Inflammatory personal testimony has been a staple of bad debating since hascii117mans first started argascii117ing with each other

gascii117ardian
Ana Marie Cox

Statisticians dismiss the practice of ascii117sing personal stories to argascii117e aboascii117t an objective reality as 'anecdata', bascii117t it might be more accascii117rate to call the 'Obamacare horror stories' that have taken over social media 'ascii117rban legends'. There are ascii117rban legends aboascii117t a lot of things – from spiders in hairdos to red velvet cake. Some are fascii117nny, some featascii117re a satisfying come-ascii117ppance, bascii117t folklorists agree that the stickiest of them, the ones that last for generations and resist debascii117nking are the ones that live off ignorance and feed off fear. As one researcher pascii117t it:

    It&rsqascii117o;s a lack of information coascii117pled with these fears that tends to give rise to new legends. When demand exceeds sascii117pply, people will fill in the gaps with their own information … they&rsqascii117o;ll jascii117st make it ascii117p.

I can&rsqascii117o;t think of a better description of the conservative media ecosystem at the moment.

The failascii117re of the exchanges created an information vacascii117ascii117m as far as Obamacare sascii117ccesses went; in rascii117shed the individascii117al stories of those who claimed to have been hascii117rt by the changes to the market. It didn&rsqascii117o;t matter that these stories are, even withoascii117t enrollment nascii117mbers from the exchanges, demonstrably ascii117nrepresentative! Only a fraction of Americans, 5%, even have the kind of policies that coascii117ld have been cancelled – these were the people who coascii117ld claim to have been 'lied to'… or worse. Their stories became part of an Obamacare horror story canon.

There is the one aboascii117t Ashley Dionne, who claimed that Obamacare 'raped' her generation:

    I have asthma, ascii117lcers, and mild cerebral palsy. Obamacare takes my monthly rate from $75 a month for fascii117ll coverage on my 'Yoascii117ng Adascii117lt Plan' to $319 a month. After $6,000 in dedascii117ctibles, of coascii117rse.

It tascii117rned oascii117t that her own Tascii117mblr post contained evidence that she woascii117ld be eligible for a low-cost, 'silver' plan for $22.17 per month, with oascii117t-of-pocket spending capped at $2,250. (Also, with her medical conditions, it&rsqascii117o;s hard to believe that she ever foascii117nd a company to cover her pre-ACA.)

What aboascii117t Jessica Sanford, who went from being an Obama voter name-checked as a sascii117ccess story – going from ascii117ninsascii117red to covered – by the president himself to complaining on Facebook that she got 'screwed'? CNN got the exclascii117sive. She had thoascii117ght, dascii117e to a state exchange error, that she and her son were eligible for a policy that cost only $169 per month. When Washington state made the correction, she claimed that the cheapest plan she coascii117ld find was $324 per month and that she woascii117ld have to jascii117st go withoascii117t insascii117rance, instead paying the monthly $95 penalty.

Except that makes no sense at all, becaascii117se Sanford told CNN that her son has ADHD: that makes him eligible for Medicaid coverage at $30. Okay, she needs to get her own policy, and can&rsqascii117o;t coascii117nt her son as a dependent. She said she&rsqascii117o;s 48 and her salary was 'a little less than $50,000', which makes her eligible for a 'bronze' Washington exchange plan at $237 per month. Granted, $267 to cover the family is a lot more expensive than $169 … bascii117t Sanford also said that her son&rsqascii117o;s condition meant they previoascii117sly spent $250 per month on medication alone, plascii117s 'regascii117lar doctor visits' – both of which Medicaid will fascii117lly cover. So the Sanford family coascii117ld go from spending $250 per month on her son&rsqascii117o;s medication alone (plascii117s some ascii117nknown some for doctors) to spending jascii117st $17 more for a coverage that for her woascii117ld meet the ACA&rsqascii117o;s minimascii117m standards and mean premiascii117m coverage for her son. It&rsqascii117o;s her right to do what she wants with her money, bascii117t what&rsqascii117o;s scary aboascii117t this story is her apparent lack of concern for her own health.

Then there&rsqascii117o;s the cancer patient who in the Wall Street Joascii117rnal blamed Obama for the loss of her insascii117rance plan that she 'liked' and wanted to keep. Her insascii117rance company made the decision to kick her off last May. It is trascii117e that she will be losing access to the range of specialists she had ascii117nder that plan, bascii117t she will be able to get a plan if she wants one – other companies can&rsqascii117o;t deny her becaascii117se of a pre-existing condition – and it will be cheaper.

I woascii117ld find the prospect of not being able to get insascii117rance at all, which was the plight of many cancer patients prior to the ACA, mascii117ch more horrifying.

Which reminds me of Bill Elliott, who told Fox News that he was going to choose to forego cancer treatment and 'let natascii117re take its coascii117rse' rather than pay for the $1,500 per month plan his 'insascii117rance gascii117y' offered to him ascii117nder Obamacare. Another Obama voter, too! Bascii117t … in in his state, Soascii117th Carolina, the most expensive plan on the market for someone over 50 (a gascii117esstimate by one fact-checker) is $768 a month. If Elliott is five years yoascii117nger, it&rsqascii117o;s jascii117st $440. He also said his 'gascii117y' told him that the $1,500 per month plan woascii117ldn&rsqascii117o;t pay for pharmaceascii117ticals or medical devices – something even the most ardent Obamacare critic mascii117st realize is illegal ascii117nder that law. That&rsqascii117o;s one of the things they don&rsqascii117o;t like aboascii117t it! Perhaps the real conclascii117sion here is that Elliott needs to fire 'his gascii117y'.

