Neil Cavuto

Ted Cruz vs. Wendy Davis and `Media Bias 101`

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via Dylan Byers of Politico:

Sen. Ted Cruz has been speaking on the Senate floor for almost 19 hours, as of this post. The talk is not technically a filibuster — he can’t actually block the Senate from going about its business — but symbolically, it’s more or less the same thing. The point is to show one’s opposition to something through a demonstration of physical will.

Which is why you can forgive conservatives for being upset with the mainstream media’s coverage of the Cruz affair. When a Democrat like Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis filibusters against abortion restrictions, she is elevated to hero status, her tennis shoes become totems. When Cruz grandstands against Obamacare, he is a laughingstock in the eyes of many journalists on Twitter, an “embarrassment” in the eyes of The New York Times editorial board.

“Gee I wonder why NYT and WaPo and everyone else gave ecstatic coverage to Wendy Davis but not to Ted Cruz. I just can’t make sense of it!” John Podhoretz, the conservative columnist, tweeted on Wednesday morning.

Yes, the difference between filibustering and grandstanding plays a part. Equally important is the fact that Cruz’s theatrics are frustrating members of his own party. But, part of the disparity in coverage is due to the fact that the mainstream media, generally speaking, don’t admire Cruz the way they admired Davis — or rather, they admire him only insofar as he makes for tragicomic theater, whereas they admired her on the merits.

Cruz is portrayed in the media as “aimless and self-destructive” (NYT ed board), elitist (GQ) and likely guided more by presidential aspirations than principles (CNN). Josh Marshall, the editor and publisher of Talking Points Memo, had no qualms about coming right out and calling Cruz, his former Princeton colleague, an “arrogant jerk” — and worse.

These portrayals may be accurate or inaccuarate — Cruz certainly has an elitist strain and he certainly has political ambitions. But that’s not the point: The point is that the coverage of Cruz has been critical, and in some cases unforgiving, from the outset. At least initially, Davis wasn’t viewed through a critical lens at all. Her willingness to stand for 11 hours was evidence of the American dream in action. Period.

After Davis’s filibuster in June, she got a glowing Vogue profile and was interviewed by nearly every major network and show that deemed her the new superstar from the Lone Star. 

In an interview shortly after her filibuster in June, CBS News’s Charlie Rose highlighted Davis’s history.

“You’ve met tough things before in your life as single mother, one who went form community college, to TCU to Harvard Law School and back to practice law, so this seems to be another challenge for you,” Rose said.

Davis was the “Sunday Spotlight” for ABC’s This Week after the filibuster and was interviewed by Jeff Zeleny in the dinner theater where Davis once waitressed….

Premiums Skyrocket Under Obama-Care ~ Neil Cavuto Ends the Post

Published by Papa Giorgio

The Forbes magazine article:

For months now, we’ve been waiting to hear how much Obamacare will drive up the cost of health insurance for people who purchase coverage on their own. Last night, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finally began to provide some data on how Americans will fare on Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchanges. HHS’ press release is full of happy talk about how premiums will be “lower than originally expected.” But the reality is starkly different.

Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.

[….]

As you can see from the map above, many 27-year-olds will face steep increases in the underlying cost of individually-purchased insurance under Obamacare. For the states where we have data—the 36 reported by HHS, plus nine others that we had compiled for our map that HHS didn’t report—rates will go up for men by an average of 97 percent; for women, 55 percent. (In the few cases where HHS reported on states that our map includes, we went with HHS’ numbers.)

Worst off was Nebraska, where the difference between the cheapest plan under the old system and under Obamacare was 279 percent for men, and 227 percent for women: more than triple the old rate. Faring best was Colorado, where rates will decline for both 27-year-old men and women by 36 percent. The only other state to see a rate decline in this analysis was New Hampshire: 8 percent for both men and women.

[….]

40-year-olds, surprisingly, will face a similar picture. The cheapest exchange plan for the average enrollee, compared to what a 40-year-old would pay today, will cost an average of 99 percent more for men, and 62 percent for women.

For this cohort, men fared worst in North Carolina, with rate increases of 305 percent. Women got hammered in Nebraska, where rates will increase by a national high of 237 percent. Again, Colorado and New Hampshire fared best, with 17 percent and 5-8 percent declines, respectively.

Remember that here, we aren’t conducting an exact comparison. Instead we’re comparing the lowest-cost bronze plan offered to the average participant in the exchanges, to the cheapest plan offered to 40-year-olds today. This approach artificially flatters Obamacare, because the median age of an exchange participant is, in most states, below the age of 40.

