Most vital fact, consumer cost, was omitted
I generally try not to “shoot the messenger,” complain about the treatment and the lack of reliable and/or a sound perspective in political reporting. But David Giuliani’s Nov. 21 article “Would Bustos have voted for Obamacare?” is seriously flawed, biased. The most vital facts are kept from the public. It misinforms.
To begin with, the question is academic. The incumbent, U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, had not been elected when the Affordable Care Act was introduced. Then-Congressman Bobby Schillings was, and he voted against it. Sen. Dick Durbin, Bustos’ mentor, voted for it.
She simply sidestepped the question. She chose not to answer it. The issue was in the arrogance of the non-response.
Almost the entire story is about the “improvements in our health care system” with no rebuttal on each point from the challenger, Bobby Schilling. Another large part of the story attempts to justify Bustos’ turncoat votes against the administration, when it is simply running for cover. There is no integrity in that vote.
What I consider lacking in this story, which is of supreme importance, is the background information. The 17th Congressional District was redistricted, gerrymandered for the Democrats. Schilling lost and Obama carried it by 56.6 percent by manipulating the vote in the process.
It is unforgivable to “skew” the story by reporting that the penalty for non-insurance is $95 without stating the tax (yes, “tax,” the Supreme Court ruled that it was a tax, and it is being collected by IRS) is more than that paltry sum; three or four times more.
The “fix” is nothing more than further obfuscation. More games. This administration is all about politics. The most vital fact, what it will cost the consumer, is kept secret. The public will not know until after the election.
Note to readers: The penalty and tax are the same thing. Its amount depends on a person’s income and family size. The base tax penalty in 2014 is $95 for a single, childless person whose income is less than $19,500.