Home  >  Florida  >  Media Matters takes swipe over Obamacare ‘subsidy’

Media Matters takes swipe over Obamacare ‘subsidy’

By   /   September 20, 2013  /   4 Comments

By William Patrick | Florida Watchdog

BROCK: His group, Media Matters, is irked by media outlets calling latest Congress benefit a “subsidy.”

A recent White House initiative gives members of Congress and their staffs a 75 percent government contribution toward the cost of their insurance premiums under Obamacare.

Most reasonable people — we include ourselves — would call that a subsidy. But not Media Matters.

Calling the government contribution a subsidy earned us Media Matter’s most virulent denunciations — a “right-wing media” alert and a “zombie myth” peddler.

But it’s not much of a surprise that Media Matters would purposefully misrepresent the facts not only of the story but of the subsidies. The organization was founded, and is run, by David Brock, the Republican hitman turned liberal hitman whom even Democrats regard as dishonest.

Contact William Patrick at [email protected] or follow Florida Watchdog on Twitter at @watchdogfla Like Watchdog.org? Click HERE to get breaking news alerts in YOUR state!


William Patrick is Watchdog.org’s Florida reporter. His work has been featured by Fox News, the Drudge Report, and Townhall.com, as well as other national news and opinion websites. He’s also been cited and reposted by numerous state news organizations, including Florida Trend, Sunshine State News and the Miami Herald, and is a member of Investigative Reporters and Editors and the Florida Press Association. William’s work has impacted discussions on education, privacy, criminal justice reform, and government and corporate accountability. Prior to joining Watchdog, William worked for the James Madison Institute in Tallahassee, Fla. There, he launched a legislative news website covering state economic issues. After leaving New York City in 2010, William worked for the Florida Attorney General’s Office where he assisted state attorneys general in prosecuting Medicaid Fraud. William graduated magna cum laude from Hunter College, City University of New York. He lives in Tallahassee with his wife and three young children.

  • jon1856

    While you “maybe/could be” correct here any time one makes an argument by attacking, directly, their opposition they are weakening their own argument.

  • smelltest

    I think “subsidy” is a bit misleading myself – “bribe” is the more fitting description! As you know, bribes, even to public officials, are criminal.

  • Common Sense

    If it makes you feel better to call an employer premium contribution a “subsidy” then so be it. The bottom line is that you are focusing on semantics of what it is called instead of what it actually is.

    The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program was instituted in 1960. Even as far back as WWII the federal government has been contributing (“subsidizing”) the premium costs for federal employees.

    Did anyone complain about it before the ACA was enacted? No. Did the GOP complain about their own amendment to the ACA that removed that contribution? Yes. The GOP freaked out when they realized what they did to themselves and so the President bailed them out. That is like purposely shooting yourself in the foot and then punching the doctor in the face after they patch you up.

    Don’t get me wrong… I’m all for ending congressional premium contributions or “subsidies”, as you prefer but best of luck to you with convincing Republicans to give up their “entitlements”. <<<< See what I did there?

  • Steve

    I don’t recall the voters (aka the ’employeers’) agreeing to this subsidy. I think that the employers are overwhelmingly against any such benefit. To call the government their employer is also just nonsense. Since they vote their own benefit package, I would ask what business allows employees to vote themselves a paycheck or a benefit?