Fox reported that a new survey found that a small number of previously uninsured people have enrolled for health coverage on the new Affordable Care Act (ACA) online exchanges, but failed to report the cause: that many people who have avoided enrolling because of cost concerns were misinformed about the costs.
On the March 7 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Martha MacCallum hyped new information that she said shows "big problems with Obamacare." MacCallum cited a March 6 McKinsey & Company survey to report that one in 10 previously uninsured individuals who qualify for ACA coverage have signed up through the exchanges.
This framing hides crucial elements of the survey, which highlighted misinformation about the ACA as a key reason that potential beneficiaries chose not to enroll. According to McKinsey, the "most common reason for not enrolling cited by both previously insured and previously uninsured respondents continues to be perceived affordability challenges, "and for most of those respondents, that perception was based on insufficient information. From McKinsey:
Over 80 percent of the respondents who cited affordability as the reason for not enrolling are eligible for subsidies; 66 percent of these consumers were not aware of their subsidy eligibility status or subsidy amount.
Furthermore, the survey showed a positive trend in enrollment numbers, which have "continued to increase, particularly among the previously uninsured."
It's not surprising that Fox hid Mckinsey's findings about the negative impact that misinformation can have on Americans' willingness to enroll in ACA coverage, since the network has consistently worked to stoke fears about the costs of ACA coverage. Meanwhile, this is not the first time the network has shamelessly twisted or cherry-picked a McKinsey survey to baselessly smear Democratic policies.
The Daily Show's Jon Stewart lambasted Fox News' ongoing campaign to shame food stamp recipients, offering the network tips to prevent future distortions about the program: "Food stamps are used for food. It's a fact you can remember with this little mnemonic I use: FOOD. It stands for, 'Food stamps can only be used for Food, Oh Oh Dummy.'"
On the March 4 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart highlighted the hypocrisy of Fox's many complaints about the food stamp program, known as SNAP -- the network has both criticized the program for allowing the purchase of unhealthy food and for allowing the purchase of food at organic markets, leaving Stewart wondering, "What the right mixture of quality and class-based shame should poor people aim for in their meal planning?"
The host called out Fox for pushing various distortions about SNAP benefits, such as the myths that they can be used to "buy things like iPads or cigarettes" or gambling at Vegas casinos. Stewart noted that the rules of the program shouldn't be difficult to remember: "Food stamps are used for food."
Indeed, Fox has engaged in a long-term campaign to demonize and shame SNAP recipients, one that carefully toes the Republican party line to help prop up harmful policy measures. Fox's attacks were even cited in a Republican policy memo as justification for slashing SNAP funding just days before House Republicans voted to cut $39 billion from the program.
And now, as the network devotes ample airtime to previewing Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) upcoming budget proposal -- which shows no signs of deviating from his past efforts to push dramatic reductions in SNAP spending - it's doubtful that Fox's food stamp attacks will subside.
Fox News has repeatedly made the false claim that liberal states lose billions of dollars due to tax flight, but tax flight is a well-debunked myth, and the most recent study Fox cited only showed that income tax and state-to-state migration were correlated factors.
Comedian Stephen Colbert lambasted right-wing media for asking whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is "too old" to run for president in 2016, observing that John McCain and Ronald Reagan were each older when they ran for president than Clinton will be if she decides to enter the 2016 race.
On the February 26 edition of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert highlighted the recent attacks on Hillary Clinton's age by outlets like Fox News. He stated, "That's right. Fox news is ready to project that in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton will be two years older. I mean, come on! ... I mean 69? That is old. Like old old. Way too old to be president. I mean she's gonna be almost as old as Reagan was."
Colbert ended his report suggesting that discussing a woman's age to smear her as a political candidate amounts to questionable journalism, quipping,"I know it's rude to talk about a woman's age, but that's not what I am doing. I am talking about other people talking about people talking about other people talking about a women's age. That's called journalism":
When it comes to public education, Fox News loves to demonize the Common Core State Standards, a set of standards for K-12 students crafted by governors and state school officials across the country. The network has falsely characterized the standards as everything from too difficult to partisan brainwashing, and given credence to the lie that Common Core is a federally mandated program.