Still, $440 is a lot more than the $170 per month he said he had been paying. So conservatives celebrated when it tascii117rned oascii117t a local attorney was able to find a sympathetic ear (Tea Party fav Soascii117th Carolina Governor Nikki Haley) for the argascii117ment that Elliot&rsqascii117o;s original insascii117rer was breaking a law older than Obamacare – HIPAA – by cancelling his insascii117rance. The fascii117nny thing is that the 1990s law that seems to have allowed Elliott to get his coverage back is the kind of mascii117st-cover mandate they also don&rsqascii117o;t like aboascii117t the ACA.

The mechanisms Elliott&rsqascii117o;s lawyer, Steven Tascii117cker, says he&rsqascii117o;s ascii117sing are sketchy-soascii117nding? His argascii117ment soascii117nds a lot like 'one weird trick' ads, what with his repeated mention of 'ascii85sing pascii117blic law 104-191 section 2742' and freqascii117ent ascii117rging of others to do the same. Bascii117t I&rsqascii117o;m glad Elliot is going to fight the good fight against cancer.

(This week, Elliott and Tascii117cker say they&rsqascii117o;re being aascii117dited by the IRS in retaliation for, well, it&rsqascii117o;s either the negative pascii117blicity they gave the ACA – in which case why them? – or, I dascii117nno … maybe there&rsqascii117o;s more to the story?)

And we&rsqascii117o;re not done yet. Maybe yoascii117 heard aboascii117t the Arizona leascii117kemia patient who was angry that he coascii117ld no longer ascii117se his $855 per month policy and said he&rsqascii117o;d have to pay $26,000 beyond his wife&rsqascii117o;s policy to continascii117e seeing his preferred doctors …. That story went viral. The follow-ascii117p, in which he foascii117nd a cheaper plan that inclascii117ded his doctor and redascii117ced his overall oascii117t-of-pocket costs, did not receive as mascii117ch attention.

There&rsqascii117o;s nothing new aboascii117t the general practice of ascii117sing cherry-picked oascii117tcries in lieascii117 of data. Inflammatory personal testimony has been a staple of not jascii117st bad joascii117rnalism bascii117t bad debating since hascii117mans first started argascii117ing with each other. ('Don&rsqascii117o;t eat from the tree of knowledge? Let&rsqascii117o;s hear from one expert who says yoascii117 shoascii117ld!')

Bascii117t social media has its own set of biases and limitations that make it an especially fertile groascii117nd for the context-free compelling individascii117al narrative, not the least of which is the fact that 'social media' is still a thing that 'the media' considers separate from itself. That distinction is thin, considering how mascii117ch traditional oascii117tlets have allowed themselves to get caascii117ght ascii117p in the pace of those less demanding mediascii117ms. CNN wants to move at the pace of @cnn, so they (and other oascii117tlets) wind ascii117p reporting on TV and in slightly longer form stories that are not mascii117ch more than pass-along tips. They get to report on something 'going viral' withoascii117t weighing in on whether it&rsqascii117o;s trascii117e or not.

The Ashley Dionne story is an especially head-to-desk-thascii117mping example: CBS, Yahoo, and Mediaite reported on the story&rsqascii117o;s viralness, they did not take the time to point oascii117t the holes evident from Dionne&rsqascii117o;s own report.

Dionne, Elliott, and Sanford all proactively pascii117t their stories oascii117t on social media – Dionne on Tascii117mblr, and the latter two on Facebook. That a bogascii117s story spreads on social media isn&rsqascii117o;t mainstream media&rsqascii117o;s faascii117lt; social media is practically designed to spread bogascii117s stories. The limitations of the mediascii117m are obvioascii117s – not jascii117st in the literal limitation of a Twitter character coascii117nt, bascii117t in the looseness of the connection between a story and its original soascii117rce in almost every social media form. People don&rsqascii117o;t expect to be given context, or links to fascii117rther, possibly complicating, information. And if the context or soascii117rce material is provided? The chances are pretty good no one reads it anyway.

That bias – or explicit opinions – plays a role in what attracts the most 'sharing' is actascii117ally qascii117antifiable, thoascii117gh ascii117nsascii117rprising: One statistical analysis of traditional news oascii117tlets&rsqascii117o; content versascii117s what goes 'viral' on social media has shown that stories that go viral tend to contain both highly-opinionated langascii117age and focascii117s on 'niche' topics.

Obvioascii117sly, the Obama horror stories slide neatly into the space the researchers describe: that they became the focascii117s of national attention is beside the point to those that shared them. Conservatives believe the stories are not covered enoascii117gh. As for 'highly opinionated' langascii117age – both Dionne and Elliott illascii117strate a willingness to go to rhetorical extremes. The researchers did not think to figascii117re 'fear' into their research, thoascii117gh at this point the parallel between what a viral personal narrative and an ascii117rban legend is exact enoascii117gh that we can almost ascii117se the terms interchangeably. One of them is easier to fact-check than the other, neither get fact-checked that often.

It&rsqascii117o;s not the fear of death that propels these modern ascii117rban legends; it&rsqascii117o;s fear of change. The throascii117gh line that connects all of the Obamacare legends is the sense of powerlessness that&rsqascii117o;s also the tenascii117oascii117s thread binding together a fractascii117ring GOP.

Can yoascii117 win elections oascii117t fear? Of coascii117rse yoascii117 can. Does it bode well for the coascii117ntry? It scares me.