Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act – Give It a Chance

Most of the media coverage on ObamaCare is politically charged and only rarely is there an article or study that provides the true facts about the program. Of course, it’s far easier to write saucy one-liners that catch the eye of whoever likes the tone of the headline, but actually studying and understanding the lengthy, complex legislation takes some time and dedication. Since no one is doing this, 95% of the people who freely offer opinions about ObamaCare haven’t the foggiest idea what they are talking about. So why not give Americans the real truth?

Under the Microscope: ObamaCare

Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's decision?

This question–asked multiple times by multiple media outlets in the last few days–is totally absurd. In truth, there are only a miniscule number of respondents who are qualified to assess whether the United States Supreme Court correctly applied the federal constitution to the Affordable Care Act. Consequently the results of this poll are totally worthless.

The real question to ask the public should be: Do you agree or disagree with ObamaCare?

At least with this question everyone is qualified to give an answer because the question asks for nothing but a personal opinion. Unfortunately the results of this poll are likewise entirely unreliable. The problem is that the respective proponents and opponents of ObamaCare have generated so much disinformation that the public really has no reliable information upon which to base any opinion. The Republicans and the Democrats alike publish enormous inaccuracies about this law for the sole purpose of influencing public opinion in the upcoming presidential election. So the public is grossly misinformed as to the benefits the law provides, the cost of implementation of the law or the gravity of the regulations the law imposes. Who could possibly cast an intelligent vote under these circumstances?

Under the Microscope: Political Campaigns and the News Media

I doubt there are many Americans who think the news media fairly and accurately reports political news. The more important issue,however, is not whether individual stories are reported accurately, but which stories the media chooses to report at all. TV newscasts are drastically limited in time, and newspapers neither have the staff to report, nor the paper to print, every story that may be of interest to the public. Of course, the first amendment protects the media no matter what it does, but with those rights also come important responsibilities that the media are neglecting.

Let me give you an example. The two-party system in the United States largely exists, for better or worse, because the media chooses to give almost no attention to third party candidates. Forget about national politics where third party candidates have absolutely zero chance of success today; let’s focus on state-wide races for governor, congress, senate, and state legislative offices. There have been numerous highly credible, well-credentialed candidates for these offices all across the United States, and virtually none of them are able to get their campaigns off the ground because the news media refuses to follow them and report their ideas to the public. When there is some news report, it typically focuses on the candidate’s low public following in the polls rather than on the ideas the candidate espouses. By reporting only on the major party candidates, even when the stories are fairly written, the media are actually making news more than they are reporting it. They are making news by ensuring that the current parties, which every poll has shown represent only a minority of Americans, maintain control of government indefinitely.

Under the Microscope: Sensationalized Celebrity Crimes

“Do you think the press sensationalizes celebrity court cases in order to sell ads?”

I frequently get asked this question by friends who want to get my take on the latest perceived celebrity indiscretion that has made it into our court system. Of course the answer is, “absolutely.” That’s just the economic reality of the media business—too much media, too little news.

But if we take a closer look, we realize that the press is actually playing a far more important role than this accurate, albeit cynical, response to the question would have us assume. Were it not for the close media attention these cases receive, most celebrities would likely escape their day of judgment entirely. Of course, not all of them are guilty, but virtually none of them would be found guilty were it not for the American press. That is because men and women of wealth and influence are often capable of buying their freedom if no one is watching the process. Consider the justice system in virtually every country where the media are excluded from the courtroom. Without a doubt, corruption trumps justice, and corruption breeds more corruption. The very same thing would happen in the United States if not for the freedom of the press to tell the world what is going on in these cases, moment by nausea-inducing moment.

We all tend to view the court system through a wide-angle lens, but if we examine it under the microscope, we see things from a rather different perspective.