On February 26, while discussing Obamacare enrollment numbers, Fox & Friends' Heather Nauert invoked Common Core, saying, "I think they're doing Common Core math down in Washington. It doesn't all add up. You just throw some numbers together."
Nauert's misleading comparison is just the latest in a string of attacks on Common Core from Fox News, making it apparent that the network fails to understand how the standards work.
Fox News attacked Vice President Joe Biden for accurately explaining how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) helps free women from job lock and grants them greater independence and choice.
On the February 26 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck and guest Crystal Wright from ConservativeBlackChick.com launched a scathing attack on Biden, calling his remarks on the ACA and women "ridiculous" and "demeaning." Wright argued that Biden "put women in stereotypes," while claiming that Republicans "give women a choice ... you can be a career woman, you can be a stay-at-home mom."
But even the clip of Biden's statement made on the February 25 edition of ABC's The View played during the Fox & Friends segment accurately demonstrated that his remarks referred to women's increased ability to choose their employment status because the ACA will reduce job lock. Biden noted that this will give women the ability, if they choose, to leave their jobs for other opportunities because they will not be dependent on the health care provided by that job:
BIDEN: This is about freedom. How many of you are single women, with children, in a dead-end job, you're there because of your health insurance? You would rather have the opportunity to spend the next couple years with your child until they get -- if that was your choice -- until they get into primary school. You're now trapped in that job because if you leave, you lose your health insurance. Now, you'll be able to do -- make an independent choice. Do you want to stay in that job and still have health insurance? Or do you want to stay in that job even though you can get health insurance absent that job? And it gives women a great deal more freedom.
The New York Times explains that job lock occurs "when people stay in jobs they dislike, or don't want, solely to keep their health coverage. A Harvard Business School study in 2008 estimated that 11 million workers are affected by this dilemma. Other studies show that when people don't have to worry about health insurance, they are up to 25 percent more likely to change jobs."
Though Hasselbeck contended that women don't "just work for the free health insurance," this ignores the 11 million workers who do, in fact, face this dilemma. The reduction in job lock enabled by the health care law will allow greater freedom and choice not only for women but for everyone in the labor force.
While Fox has repeatedly derided the reduction of job lock due to the ACA, economists praise the benefits; as The New York Times noted, the labor force can now "allocate itself more efficiently," and reducing job lock will help spur entrepreneurship. The Congressional Budget Office also reported that the reduction of job lock will increase short-term opportunity for the unemployed, and will help stimulate economic growth.
Fox News has repeatedly hosted members of the fringe group Clarion Project, an anti-Muslim organization known for spreading Islamophobic fears, to discuss serious national security matters.
On February 20, Fox News hosted Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst from the Clarion Project, also known as the Clarion Fund, to discuss possible security threats on airlines. Mauro has recently appeared on Fox several times where he has argued that 'Muslim patrols' were a growing security concern for the United States, discussed the possibility of an anti-American alliance in the Middle East with Syrian Jihadists, and hyped fears that Somali refugees in the United States were becoming 'homegrown' terrorists.
But Mauro and other Clarion Project members are not credible sources to discuss issues such as these given their virulent history of Islamophobia. Clarion Project has been widely criticized for producing and spreading Islamophobic material including the movie, Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, a film that depicted Muslims as terrorists seeking world conquest. Think Progress reported that this was only the first installment of "Clarion's ongoing production of Islamophobic films."
Mauro himself has penned numerous pieces for the anti-Islam blog Islamist Watch where he has tracked his progress in identifying "Muslim enclaves" in the United States that he says will become "'no-go zones' where governments admit to having little authority over Muslims living there" :
The construction of the building blocks for similar Muslim enclaves and "no-go zones" in the U.S. is one of the most disturbing programs of Islamist groups. If successful, these territories will be the first to establish Shari'a law in the country, thus offering a profound challenge to America's constitutional order.
