Obamacare: Do media have no obligation to facts?

This was my question last Wednesday when I began to see headlines about a conversation on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. According to these headlines, during a discussion about Obamacare, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell opined citizens didn’t know much about the program because all they’ve heard is misinformation.

In response, MSNBC political correspondent Chuck Todd laid responsibility on the White House for not “selling” a law duly passed by Congress. As Talking Points Memo headlined it, “Chuck Todd: It's not media's job to correct GOP's Obamacare falsehoods.”

I’m sorry, but if I can find facts about Obamacare using my PC and Internet connection, then Chuck Todd and the political media can, too. Instead, corporate media have made a calculated decision NOT to report on the facts of a policy passed by government and designed to help average citizens.

And because corporate media is not providing vital information about this law, we’re now witnessing the battle over defunding Obamacare in the House. Too many tea party and ultra conservative representatives have listened to fact-free media reports and don’t understand how the program works.

As Sarah Kliff reported in the Washington Post’s Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012, Congress used two broad ways to fund the Affordable Care Act (ACA): cutting into government spending and creating ways to raise revenue.

According to Kliff, most of the spending cuts come from changes in payments to doctors and hospitals that provide Medicaid and Medicare services. And as the Economic Policy Institute reported on Aug. 27, 2012, the cuts are to spending, not benefits, and they work by:

“1. Reducing reimbursements Medicare currently makes to hospitals—but by less than the gain hospitals would receive from newly-insured patients purchasing hospital services in coming decades.

“2. Reforming the separate Medicare Advantage program, which was supposed to save money, but ended up being more expensive.

“3. Reducing a variety of other payments to providers, such as those designed to offset the cost of providing uncompensated care for the uninsured (unnecessary because now more patients will have insurance and hence the amount of this uncompensated care will plummet).”

To raise revenue, Kliff explains the ACA uses a number of measures:

• A tax penalty for those who choose not to purchase coverage;
• An excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans (held by a small percentage of Americans);
• Savings from a reduction in uncompensated care;
• A 3.8 percent tax on investment income levied on those with gross income more than $200,000 annually to help pay for Medicare’s hospital insurance.

Some smaller taxes, like a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning, only affect individuals or larger employers who choose not to offer health coverage.

So because much of the law’s funding is separate from annual discretionary appropriations, the House’s effort to defund Obamacare won’t work. As Sophie Novack reported in the National Journal on Sept. 17, Senator Tom Coburn’s communication director John Hart said, “The idea that we can fully defund Obamacare through the continuing resolution is a Washington gimmick to advance political funding goals.”

It’s time to demand public service – from our representatives and our media.