Betty Arenson: Story needed balance, details
Protestors file into Congressman Steve Knight's Santa Clarita offices on Feb. 23 to protest what they called "Trump care" with the United Here organization. Katharine Lotze/The Signal
By Signal Contributor
Monday, March 27th, 2017

The Signal article “White House pulls Republican healthcare plan” left so much unsaid.

The only two people interviewed were pro-Obamacare while those who experience the Unaffordable Care Act were absent.

One local lady interviewed, a nurse, extolled the virtues of the ACA saying that “Nobody is saying that it’s cheap, but it’s available and more people than ever in this country are able to get health insurance. Certain healthcare rights are guaranteed.”

It’s very likely that the nurse has a good health policy provided via a union and for that sect there have been no struggles with the reality of the ACA.

“Availability” is at question in that people, who were satisfied with their health insurance and care prior to Obamacare, cannot find like-kind policies or prices. Yes, availability was realized for people who benefit from expanded Medicaid (free) and those receiving subsidies—subsidies financed by taxpayers and again by those who pay for coverage.

Perhaps no one said it would be cheap, but Americans were sold the snake oil that for the average family it would be cheap-er, by saving them $2,500 annually.

There’s an absence of the source for the claim that “certain healthcare rights are guaranteed”.

Another lady interviewed declared she’s gotten the best healthcare she’s had in decades. It would have been informative for readers to know the details of that.

Was there a pre-existing condition; is she receiving a subsidy; was a policy available but she could not afford it, or chose not to pay the price? “Affordability” is in the eyes of the one paying.

There was no challenge presented on the unsupported opinion expressed that the “Republican plan was bad for poor people, seniors and children and wanted to keep the ACA”.

It would have been beneficial and edifying to have a balance on this hot topic.

About the author

Signal Contributor

Signal Contributor

Protestors file into Congressman Steve Knight's Santa Clarita offices on Feb. 23 to protest what they called "Trump care" with the United Here organization. Katharine Lotze/The Signal

Betty Arenson: Story needed balance, details

The Signal article “White House pulls Republican healthcare plan” left so much unsaid.

The only two people interviewed were pro-Obamacare while those who experience the Unaffordable Care Act were absent.

One local lady interviewed, a nurse, extolled the virtues of the ACA saying that “Nobody is saying that it’s cheap, but it’s available and more people than ever in this country are able to get health insurance. Certain healthcare rights are guaranteed.”

It’s very likely that the nurse has a good health policy provided via a union and for that sect there have been no struggles with the reality of the ACA.

“Availability” is at question in that people, who were satisfied with their health insurance and care prior to Obamacare, cannot find like-kind policies or prices. Yes, availability was realized for people who benefit from expanded Medicaid (free) and those receiving subsidies—subsidies financed by taxpayers and again by those who pay for coverage.

Perhaps no one said it would be cheap, but Americans were sold the snake oil that for the average family it would be cheap-er, by saving them $2,500 annually.

There’s an absence of the source for the claim that “certain healthcare rights are guaranteed”.

Another lady interviewed declared she’s gotten the best healthcare she’s had in decades. It would have been informative for readers to know the details of that.

Was there a pre-existing condition; is she receiving a subsidy; was a policy available but she could not afford it, or chose not to pay the price? “Affordability” is in the eyes of the one paying.

There was no challenge presented on the unsupported opinion expressed that the “Republican plan was bad for poor people, seniors and children and wanted to keep the ACA”.

It would have been beneficial and edifying to have a balance on this hot topic.