Other board members from the Clarion Project who have also made their way onto Fox include Frank Gaffney, one of America's most notorious Islamophobes and Fox's go-to anti-Muslim activist, Zuhdi Jasser. Gaffney has used funding for his Center for Security Policy to produce reports promoting the baseless myth that Muslims are conspiring to implement Sharia law in the United States.
According to a Center for American Progress report, the Clarion Project is funded by three of the seven top anti-Islam and anti-Muslim think tanks and organizations in the United States, including the Donors Capital Fund, Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust, and Anchorage Charitable Foundation and William Rosenwal Family Fund. The Center for American Progress describes these donors as the "lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America," and the report tracks how these donors use their money to support groups like the Clarion Project to "spread a deliberately misleading messages about Islam and Muslims that is fundamentally antithetical to our nation's foundation and principals of religious freedom."
Fox host Brian Kilmeade is worried. Worried that President Obama's move to increase wages for some federal workers could lead to ... higher wages for workers?
Kilmeade's concern comes as Obama, in response to congressional inaction on raising the minimum wage, pursues executive action that will boost wages for federally contracted workers to a minimum of $10.10 per hour, effective January 1, 2015. The action will only apply to newly contracted workers.
Discussing the president's action on the February 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Kilmeade warned of a "ripple effect" that could occur if other "start demanding raises."
KILMEADE: And how is this going to affect business? Just think about this real quick, if you want to get - elevate everybody's minimum wage to $10.10 from $7 and something else, you have to say to yourself, those people who are making $2 above minimum wage, whatever it was, they're going to go "excuse me, could I have a raise? Because the whole country have a raise?" And then you got to ask every business owner, "can you handle that? Will it affect hiring?" So there's going to be a ripple effect. But the president's trying to show that he's not going to be hamstrung by a legislature that does not get along.
JOHNSON JR.: You're absolutely right, in the wake of bad job creation numbers over the last few days, the President is saying, "I'm for the working man and working woman in this country" although, it really won't have much effect at all. "I'm trying to send a signal," as Brian says, that "I'm the guy, I'm you're guy, I'm for you, let's stop income disparity in this country."
Kilmeade's concern trolling over whether increased wages will "affect hiring" is a canard. Economists say raising the minimum wage will help stimulate the economy while benefiting millions of workers.
In an open letter to Obama and congressional leaders, over 600 economists agreed that an increase would not negatively impact employment and could even have a "small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth." The economists further highlighted the fact that a national minimum wage increase would cause a dramatic "spillover" effect that would boost compensation for millions "as employers adjust their internal wage ladders," and, unlike Fox, noted that this is beneficial to the economy. From the open letter (emphasis added):
This policy would directly provide higher wages for close to 17 million workers by 2016. Furthermore, another 11 million workers whose wages are just above the new minimum would likely see a wage increase through "spillover" effects, as employers adjust their internal wage ladders. The vast majority of employees who would benefit are adults in working families, disproportionately women, who work at least 20 hours a week and depend on these earnings to make ends meet. At a time when persistent high unemployment is putting enormous downward pressure on wages, such a minimum-wage increase would provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.
In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.
Economic experts at The Economic Policy Institute have called Obama's executive order "a good first step" toward improving wages for American workers and have repeatedly called on Obama to take this action to "insure that taxpayer funds are not used to create an ever larger workforce that is unable to escape poverty and support a decent standard of living."
Right-wing media jumped to defend businesses' right to game the system and fire employees merely to avoid the obligation of providing them with health insurance.