In both the 27-year-old and 40-year-old comparisons, we adjusted the pre-ACA rates to take into account people who would be charged more for insurance, or denied coverage altogether, due to a pre-existing condition, using the same methodology we’ve used in the past.

[….]

For months, we’ve heard about how Obamacare’s trillions in health care subsidies were going to save America from rate shock. It’s not true. If you shop for coverage on your own, you’re likely to see your rates go up, even after accounting for the impact of pre-existing conditions, even after accounting for the impact of subsidies.

The Obama administration knows this, which is why its 15-page report makes no mention of premiums for insurance available on today’s market. Silence, they say, speaks louder than words. HHS’ silence on the difference between Obamacare’s insurance premiums and those available today tell you everything you need to know. Rates are going higher. And if you’re healthy, or you’re young, the Obama administration expects you to do your duty and pay up.

…read more…


 

Maybe the above and below is why Obama called out Fox News recently… Fox News is the only network covering the ill affects the “Affordable” Care Act has on the Middle-Class and Poor people.

President Obama will likely get the attention of some people over at Fox News after he called out the network by name during his campaign-style speech promoting the Affordable Care Act in Maryland Thursday morning. The president gave some advice to his supporters on what to do when their friends and family members come to them and say how they just saw someone on Fox News saying how “horrible Obamacare is.

“We need you to spread the word,” Obama told the cheering crowd. “But, you don’t have to take my word for it. If you talked to somebody who said, ‘I don’t know, I was watching Fox News and they said it’s ‘horrible,’ and you can say, you know what, don’t take my word for it.”….

(Media’ite)

 

Breitbart mentions the following:

During a Thursday speech pitching a health care plan that seems to grow even more unpopular every time he pitches it, President Obama tore into Fox News by all-but accusing them of lying about the increased costs of health care under ObamaCare:

 Continuing…

The president is lying though omission there. The argument that health care costs aren’t as high as the worst nightmare scenarios predicted does not mean costs are going down, even though that is what Obama is trying to hustle people into believing. The fact is, is that while pushing his health care plan, Obama promised premiums would go down for a family of four by at least $2400 per year. The reality, however, is that costs will increase by almost two times that amount.

For example, while Obama pointed to a reduction in premiums in New York state, state officials in Ohio say the average premium proposal for individual coverage next year is up 88 percent from this year’s average price as reported by the Society of Actuaries. In Maryland, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield proposed a 25 percent increase in premiums next year, after first seeking a 50 percent increase. Final rates haven’t been determined in either state.                                

The higher rates, supporters say, buy a health insurance system that guarantees access to coverage for everyone and improves benefits, such as requiring insurers to cover older children and outlawing lifetime spending limits on claims.

Obama did a good job injecting a little energy into the 100th time he’s given a speech that has already failed 99 times. But attacking Fox News by name is just another example of the smallness of a man who seems to delight in making his office smaller in the eyes of the country and his country smaller in the eyes of the world.

Cavuto Responds:

Nancy Pelosi Busted ~ by 27% (Pelosi says women receive less pay than men. Let`s check Pelosi’s staff pay)

Published by Papa Giorgio

NewsBusters has this:

But, as NPR’s Tamara Keith reports, this is an election year when many votes are as much about getting the opposition on the record as passing legislation.”

Keith led her report with the anti-GOP smear: “By now, you’ve heard about the Republican war on women. Democrats don’t want voters, particularly coveted female voters, to forget about it. First, there was the issue of contraception; then, came the Violence Against Women Act. You might say the Paycheck Fairness Act is a sequel.” She continued with two clips from Senator Harry Reid attacking Republicans, and specifically singling out presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Later in the segment, the NPR journalist acknowledged that “the fact that he [Romney] and his fellow Republicans had to, once again, explain their position on women’s issues appears to be exactly what Democrats want. In the Senate, they keep bringing up bills related to women – bills they know Republicans don’t support….With the war on women narrative apparently likely to continue, House Republicans are trying to get off of defense. They recently launched the women’s policy committee.”

What Keith failed to mention that is that a May 24, 2012 article by Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon documented that “a substantial gender pay gap exists” in the offices of three female senators who support the Paycheck Fairness Act. Senator Patty Murray of Washington is “one of the worst offenders,” according to Stiles: “Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 33.8 percent. That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide.” Overall, according to the writer, “women working for Senate Democrats in 2011 pulled in an average salary of $60,877. Men made about $6,500 more.”

Back in April 2012, the correspondent filed a one-sided report on Mitt Romney and cited the “liberal news site Think Progress” as one of her main sources. Keith turned to a former aide to Democrats John Kerry and Deval Patrick without giving his political or ideological affiliation.

…read more…