Republicans could pay a political price for their”united stand” against ObamaCare, The New York Times warns in a front page report. This same article also says the GOP has offered up “mischaracterizations” of what the bill will do. But, at the same time, the report fails to include any specific challenges to the assertions made by the bill’s critics within and outside of government…
Republicans who are vociferously opposed to the healthcare legislation now signed into law have been complicit in “occasional mischaracterizations” of what the policy fallout would be, according to a “Political Memo” appearing on the front page of The New York Times.
Although there is nothing wrong in principle with having analytical pieces that break orbit from straight reporting, it does cross to have front page news that essentially regurgitates the newspaper’s editorial spin.
There are two major arguments at work in the “memo” that really belongs more in the opinion section or in another area of paper where it is made clear to readers that the reporter is interjecting himself into the news. Without offering any specifics, The Times accuses the GOP of making inaccurate about the legislation.
The article also claims that Congressional Republicans could be in political trouble over the long-term as a result of being tightly organized against the bill. Some of the provisions of the law that go into effect early may prove to be quite popular, the article maintains. “Curbs” on insurance companies that now deny coverage for pre-existing conditions are frontloaded, while the more unpopular mandates will not kick in for a few years.
To be sure, this could present political challenges for Republicans. But the article leaves a lot out of its equation. The public is now siding with Republican critics as the more they find out about the bill, the less they like it. The onus here is on The Times to explain where the alleged mischaracterization has occurred. Let’s talk one example of some pointed Republican criticism.
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), and other lawmakers, have observed in various press releases that ObamaCare will greatly expand the power and authority of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In fact, the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff reports that up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed.
How is this mischaracterizing the bill?
Critics also charge that ObamaCare will raise premiums, dilute services, impose burdensome regulations and undermine consumer autonomy. Over time, Republicans will be proven right or wrong but they are not suffering from a lack of specifics.
The notion of principled opposition seems very alien to thinking of the reporter here. Even as the public seemed quite receptive to “obstructionist” procedures, Republicans now run the risk of being perceived as the “party of now,” the article says in a pull out quote.
“Republicans also face the question of what happens if the health care bill does not create the cataclysm that they warned of during the many months of debate, the report continues. “…there are elements of the bill, particularly in regulating insurers, that could well prove broadly popular and it could be years before anyone knows whether the legislation will have big effects on health care quality and the nation’s fiscal condition.”
In the run up to the 2010 elections, Republicans could derive substantial electoral benefits from the unified stance they took against the Democratic congress and White House. Yet, The Times insists in its headline here that there are “drawbacks” for the GOP and that party operatives should come around to supporting key components of the bill in the teeth of public opposition.
There’s a reason why this report was on the front page.
Popularity: 1% [?]
