Let’s imagine that in America today there exists a person who is neither a democrat or a republican. Let’s also imagine that this person is extremely well read, but is not a political scientist, so they don’t have a good understanding of how policy changes lead to on the ground change. And let’s say this person has a pretty healthy media diet. With how partisan our country has become, and as a result, how partisan our media has become, this person would have a hard time figuring out what is fact and what is not.

If you consume information on the right and left, like I try to, you begin to realize that almost everyday with every political issue the right and left media core almost completely disagree on everything. It’s true, there are media outlets who play it right down the middle and don’t take a side. And these outlets seem to be the most trustworthy in my opinion. But at the same time if you only read the centrist news outlets, you may get the impression that some issues have good arguments on both sides. Take climate change for example. It’s real, it’s happening, and it is most likely going to be catastrophic. But, people have doubts because the media for so many years reported it as if those who didn’t “believe” (using believe for a reason) in it, had as much of a case as the scientist who had been studying it for years. When they didn’t.

Because “balanced news” has its flaws, in my opinion, it is good to consume “sided” news. But here is the problem, they are way too predictable. They don’t seem to start with: “let’s look at the evidence, see where it takes us and report on our findings”. Their editorial meeting most likely goes like this: “The left (substitute right as needed) is wrong, lets find a way to prove it with this issue”.

To prove my point I think it is helpful to look at some examples from two online journals that I read regularly. On the right we have the National Review, which I occasionally am very impressed with, but often not, and on the left we have Vox, people I listen to obsessively, but sometimes feel like they are turning into the Fox News for the left.

The National Review on the Right

Title: Trump Was Right to End Unconstitutional Obamacare Subsidies

Tag Line:

They were never lawful because Congress never appropriated the money.

First Paragraph:

It’s a sad sign of our times that the constitutionality of any given government action is now seen as a wholly secondary consideration, subordinate to politics and arguments about politics. And so it is with Donald Trump’s necessary decision to halt federal payments of cost-sharing subsidies to insurance companies.

The jist of the article is that cost sharing payments to insurance companies that are part of the Affordable Healthcare Act were never appropriated by congress. In other words, payments made to health insurance companies from the president are illegal because congress never voted on them and only congress has the ability to appropriate funds. A district court judge agreed with this opinion, siding with the house of representatives when they sued to stop the payments.

I think this is a pretty strong argument. I don’t think the payments are legal. But there are a few blind omissions in this article and the editor eludes to them towards the end of the article.

Every two years we elect the entire House and one-third of the Senate. There is thus a constant potential check on government expenditures. The fact that Congress rarely checks that spending makes its power no less legally real nor any less constitutionally necessary. And, by the way, judges do not exist to correct subjectively determined deficiencies in the elected branches’ policy-making.

David French, the author of the piece, is basically obscurely saying that congress has done a terrible job appropriating spending. I’d even argue that congress has been intentionally blocking spending that would anyway make Democrats look good. This isn’t governing, its spiteful bullshit. Despite this, the funds are still illegal. He also says, if the democrats want this fixed they either need to make a deal or elect more officials.

You can read the whole article here.

Vox on the Left

Title: Who’s going to be hurt by Trump’s new attack on Obamacare

Tag Line:

The real-world consequences of ending cost-sharing reduction payments.

First Paragraph:

President Trump has decided to stop key Obamacare payments to health insurers, adding yet another element of uncertainty to the health care law’s future.

The 10 million people who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces will now be subject to another rash of headlines about how the Trump administration is undermining and changing the law — with open enrollment less than three weeks away.

In contrast, this article doesn’t even mention the constitutionality of the payments. Instead if focuses on outcomes, which it describes in four parts which sum up the article nicely:

  1. Eligibility for Obamacare’s financial assistance hasn’t changed
  2. People who qualify for the ACA’s subsidies and discounts are protected
  3. People who don’t receive assistance bear the brunt of price hikes
  4. Known unknowns: any new premium increases or insurers leaving markets

The biggest issues are the last two. A big gripe with the ACA already is that it didn’t give enough support to people who are relatively well off, but don’t make that much; those making more than 65k or a family of four making 125k. This group may see it’s premiums rise due to the payments being stopped because they don’t qualify for a subsidy.

Another problem with this move by the Trump administration, according to the article, is that it will likely hurt insurance companies. This negative effect may result in companies leaving the ACA marketplace or increases in premiums. These in themselves are not that bad, but changes in general bring uncertainty to the health insurance market, which the market doesn’t need at the moment given how unstable the markets have been over the last 3 years. (As I’m writing this, health stocks are plummeting an ominous sign for health care markets).

You can read the whole article here.

Certainty

So we have two pieces talking about the exact same policy event, that literally have nothing to do with each other. I guess this is good in the universe of ideas. If you are a reader of both you can look at each argument and decide which is more important.

  1. Payments are unconstitutional and should be stopped.
  2. Payments stabilize the market and ending them has a lot of uncertainty.

Do you think market stability is more important, or do you think that adhering the the constitution is more important?

Regardless of your answer, it bothers me that neither of these articles mentions, even briefly, the others point of view. Both arguments seem to be important. And there are trade offs to having one opinion over the other. But each outlet seems to be so certain that their view is more valuable than the other that they refuse to acknowledge the true complexity of the issue. Maybe this is the case because readers have a hard time understanding nuance. Maybe it is because both sides are too partisan to see a trade off.

I can’t help but think it is articles like these that make for a confused, tribal public and a public that largely has different values and opinions. No answers here though, just more questions.