As any Republican will tell you, the New York Times is the ultimate headquarters and nerve center for the Liberal Media. Yet if that's the case, it's puzzling why the Times seems to be engaged in a jihad against Obamacare.
Today, for example, the Times Op-Ed page featured an Obamacare "Horror Story," ready-made for a Koch ad in Wisconsin or North Carolina: Why I'm Jealous of My Dog's Insurance. I guess now that the Kochs' prior "Horror Stories" have been debunked, the Times felt sorry for them and decided to provide them with material for one more try. (The story resembles prior, similar "Times demographic" stories about the ACA -- i.e., "upper middle-class peoples' problems.")
I invite our excellent ACA story debunkers like Databob, Electablog and Inagist to reveal the almost certain technical flaws in the story, as they did with Rep. McMorris-Rogers' now infamous phony stories from "Bette in Spokane," and with Julie Boonstra and others.
I am only asking why the Times feels compelled to run serial negative stories while running few, if any of the many moving success stories like we see every day on the Rec list here. And the Times stories don't come from ideologues like Bette and Boonstra. The "Dog has better insurance" author, WaPo Reporter Eric L. Wee appears to appreciate the broad effects of the ACA:
I know that Obamacare is helping a great number of people. I understand that for the first time millions of people are getting health insurance. It’s the one thing that gives me solace.
If that's the case, Eric, maybe you should keep your whining to yourself, because I'm sure your story has gone viral in the right wing blogosphere and may actually form the basis of a Koch ad. Ha! Ha! Hilarious -- His dog has better coverage! And it's an ACA horror story in
eventheliberalNYTimes(TM)! I ask:
Will it still be hilarious when it helps turn the Senate or a Governor's race that might determine whether a state expands Medicaid? When it helps discourage sign-ups because they see or hear about your story? When people go broke or get sick or die as a result?
Late last year, I noticed that the Times repeatedly ran negative ACA stories in November and December -- even as the site was fixed and sign-ups increased. It was
relentless:
November 15: Parallels to Bush in Toxic in Political Mix threatening Obama
November 21: GOP Maps Out Waves of Attacks Over Health Care Law
November 24: Don't Dare Call the Health Law Redistribution
November 26: ID Verification Lagging on Healthcare Website
December 3: Even With Website Fixes Troubles Persist in Applying for Insurance
December 4: Poll finds young people souring on health law and Obama
December 14: Affordable Health Care Act Canceled Policies for New York Professionals
December 17: A Gap in the Affordable Care Act
December 12: Broad Skepticism on Health Care law
December 19: Uninsured Americans are about as Skeptical of Health CAre Law as the Insured, Poll Finds
December 21: New Health Law Frustrates Many in Middle Class.
Back then, I thought it was just more evidence of the divide between the
Times News pages (which I think lean right) and its Editorials (which lean center left and certainly support the ACA).
But with this and a couple of past op-eds with upper middle class people whining about the ACA, I'm not that sure about the latter.
So listen, Times: Cut it out!