Connect with us

Healthcare

Shocking NY Times headline calls evil good and good evil

Published

on

Shocking NY Times headline calls evil good and good evil

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20

There are four tactics favored by many mainstream media outlets, including the NY Times, that help them fulfill their two primary goals. Let’s start with their goals since they’re blatant: get more eyeballs for their paid subscription model and help Democrats win elections.

How do they do this? They have standard journalistic strategies that work for them well because they’ve been around for so long. They have access to people, manpower to cover stories, and resources to acquire assets necessary to make their stories popular. Those are the positive strategies they use, strategies that every news outlet strives to benefit from to various degrees. But they also use four tactics that help them with their secondary goal of pushing the left’s agenda:

  1. Shock headlines. While they rarely go as far as smaller outlets or tabloids, they are masters among the “big boys” at generating headlines to make their points.
  2. Credible experts with an agenda. One can argue that this is a technique all good outlets use to push their various agendas, but nobody is as adept at it as the New York Times. For example, if they’re pushing global warming, they get the best activists with science studies degrees to push the narrative.
  3. Manipulative statistics. Again, this is a common tactic, but the NY Times has mastered it. They have stat-finders on staff who comb the various studies of the world to find data that supports their premise. If that sounds natural, let’s not forget the idea should be the other way around. They should use statistics to form their premise.
  4. Begging the question. Contrary to the popular use of the phrase, it actually refers to a logical fallacy in which a premise becomes the basis of evidence for the premise. Similar to circular reasoning, it assumes a disputed notion to be factually correct.

In one editorial they published yesterday, they used the four tactics all at once. The title of the story is, “Pregnancy Kills. Abortion Saves Lives.”

I won’t link to it.

The article itself is an exercise in begging the question. For the statement in the headline to be remotely true, one has to assume that the preborn baby that’s aborted is not a life. If it were a life, then the statement would be (and in fact, is) ludicrous.

Of course, it obviously makes excellent use of the first tactic, the shock headline. I rarely read anything from their news outlet anymore, but it got me to click through and read it. When I did, I realized exactly what they were doing. First, they used the second tactic, a credible expert with an agenda, to not only help with the article but to actually write it. In this case, the expert is Dr. Warren M. Hern. His expertise is being a physician and epidemiologist who specializes in late-abortion “services.”

Dr. Hern proceeds to use the third tactic, manipulative statistics, to make his point that abortions are less likely to kill the mother than pregnancy or childbirth. Is it true? Absolutely. I learned this myself when my wife nearly died as our fifth child was lost in a miscarriage. Both pregnancy and childbirth are risks to mothers, much more so than abortions.

Nobody can dispute this fact. But the way this fact and others are framed, such as a statistic showing African-American women were more likely to die as a result of pregnancy than Caucasian women, were intended to be terrifying to mothers and to support his claim that pregnancy kills the mother at a higher rate than abortion.

But again, his entire argument relies on the notion that the child in the womb is not actually a life.

We are faced with a society in which a large percentage feel the same way. They have to in order to maintain their own self-perception of not doing harm to another human. Otherwise, abortion becomes murder. The only way it can’t be seen as murder is if the baby inside the mother isn’t seen as life.

This is why it’s so very important we start looking at abortion in America as more than just a political or even religious issue. It’s a cultural issue, one in which we are failing to deliver the right message. Most people can be made to appreciate the value of the life within the womb if they’re allowed to look beyond the politics. They are getting bombarded with the same two messages. Pro-abortion activists say they’re defending women’s rights. Pro-life activists say they’re defending the baby’s rights. Both arguments can have merit based on how a person perceives the baby in the womb. If it’s seen as a life, it’s hard to say that life has no right to live. If it’s seen as a parasite, clump of cells, or “potential” human, then the rights of the mother prevail.

Articles like this one in the NY Times are meant to change the way culture perceives abortion. We must fight back by continuing to push reality, that a baby in the womb is a life. We have the truth on our side. It’s time to use it.

