Affordable Care Act

Catherine Resoco

Perspective A & Analysis of Bias: FOX News/Conservatives

FOX news is notoriously known for covering stories through a right-wing perspective. So, FOX news would naturally dismiss Obama’s health care reform, the Affordable Care Act. It is more commonly known as Obamacare. In an article debriefing the ACA, FOX news called the ACA a “debacle” conspicuously. The article itself is titled, “Time to drive a stake through the heart of Obamacare.” This clearly shows their opposition of Obamacare.


The article further reinforces the ACA’s apparent failure by remarking that the American public collectively disagreed with the implementation of the ACA. The fact that Obamacare went through two cycles of Republican sweeps at the congressional level was used to evidence this claim.


The writer of this article, Steve Forbes, made no effort to be subtle about his Republican bias. The article is very polarizing to readers who have already established similar views on this topic. Further right-wing bias is clear through Forbes’ choice of words. Forbes uses piercing words like “notorious untruth” to discredit President Obama and words like “eye-popping…hikes” and “egregious” to exaggerate increases in premiums as a result of the act.


With intentionally biting diction and distorted perceptions of the ACA, Forbes effectively skewed the ACA’s effects to be seen in a bad light. A neutral reader’s views could be influenced if the reader does not investigate claims and fails to recognize the bias and motive behind Forbes’ crafty writing.

Big image

Perspective B & Analysis of Bias: CNN News/Liberals

FOX news’ rival outlet is CNN. CNN favors left viewpoints. In a similar article debriefing the ACA, CNN reporter Tami Luhby chose to write the article as a list. By doing so, information is concise and easier to digest. More importantly, the information is not as obviously biased as Forbes’ review of the act. Luhby listed top concerns and criticisms of Obamacare and cites to numerous studies and statistics from credible institutions.


Insurance premiums are undeniably higher under Obamacare and Luhby does not try to cover up that fact. Instead, more information was offered to explain why premiums are higher. Luhby diminishes the primary shock of higher premiums by stating that other premiums have increased alongside Obamacare. A source cited showed an increase in the average premium of all popular insurers. Luhby continued this format of offering clear explanations and constricting the scope of Obamacare’s issues.


Because CNN’s coverage was done in tactfully and as objectively as possible, liberal bias is not obvious. Nonetheless, the article can still be polarizing. A reader who concurs with the ACA can be reaffirmed by this article. Alternatively, someone who disagrees with the act might also be reaffirmed if he/she overlooks Luhby’s deftly camouflaged bias.

Media Bias

Overlooking all media bias, I can objectively see the facts of Obamacare: premiums are higher, quality is lower, and more people have access to health care. These facts are evident in every news source, it's just up to the news source to use that information to advance their personal agenda.


When the facts are presented free of bias to me, I would say that I am indifferent to Obamacare. I don't see it as a revolutionary health care reform and I don't see it as a burden. I believe it is the first step, however, to many reforms to come in the future. With each successive new reform enacted, we tweak it to fit our needs. This kind of reform would have inevitably happened, whether it happened in the past or in the future.

Big image

Marxist Criticism

The criticism of Obamacare is primarily concerned with cost­– premiums are higher and the government is spending a large chunk of the budget deficit to fund it. There are studies that show that those who are making higher incomes tend to vote conservatively (Thompson, 1, 2012). This makes sense. If you think about it, you’d likely try your best to keep your money safe. If that means voting against a health care reform that would likely hike up premium prices and taxes, then you’d do it. That is natural. On the other hand, people with lower incomes tend to vote liberally. For someone who may not be able to afford private health insurance would naturally vote for a reform that offers affordable health care at the expense of lower quality health care. The thought process is: “it’s better to have some kind of health care than none at all.”


These opposing views are what fuel debates on Obamacare. There will never be a conclusive answer and there are disparities in circumstances and beliefs. One’s socioeconomic status plays a huge role on how one sees the world.

Cultural Criticism

Economics aims to provide the best decisions on the premise of scarcity. In the US, money is a huge scarcity. This is the catalyst to many problems– one of them being the Affordable Care Act. American culture has been shaped by luxury and excess. Thus, quantity vs. quality has been an issue perpetuated time and time again.


Simply speaking, those that vote for the ACA value excess. As previously mentioned, the popular thought process is “it’s better to have some kind of health insurance than none at all.” Those that vote against the ACA value quality. People that are for private insurance value the versatility and quality they offer. Obamacare is a POS (point-of-service plan) which means that those insured are designated to a primary care provider.
How Obamacare's individual mandate works

Works Cited


Forbes, Steve. "Time to Drive a Stake through Heart of ObamaCare | Fox News." Fox News. FOX News Network, 23 July 2015. Web. 03 May 2016.


Luby, Tami. "The Real Deal on Obamacare." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 05 Aug. 2015. Web. 03 May 2016.


"ObamaCare Facts: An Independent Site For ACA Advice." Obamacare Facts. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2016.


Secretary, HHS Office of the. "Read the Law." HHS.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2016.


Thompson, Derek. "Does Wage Predict Your Vote?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 05 Nov. 2012. Web. 03 May 2016.