As Diane already discussed here, we had one of the guests who appeared on CNBC this week, along with a number of other media outlets, have her "Obamacare horror story debunked." Now it seems, she wasn't the only one on that same show with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo that was lying about her insurance coverage and what might happen to her costs under the new health care law.
On Thursday, LA Times reporter Michael Hiltzik debunked yet another Obamacare horror story, revealing that a woman who appeared on CNBC Wednesday will actually pay less, for better coverage, under Obamacare. During that same CNBC segment, 38 year-old Heather Goldwater spoke about her difficulties in signing up for a plan to replace the one that was just canceled, but as has been the case with every TV news report on the health care law, there’s much more here than meets the eye.
Heather Goldwater is better known to her friends and neighbors as Ryan Nelson, former host of ABC4′s Lowcountry Live! and current owner of a successful PR firm. On Wednesday’s Closing Bell, she explained to host Maria Bartiromo that she received a letter in July informing her that her $510 /mo. Cigna health insurance policy was being canceled, but that the company would be sending her a letter in October with replacement options. [...]
During her segment, an onscreen graphic proclaimed that her old $510 premium “May Double – After Obamacare.”
Except of course, that it's not true if anyone had bothered to do an ounce of homework on what plans are available on the exchange. Her story on what coverage she had and what's available is a whole lot more complicated than what was relayed during her short appearance on CNBC. Go read the rest of Christopher's post for more on the details. I think he was way to kind to Goldwater/Nelson or whatever the hell her real name is. She lied to the viewers and knew the network wasn't telling the entire truth about her situation, but ultimately, it is the networks' responsibility for putting either one of these women on the air and doing their best to scare and mislead their viewers.
After the constant barrage of stories like this being shown by our corporate media, I'm inclined to not believe a single one of them until I see some other outlets that don't have something to gain by sensationalizing the issue fact check them.
The people who may be adversely affected by the law have a right to know what options are available to them and it's not fair to pretend that these problems don't exist, but making the problem seem larger than it is, lying about it and allowing either the misinformed or those who are just outright liars on as guests without correcting them, and doing your best to sensationalize an issue rather than inform is the exact opposite of what these so-called "news" outlets are supposed to be doing.