7 reasons to fear Kamala Harris' radical 'Medicare-for-all' schemes
- Bias Rating
64% Medium Conservative
- Reliability
40% ReliableFair
- Policy Leaning
48% Medium Conservative
- Politician Portrayal
-62% Negative
Continue For Free
Create your free account to see the in-depth bias analytics and more.
Continue
Continue
By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy, and subscribe to email updates. Already a member: Log inBias Score Analysis
The A.I. bias rating includes policy and politician portrayal leanings based on the author’s tone found in the article using machine learning. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.
Sentiments
19% Positive
- Liberal
- Conservative
Sentence | Sentiment | Bias |
---|---|---|
Unlock this feature by upgrading to the Pro plan. |
Reliability Score Analysis
Policy Leaning Analysis
Politician Portrayal Analysis
Bias Meter
Extremely
Liberal
Very
Liberal
Moderately
Liberal
Somewhat Liberal
Center
Somewhat Conservative
Moderately
Conservative
Very
Conservative
Extremely
Conservative
-100%
Liberal
100%
Conservative
Contributing sentiments towards policy:
62% : She promised that "Medicare-for-all is our goal" and committed to abolish private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan.53% : CRITICSSecond, "Medicare-for-all" requires unsustainable new spending.
53% : This is an estimate of new spending - notwithstanding the Medicare trust funds that would be liquidated to fund "Medicare-for-all.
48% : Rather than increasing the true affordability of health care, "Medicare-for-all" would leave families worse off, diminishing the average annual disposable income of a family on private insurance by $10,554.
44% : "Third, even with this astronomical new spending, "Medicare-for-all" requires significant reductions in already low payments to doctors, nurses, hospitals and nursing homes, cutting $5.3 trillion over a decade.
43% : When a Canadian provincial government passed a prohibition on private health insurance, the Supreme Court struck it down, effectively saying that Canadians have a right to health care, not a right to waitlists.
41% : THE ANSWER IS SHOCKING"Medicare-for-all" requires a plethora of additional taxes - ending the tax exclusion for health expenditures, "one-time" taxes on businesses, new fees on financial institutions, new taxes on the wealthy, new estate taxes, and the list goes on.
40% : Providers would no longer be able to shift costs from Medicare to private payers, and could thus face 40% reductions from private insurance rates.
39% : Shifting to "Medicare-for-all" will only exacerbate these shortages and hurt patients, similar to how other single-payer systems have failed their citizens.
*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.