PF loves Debbie Wasserman Schultz, won't tolerate criticism

PolitiFact's matrix strikes again, keeping invisible to most my criticism of their fact check of DNC Chair and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.



See what you miss by not making me your "friend" on FaceBook?

The whole comment:

PF went way easy on Wasserman Schultz on this one.

Think about it. Medicare solvency improves dramatically by simply refusing to pay for health care services. But that's nothing to brag about, is it? PPACA does three things to Medicare and one of them *might* help with making Medicare service better (better payment for better outcomes, at least if providers don't avoid providing services for those with worse prospects for a good outcome). The other two are increased Medicare payroll taxes and decreased reimbursement to health care providers, neither of which is likely to improve Medicare on balance, and the latter isn't likely to occur anyway because of the "doc fix."

So, Wasserman Schultz isn't telling the whole story. She's claiming that the PPACA made Medicare more solvent *and* better for seniors overall (her underlying point). PolitiFact does her the colossal favor of ignoring the key part of her underlying point, then goes the extra mile by figuring her degree of error based on the incorrect figure (12 years).

*Why* was it wrong to say she was off by only a third? For purposes of comparison, the degree of error is normally calculated by determining the percentage of inflation for a figure that was exaggerated. For Wasserman Schultz, that figure is 50 percent (correct figure 8, exaggerated figure 12).

For a figure that was reported low to obtain a better appearance then PolitiFact's method was correct. For example: "I struck out only 8 times this series" The player struck out 12 times. The claim of 8 strikeouts is off by a third (33 percent).

PolitiFact is the greatest, isn't it?

Isn't it nice of PolitiFact to protect its readers from the truth?