Yet more pro-Obamacare propaganda from NBC

Propaganda is a form of communication designed to influence the attitude of the listener, reader or viewer regarding some cause or position.  It's usually used to describe government-operated programs, with the message(s) repeated over and over, often in several different media.

Propaganda is sometimes hard to detect--especially when it's delivered by outlets that the citizen doesn't recognize as conduits for a campaign.

Case in point is an article dated Dec. 27th in a section of the NBC News website titled "health."  It's loaded with descriptors that lead the reader to think about things in a certain way.

For example, here's the lede 'graf:

It was the gift that kept on giving: The disastrous roll-out of the health-insurance exchanges provided daily fodder for Republican opponents of Obamacare. And the dire state of U.S. health care, coupled with a headlong rush by people to get health insurance, gave Democrats ample opportunity to say “we told you so.”

From the early mention of the "disastrous roll-out" of...something health-related at first it appears as though it will be neutral.  But note that the "roll-out" they actually mention is not "Obamacare," nor of the one and only healthcare.gov website, but rather of "the health-insurance exchanges."  With a barely-noticeable phrasing the problem isn't the federal government's website, nor a horribly flawed concept, but...exchanges, plural.

Ah, guess the author is referring to those various exchanges operated by the *states*??

And the very next line:  "And the dire state of U.S. health care..."  Excuse me?  The U.S. had a great health-care system.  Problem was that people without enough money to buy health insurance typically ended up going to hospital emergency rooms when they needed health care.  And apparently they frequently didn't bother paying, since they knew they couldn't be denied treatment if they showed up again.

There's no question that using ERs for routine health care was a very expensive way of providing that, but this hardly amounts to an indictment of the overall health care system, which was generally splendid.

That's why Canadians who were put on long waiting lists for government-provided medical treatment in Canada often traveled to the U.S. and paid cash for immediate treatment.  Ever heard anyone say "The docs say I need an MRI right away, so I think I'll pop up to Montreal..."?

But the author slips this indictment ("the dire state of U.S. health care") in in the very first 'graf, and does it so smoothly that almost no one even notices.  Yet the message definitely gets across, if only subliminally.

Very next 'graf:

So once it’s January 2014 and people can start having their new insurance and all the deadlines have passed...

Note the phrase "can start having..."  Not "forced to buy," or "mandatory," or "controversial," or "mostly more expensive, higher-deductible" but simply..."can have."

"You get a special present!  Lucky you!"

This choice of phrasing is no accident:  Did you get the impression you were paying higher premiums--and higher deductibles--than with your old, pre-Obamacare insurance?  Did you hear your doc got booted off the new insurance company's network, leaving you to find a new one?  Well forget all that, citizen, because thanks to the beneficence of the Democrats and Dear Leader you are lucky enough to get to start having health insurance.

Now I'll readily admit that the old practice of new insurance not paying for an old condition until you'd been on it a year sometimes caused hardship, as did the practice of companies not wanting to insure people with pre-existing conditions.  But these hardships could have been remedied in a 10-page bill, without having the government force every policy to offer maternity care, or substance-abuse counseling.

But of course the entire point of the exercise was *not* to make insurance more affordable, but for government to extend its power.  Which has happened.  In spades.

Oh, and for those who may be concerned that their doctor of 20 or more years is no longer on the approved network, the NBC propagandist rushes to reassure you that

People will squeal, but studies show that the care is just as good for most people using a narrow network of doctors and hospitals as those who have more choice.

See?  You don't need to have "choice" of doctors and hospitals, because "studies show..."  Oh, you may be vexed at losing your doctor, but you need to get over it.  You should *want* to make a small sacrifice in order to enable non-wealthy American residents to get free health care.

Oh, and note that word "squeal."   That ain't an accident either.  It's definitely a pejorative term.  "Complain" would have been a neutral substitute, but the author chose to make a point.

There's a lot more to the article but you get the gist.  But let me note just one more:  At the end of the article the author quotes an "expert" from Brookings throwing out this zinger:

“I think many Democrats assume that Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid as we know them are so entrenched in American life that they are untouchable. But Republicans have a plan to transform them.”

Didja get that?  In an article about Obamacare, the last bit of propaganda is that Republicans have a plan--carefully unstated, with no details given--to "transform" Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

If readers didn't hate Republicans before, the most certainly do now.  This is pure bullshit, but part and parcel of the propaganda piece.

And of course if you ever called 'em on it they'd get all wide-eyed and innocent.