On February 10 the IRS announced that it would delay the health insurance employer mandate for medium-sized businesses employing between 50 and 99 people until 2016. Smaller businesses -- those with 49 employees or fewer -- are not required to provide all workers with health insurance. To prevent employers from simply firing workers in order to avoid the obligation to provide health coverage in the next couple years, the IRS included a safeguard: If these businesses fire workers, they must show they did so for "bona fide business reasons" in order to be eligible for the delayed mandate.
In other words, as Washington Post's Wonkblog explained, "'It's simply so they don't game the system,' one senior administration official told reporters on a phone call this afternoon. 'They have to certify they're not doing that and not dropping their coverage.'"
Preventing employers from firing workers merely in order to game the system may seem like common sense, but not to conservative media. Outlets like Fox News immediately lambasted the safeguard as "Orwellian," while The Wall Street Journal blamed the health care law for forcing businesses to fire employees:
Either Obamacare is ushering in a worker's paradise, in which case by the White House's own logic exempting businesses from its ministrations is harming employees. Or else the mandate really is leading business to cut back on hiring, hours and shifting workers to part-time as the evidence in the real economy suggests.
On the February 10 edition of Fox's The Kelly File, Fox News' Megyn Kelly scoffed at the idea that employers shouldn't be permitted to fire workers merely to avoid giving them health insurance:
KELLY: That is the government telling you, employers, 'you will not fire a single person, you will not lay off a single person if you want to take advantage of our gift, and you have to certify under penalty of perjury to the IRS that you didn't do that, that no layoff was due to Obamacare.'
Wow, so now, if a small business employer wants to lay off a person under pain of perjury he has to convince people at the IRS that he's not doing it because of Obamacare.
Fox News is attacking the Obama administration's new rules regarding asylum for refugees by portraying the move as an "open door policy" and an invitation for terrorism. In reality, refugees still have to pass "lengthy" background checks, and the government states it will only accept "individuals whom the United States does not consider threats."
On February 5, the Obama administration announced new immigration rules concerning political or war zone refugees. The changes were prompted by restrictive rules that have prevented nearly all asylum-seeking Syrians from entering the United States. Reuters reported that the changes will grant exemptions "on a case by case basis," for those seeking political asylum that do not pose a national security or public safety risk. The New York Times explained that "the exemptions apply if the refugees provided only minor material support, such as meals or medical aid, to armed groups that have not been officially designated as terrorist organizations, or if they gave such support under pressure."
Echoing Republican lawmakers, Fox has misleadingly portrayed these exemptions as an "open door policy" for refugees and misrepresented the definition of refugees with "limited terror connections" to spread unwarranted fears of increased terror attacks due to these new policies.
On February 7, Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy interviewed Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at the nativist and anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies. Vaughn hyped fears that these exemptions could be given "to all applicants for any kind of visa or green card who have been identified as possibly supporting terrorism," while Doocy suggested that these exemptions could apply to someone who "was simply Bin Laden's au pair."
On February 8, Fox & Friends Saturday hosted Michael Cutler, who has an extensive history of association with anti-immigrant and nativist groups. Cutler is also a regular contributor to the white nationalist Social Contract Journal. During his Fox appearance, Cutler heavily criticized the exemptions and argued that "we must never allow compassion to compromise national security," while Fox News co-host Tucker Carlson suggested that these exemptions were made by the Obama administration to gain new voters.
But these exemptions are not an "open door policy" for potential terrorists. As Reuters reported, the "advocacy group Human Rights First said, for example, that the existing law had been invoked to bar a refugee who had been robbed of $4 and his lunch by armed rebels, and a florist who had sold bouquets to a group the United States had designated as a terrorist organization." Such standards have already barred thousands of people from refugee status.
The new rules still require refugees to pass eligibility requirement. The New York Times reported that "refugees have to pass through the lengthy existing series of criminal and national security background checks, lawyers said, and the exemptions do not come into play until the refugees have already passed all the other eligibility hurdles."
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told the Times that "these exemptions are for individuals whom the United States does not consider threats ... Nothing in these exemptions changes the rigorous, multilayered security screening we do."