insurance, reduced junk insurance policies, paid for preventive care, more standardized insurance policies wins over my greedy soon to be healthcare executives. Sometimes it's personal. I can't tell you the number of students who say, "I never knew how much this law was helping me....helping my family. Why don't we see more news stories about how helpful this law is?" I never can answer that question to their satisfaction.
On my business level I did my part. I will continue to inform people about the ACA.
The news media has not done their part to inform the public of what's in the public's interest to know about the ACA.
I'm having far more trouble winning over friends and family.
Kaiser Family Foundation's September Tracking Poll has a good explanation for that. The news media has spent an inordinate amount of time publicizing the politics of the ACA and far too little about how the law works and how it will impact people's lives. My friends and family are more focused upon the politics and the negatives and they don't give a damn about who this law helps if it isn't them. Taking the WIIFM approach with family and friends is more difficult when they have their health care situation well in hand and resent anyone who doesn't.
The news media should be called out for doing a poor job of meeting the Principles of Journalism and the Ethics of Journalism when it comes to fairly representing the ACA.
My main problem with journalists covering the ACA is that I'm not sure who they are serving, politicians, their bosses, corporations or who. One thing for certain, they aren't loyal to the citizen on Main Street.
1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth
Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can--and must--pursue it in a practical sense. This "journalistic truth" is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built--context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need--not less--for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens
While news organizations answer to many constituencies, including advertisers and shareholders, the journalists in those organizations must maintain allegiance to citizens and the larger public interest above any other if they are to provide the news without fear or favor. This commitment to citizens first is the basis of a news organization's credibility, the implied covenant that tells the audience the coverage is not slanted for friends or advertisers. Commitment to citizens also means journalism should present a representative picture of all constituent groups in society. Ignoring certain citizens has the effect of disenfranchising them. The theory underlying the modern news industry has been the belief that credibility builds a broad and loyal audience, and that economic success follows in turn. In that regard, the business people in a news organization also must nurture--not exploit--their allegiance to the audience ahead of other considerations.
Newsers can say they are covering the politics because that's the "compelling" story, but they don't call out the misrepresentations, which is a benchmark of good journalism - you know, the accurate story, the whole story in a context meaningful to our lives or how the law works. They've failed to identify bias and don't distinguish between advocacy of the messenger and the facts of the law. The average woman making dinner for her family doesn't give a flipping woo hoo about Ted Cruz's 21-hour temper tantrum on the Senate floor. Reporters ignore the content of the ACA which is what parents want to know. Reporters can't report what they don't understand. It's easier to lead the charge of trash talk than learn about something that won't effect them because they have employer provided health insurance and have no worries about paying their share of the premiums. My advice to the Chuck Todds of the news world is to do your homework. Stop letting your guests lie about ACA. We're way passed derailing this law, it's time to work with it. The media needs to step up and do their part.
It's not a hard concept, under the ACA we are no longer a pawns in our employer's insurance game plan. You can say "Take this job and shove it," and keep your insurance at a cost lower than COBRA. There was no need for confusion, you can enroll starting October 1, 2013 and be covered January 1, 2014 all you have to do is click through the healthcare.gov website, just have last year's tax return in your hand when you do it. It's not rocket science, starting in January you can't be penalized because you are female, older or have a preexisting condition. Neither birth control nor maternity benefits will be withheld from unmarried women. The mandate encourages personal responsibility. It's an easy sell, your premiums can be subsidized starting January 1, 2014 if you make below $60,000 for a family of four. If you are a single mother, and make less than that, you are highly likely be able to draw on subsidies to cover yourself and your children. The Medical Loss Ratios of 80-85% ensures your insurance company doesn't waste your premium dollars. The law doesn't force you to buy unnecessary coverages as much as it ensures you don't get stuck with a junk insurance policy that covers next to nothing. It's not scary, the law provides for finding and recommending the end to wasteful, fraudulent healthcare spending habits.
Why is it no media personality has covered the peace of mind the ACA offers millions of people? I've been told it's because conflict and drama is more interesting to watch and comment on than a love nest. People screaming at each other gets more views than "this is what you need to know" segment. It's more likely to show up on Mediaite if there's snarky name calling. It's easier to get people arguing than it is to convey how cool the benefits the ACA offers vast numbers of people. The former only requires popcorn and the latter requires in-depth education and an enthusiasm for something that might not effect you. What's in it for journalists is the sense of integrity from fulfilling the public's right to know about a law that can affect their lives. Too bad, that's not enough.
3:27 PM PT: Thanks for putting me on the Rec list. I'll around, so keep it coming.
11:04 PM PT: I'm going to bed and will pick this up tomorrow mid morning. EDT. Thanks for reading. Glad to help.