More about useless reporters and pols.

[Mass]

Last edited Sun Nov 17, 2013, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)

This morning was painful on the Morning Talk Shows. Between Martha Raddatz being worse than the GOP, Nancy Pelosi unable to explain things out of her usual talking points, and David Gregory being a very stupid person, it was difficult to figure out where we were.

But the worse here was the repeat of the Washington Post's article referring to 20 % of people being able to buy insurance through the website.

It took me a while to figure out what this meant, and it is a fail of reporting of ethics proportion. Of course, a failure rate of 20% on the website would be huge, but it is not at all what it means. TPM has the goods.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/beneath-the-headlines-on-healthcare-gov

The piece out in the Post today is another case of a headline giving a somewhat misleading view not only of the reality of the situation, but even what's contained in the piece itself.

If you haven't read it, the piece states that the administration's goal (when it will consider the site "working" and a "success&quot is when 80% of users will be able to use it to buy health care plans. This is apparently what the administration means when they use the now familiar catchphrase that the "vast majority" of users will be able to successfully use the site.

Now, 20% left out is a lot of people.

Yep, but buried in the article, we find what that actually means, and it is really laughable,

According to a government official familiar with the new target, the 20 percent who are unlikely to be able to enroll online are expected to fall into three groups: people whose family circumstances are so complicated that the Web site cannot determine their eligibility for subsidies to help pay for health plans; people uncomfortable buying insurance on a computer; and people who encounter technical problems on the Web site.[

So, people who do not have access to the internet are part of the 20% failure rate of the website?

The political reality is that landing with a thud on October 1st means that everything about this site and the law is now getting extremely close and often misleadingly negative scrutiny. The reality reality, however, is not necessarily as dire as a lot of these reports suggest.

So much for the media making sure that people get a complete information and that reporting does not cause useless mass hysteria.

Edit - Here is the correct WP link as TPM has the wrong one. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/healthcaregov-goal-80-percent-able-to-enroll-for-insurance-through-web-site/2013/11/16/04fa02a2-4e1a-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html

[Wilms]

1. Nancy Pelosi

Her failure rate is >20%.

[treestar]

2. They are going out of their way to make the most of every negative they can possibly find

It's obvious how desperate they are.

[Mass]

3. Two bright lights in these shows: Gillibrand and Clyburn

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clyburn-obama-can-gain-america-s-trust-again

Cancellations of these plans lead to backlash among consumers and Republicans, but Clyburn emphasized Sunday that insurance plan cancellations happen all the time.

"Cancellation letters are not new to my constituents," he said.

Clyburn said that people are just reacting to talking points and not to actual policy.

"We tend to react to soundbites a little too often," he said, adding that Obama should have explained his promise more thoroughly.

I do not have any excerpts of Gillibrand on this particular aspect, but she also tried to inject some reality in the discussion, reminding with insistence to Raddatz images normal people could connect too like waiting in the ER with your son and wondering how you would pay.