Advertisement

0

Democrats

‘Lite’ versions of Medicare-for-All are no better – and possibly worse – than the real thing

Published

on

Lite versions of Medicare-for-All are no better - and possibly worse - than the real thing

How do Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and other Democratic candidates plan on sinking Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders? By highlighting how their radical Medicare-for-All proposals are several steps too far to the left for America and by offering “lighter” versions of their semi-popular healthcare plans. But there’s a problem with their proposals. All of them will lead to the same conclusion – single-payer healthcare – and all of them may actually be more damaging to the economy along the way.

This is saying a lot since the $32 trillion Medicare-for-All is an absolute existential threat to the United States economy. How could these lighter versions be worse?

Before we answer that, let’s look at what would happen if Buttigieg’s Medicare-for-All-Who-Wants-It, Biden’s Obamacare 2.0, or Harris’s Medicare-for-All plus private supplements ever become law in America. They all come at it from different angles, but what they’re describing is a public option for health insurance that would be taxpayer-funded and remove the out-of-pocket expenses from those who choose to take it instead of a private healthcare plan. This sounds reasonable to many Americans who want health insurance available to everyone, even those who cannot afford it, but who do not want to lose their own health insurance.

But what nobody’s mentioning is that the holes in a public option create problems for everyone, including:

  • Dichotomous healthcare services. There will be “good” healthcare offered to those with private insurance and “bad” healthcare offered to those taking the public option. We see this in action with the VA, which was intended to offer superior services to veterans. But the opposite has been proven to be the case. When government injects itself as an option against the private market, invariably the solutions they present are unambiguously inferior to the private variations. Americans will not be told of this dichotomy. Instead, they will find out when it’s too late that the healthcare they’re receiving is horrible compared to what they would have received under the private market option.
  • Increased costs across the board. What does a public option mean for the private market? Fewer customers. Fewer businesses enticing employees with health insurance benefits. Fewer healthy people paying for healthcare while higher-cost participants make private insurance more expensive for everyone. As for those on the public option, their acceptance of taxpayer-funded health insurance will, of course, drive up taxes for nearly everyone, including the middle class that nobody seems to want to admit will get hit with these taxes.
  • An eventual shift towards single-payerAs private health insurance becomes less lucrative and eventually becomes a money-loser, companies will start pulling out. We already saw this without the public option in Obamacare. Throw in a public option and it eventually becomes cost-prohibitive to offer anything other than supplemental insurance for uncovered procedures such as cosmetic surgery. The public option will become single payer by default within 3-5 years after it’s launched.

Nobody outside of the health insurance industry likes the health insurance industry, but over a hundred million Americans rely on this industry to keep themselves and their families from paying the extremely high costs for medical care. The combination of health insurance driving medical expenses and a government driving the health insurance industry has resulted in diapers costing $20 each after birth. They know most American will not care about the details as long as they’re not paying for it out of pocket, so they can encourage hospitals and doctors to charge outrageous rates. This all changes for the worst once single-payer is in place.

Back to the original premise – these “lighter” options could actually be worse for America than full-blown and immediate Medicare-for-All. With the latter, everything is upfront. They will tax us at extremely high rates to pay for their pet project. It will be horrible. But it will be understood from the beginning. With the half-measures proposed by the “moderates” in the group, the way it all pans out will be in a constant state of radical evolution. Prices will fluctuate so rapidly that changes will need to be made on the fly. It’s like inserting a knife into our backs slowly instead of just plunging it right in. The constant tearing of tissues over time may make us bleed out faster than if they just stabbed us quickly.

The various public option proposals are all single-payer-in-training. They will invariably become Medicare-for-All because private insurance will die a slow death as a result. Meanwhile, our healthcare quality and economy will die much more rapidly.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

How much longer will Elizabeth Warren dodge the middle-class tax increase question?

