It was with disappointment that I read Ashley Fieldings article in Friday’s paper regarding Rep. Deals retirement. Rather than stick to that story, Ms. Fielding chose instead to frame the departure by repeating what could only charitably be described as biased facts.
First up, the old chestnut that many are dissatisfied with their current coverage. Recent polls by Rasmussen have shown that 77 percent of those with insurance are satisfied. Since Ms. Fieldings claim is unattributed and I can find contrary concrete examples to refute it I tend to discount her claim.
Second, the oft-repeated, yet to be fact-checked in the media, number of uninsured being in the tens of millions (i.e., greater than 20 million). This is a statement derived no doubt from President Obama’s 46 million uninsured figure. Further analysis of this number indicates, at most, 15 million who are truly uninsured. How many others in the country are eligible for insurance? If we take recent population estimates of 300 million the uninsured represent only 5 percent. Its unfortunate that this fact doesn’t somehow make it into Ms. Fieldings article.
The worst omission, however, is that the article only mentions in passing, through a quote from Sen. Isakson, that the Republicans have presented comprehensive reforms to insurance that would make it more affordable and available. Instead, Ms. Fielding chooses to present them as the party of “no” and diagnose Rep. Deal’s departure as one less no vote only.
There is a place for slanted reporting such as this at The Daily Kos, The New York Times, or The Washington Post. Their readers would no doubt welcome such a fine example of water-carrying for the current administration’s nightmare of an entitlement program that will saddle us and future generations with further unaffordable debt, all in the name of closing a gap that is more like a pinhole. The insurance system in the U.S. is broken and does need to be fixed. Suspect reporting like this does not help to either inform or educate readers on the reasons for this needed reform or the benefits/detriments of the solutions being offered.
Kevin Garrett
Cumming
First up, the old chestnut that many are dissatisfied with their current coverage. Recent polls by Rasmussen have shown that 77 percent of those with insurance are satisfied. Since Ms. Fieldings claim is unattributed and I can find contrary concrete examples to refute it I tend to discount her claim.
Second, the oft-repeated, yet to be fact-checked in the media, number of uninsured being in the tens of millions (i.e., greater than 20 million). This is a statement derived no doubt from President Obama’s 46 million uninsured figure. Further analysis of this number indicates, at most, 15 million who are truly uninsured. How many others in the country are eligible for insurance? If we take recent population estimates of 300 million the uninsured represent only 5 percent. Its unfortunate that this fact doesn’t somehow make it into Ms. Fieldings article.
The worst omission, however, is that the article only mentions in passing, through a quote from Sen. Isakson, that the Republicans have presented comprehensive reforms to insurance that would make it more affordable and available. Instead, Ms. Fielding chooses to present them as the party of “no” and diagnose Rep. Deal’s departure as one less no vote only.
There is a place for slanted reporting such as this at The Daily Kos, The New York Times, or The Washington Post. Their readers would no doubt welcome such a fine example of water-carrying for the current administration’s nightmare of an entitlement program that will saddle us and future generations with further unaffordable debt, all in the name of closing a gap that is more like a pinhole. The insurance system in the U.S. is broken and does need to be fixed. Suspect reporting like this does not help to either inform or educate readers on the reasons for this needed reform or the benefits/detriments of the solutions being offered.
Kevin Garrett
Cumming