Welcome to our new web site!

To give our readers a chance to experience all that our new website has to offer, we have made all content freely avaiable, through October 1, 2018.

During this time, print and digital subscribers will not need to log in to view our stories or e-editions.

Facts, Opinions, and Medicaid Expansion

Tony Cook
Posted 8/4/20

To the Editor:

Readers of the July 29th Fayette Advertiser were presented opinions published as facts in “County Clerk predicts 65% voter turnout” content related to Constitutional …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Facts, Opinions, and Medicaid Expansion

Posted

To the Editor:

Readers of the July 29th Fayette Advertiser were presented opinions published as facts in “County Clerk predicts 65% voter turnout” content related to Constitutional Amendment 2 ( Medicaid expansion). The potential state budget impact of Medicaid expansion as attributed to Missouri State Treasurer Fitzpatrick and state representative Smith represent their biased political perspective, and not established facts. Fitzpatrick’s dire prediction of “massive cuts to our state’s education funding levels or an increase in tax bill or both” are predicated on cost projections by those who oppose Amendment 2. Remarkably absent in your “news” article were budget projections or any summary of the anticipated significant positive impact on the health of Missouri residents and health care providers and systems from the perspective of proponents of Amendment 2. Your readers should know that Amendment 2 was found to be “close to budget neutrality and actually has an estimated savings of $39 million” ( “Analysis of the Fiscal Impact of Medicaid Expansion in Missouri”, February 2019, Center for Health Economics and Policy, Institute for Public Health, Washington University, St. Louis Missouri).  

An objective, non-partisan summary of the political history of Amendment 2 can be found at Ballotpedia.org. Helpful to voters is a summary of proponents ( Missouri Nurses Association, Missouri Chamber of Commerce, Missouri Academy of Family Physicians, Missouri Foundation for Health, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, and AARP) and opponents ( a  host of  Missouri Republican elected officials and associated PAC). What motivated Gov. Parson to mandate, at the last possible date, that the amendment would land on the primary election ballot and not the general election? What conclusion might Missouri voters reach when informed that Medicaid expansion was approved by voters in the politically “red” states of Oklahoma, Utah, Nebraska, and Idaho?

Finally, what is “news” and what is “opinion” should be crystal clear to your readers. The former should be reported such that the latter is clearly identified or excluded and relegated to the 0p-ed page. Failure to do so sacrifices journalistic fairness. Surely, in the future, a ballot initiative as important to readers and voters as Amendment 2 warrants a dedicated piece with information from multiple perspectives. Not another de facto opposition letter in the guise of “news”.

Tony Cook

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here