Published

on

How much longer will Elizabeth Warren dodge the middle-class tax increase question

Senator Elizabeth Warren refuses to acknowledge that her Medicare-for-All plan will require a middle-class tax increase. She implies it in her answer to the question by focusing on “costs will go down,” meaning people will pay less in healthcare expenses that, in her view, should compensate for the tax increases. But she absolutely, positively refuses to admit that taxes will go up, dodging the question clumsily every time she’s asked.

It’s starting to get uncomfortable. Even left-wing entertainer Stephen Colbert pressed her on the issue. He offered her a new way of pushing the message forward, equating the taxes we’d pay for her healthcare plan to the taxes we pay for public education. Even with the friendly host, Warren refused to admit her plan would require a middle-class tax cut. Unfortunately, this bodes ill for all American taxpayers as this refusal to say the words means it’s likely much worse than we can possibly imagine.

Watch her stumble through to not answer the question:

What is she hiding? She knows her plan requires middle-class tax increases and likely a downward extension in the tax bracket that will mean lower-income Americans who currently do not pay taxes will be forced to. But her focus has always been on making “rich corporations and wealthy individuals” pay for it. This message works because it creates an “us versus them” mentality within her base.

What Warren knows is that many in her base are not being crushed under the weight of medical expenses. She knows all of them will see their taxes go up, and unless they’re currently paying a ton out of pocket for their healthcare, their overall “costs” will not go down, as she promises. The burden of high medical costs is not as mainstream as she claims, which is why she refuses to acknowledge taxes will rise dramatically under her plan. She wants them to be focused on “free” medical care even if the “costs” for many if not most of her supporters will actually rise.

When a politician refuses to directly answer questions about their premier policy proposal, be afraid. Bernie Sanders might be a mess, but at least he’s honest about taxes rising across the board. Warren is not being honest at all.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Why Republicans should hope Sanders or Warren is the Democratic nominee

Published

on

Why Republicans should hope Sanders or Warren is the Democratic nominee

For the record, I am not condoning any activities by Republicans to sway Democrats one way or the other. It’s their nomination to make. But that doesn’t mean we can’t hope for an outcome, and based on a report from… wait for it… CNN, the best candidates for President Trump to beat are Senators Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

Both are popular, polling 2nd and 3rd with each flip flopping from day to day with the other. One claims to be a socialist while the other acts like a socialist pretending to not be one. But they have many policy proposals in common, including one that could either of them in the general election.

As it turns out, there are plenty of people who like their health insurance. To make matters worse, there are plenty of people who also do not like the idea of losing their health insurance or being forced to accept whatever concoction the government can spew forth with Medicare-for-All.

Warren and Sanders say Americans don’t like their health insurance. Polls don’t back that up.

A new Kaiser Family Foundation poll finds that when it comes to expanding coverage and lowering health care costs 55% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents prefer to vote for a candidate who does so by building on the Affordable Care Act. Only 40% want do so by voting for voting for a candidate who replaces the ACA with Medicare for All.

This poll is consistent with previous Kaiser polls on the subject in finding Democrats wanting to vote for someone who builds on the ACA.

This tells us two things many conservatives have known for a long time. First, it tells us Americans like choices. Second, it tells us Americans do not want to be forced onto a government program even if it’s allegedly free… or perhaps especially if it’s allegedly free.

While most polls show former VP Joe Biden would be the toughest for President Trump to beat, I’ve long suspected his gaffes and potentially deteriorating cognitive state would make him the most vulnerable. But this new data seems to say the polls are right, that Biden may be tougher than Sanders or Warren simply because his proposed Obamacare 2.0 with a public option may be the most popular proposal out there, including with moderates.

Single-payer healthcare, which eliminates all choices while taking down the quality of services provided, could be the silver bullet that takes down the two socialist werewolves. The only question is whether Democrats or President Trump will get to use it.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending