According to the Democrats, all of the ills in this country are the fault of President Donald Trump. They push this through lies and playing on the emotions of people with no facts to back them up. Every time they have tried this it has backfired on them and their lies have come to the forefront.
Two such examples are commercials by opponents of Mike Lawler that show a woman in a wheelchair complaining that she is going to lose her Medicaid and another with a woman suffering with cancer claiming the same.
Lawler in an interview on November 19, 2025, stated when asked, They’re running ads against you saying that you voted to cut Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP monies. What do you have to say about these accusations?:
“Well, it’s just more lies by those that really don’t care about the truth or the people. The fact is, I have always voted to protect Social Security and Medicare. I’ve never cut Social Security or Medicare. In fact, I fought to get the Social Security Fairness Act passed and signed into law to ensure that retirees who worked as federal employees and those in law enforcement, first responders, that they are not being unfairly penalized because of their pension systems and that they get their full Social Security benefits. So, the idea that somehow we cut that is a baldfaced lie.”
So far, every time they have tried to push this narrative, they have been proven wrong. The battle over the ACA tax subsidies are no different
In an article dated November 17, 2025, in the RCBJ, it was written:
Organized by Empire State Voices, the protest is a clarion call to Congressman Mike Lawyer and the Trump administration to renew expiring tax credits. Nationwide, more than 24 million people ensured through Obamacare risk soaring prices or being unable to afford healthcare.
Approximately 11.8 percent of Rockland County residents get health insurance through non-group plans, which fall under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace, based on a 2023 data analysis that also shows 95.5 percent of the county population is insured. Another report indicates that 25,028 people in Rockland County were enrolled in the state’s Essential Plan, a Medicaid expansion under the ACA, which represents 7.3 percent of the county’s population in that specific program.
During the 50-day government shutdown, Democratic congressman called for the restoration of the tax credits. After eight Democrats broke with their caucus, the government reopened without agreement on these expiring credits.
The reason the Democrats did not get any agreement on these tax credits is because they linked them to allocating billions of dollars to supplement healthcare for millions of illegal aliens, which is something that is putting a strain on Medicaid and other social programs.
Whereas it is true that many people will be experiencing major increases in their health insurance premiums, the one thing this article and the protesters fail to mention is that the reason these increases are going to happen is because:
The Democrats are the ones who passed these subsidies without ANY REPUBLICANS voting for it. So, any suffering, which no one wants, that people who are on the ACA are going to be going through is SOLELY the responsibility of the Democrats, not Congressman Lawler or any Republican
The ACA COVID subsidies refer to the enhanced premium tax credits that temporarily increased financial assistance for health insurance bought on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace. Enacted through the American Rescue Plan, these subsidies lowered premiums by removing the income cap (of the federal poverty level) and allowing people with incomes below 150% of the poverty level to get zero-premium plans. These enhanced subsidies were extended by the Inflation Reduction Act and are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025.
Concerns Grow Over Bias and Inaccuracies in Healthcare Protest Story
A number of Rockland readers are raising questions about the accuracy and balance of Tina Traster’s recent story on the healthcare protest at the Four Corners in Nanuet. Many say the article continues the same tone and narrative approach seen in her earlier coverage of the Four Corners free-speech debate, which she eventually shifted into an editorial. Because the new story repeats many of the same issues, some now believe this piece may also be better suited for an opinion section rather than being presented as straight news.
The healthcare protest article includes several notable problems, most centered on verification, missing context, and subjective language. The story’s strongest claim — that healthcare premiums could “double or triple” — is not supported by any data or source. No federal projections, state filings, or health-policy analyses are cited. Without factual backing, such a major statement reads more like advocacy messaging than factual reporting.
Another important detail missing from the article is that the expanded ACA subsidies were already scheduled to expire, since they were temporary increases passed under the American Rescue Plan and later extended by Congress. This context is essential for understanding why the issue is coming up now. Leaving it out gives a one-sided impression that the changes are sudden or unexpected.
Language choices throughout the healthcare story also mirror the tone seen in Traster’s earlier Four Corners pieces. Words and phrases such as “clarion call,” “iconic protest vortex,” and descriptions of the Town Board “targeting” the site introduce interpretation rather than straightforward reporting. Opinion writing allows for that approach; news writing does not.
Equally concerning to readers is the lack of balanced sourcing. The healthcare story focuses on one advocacy group and does not include comments from Congressman Mike Lawler, the Clarkstown Town Board, or any state officials who play a central role in the policy debate. When one side of an issue is highlighted while the other is not contacted for comment, the result can appear slanted.
Even smaller inaccuracies — such as reporting that 24 million people are “ensured” instead of insured — add to the impression that the article was not carefully checked. Describing the protest as “small” without providing even an estimate of how many attended also raises questions about the neutrality of the description.
Viewed together, the unverified claims, missing context, and recurring opinion-style language show a clear shift away from straight news standards. Because Traster’s earlier Four Corners story ultimately became an editorial, readers are now suggesting that this healthcare protest story might also be more appropriate as an opinion piece, where interpretation is expected and allowed.
Inaccuracies & Bias Signals in the Healthcare Protest Story
Unverified Claims
- Premiums “doubling or tripling” stated without any source or study.
- No official projections or state filings cited.
Missing Key Context
- Article does not mention the ACA subsidies were already scheduled to expire.
- Leaves readers with an incomplete understanding of the issue.
Opinion-Style Language
- Phrases like “clarion call,” “iconic protest vortex,” and “targeted” lean toward commentary.
- These are not typical in neutral reporting.
One-Sided Sourcing
- No quotes from Congressman Lawler, Clarkstown officials, or state leaders.
- Only the protest group’s viewpoint is presented.
Accuracy & Word Choice Errors
- “Ensured” used instead of insured.
- Protest described as “small” without attendance numbers.
Pattern Repeated From Prior Four Corners Stories
- Similar advocacy-style framing
- Similar omission of opposing viewpoints
- Similar lack of balance and context
As the public discussion around Four Corners protests continues, readers say the community benefits most from reporting that is carefully sourced, neutral in tone, and supported by verifiable facts. When stories lean toward interpretation or repeat a continuing narrative thread, it becomes harder for local residents to separate news from opinion. For that reason, several in the community believe the latest healthcare protest article — like Traster’s earlier work — would serve readers better if moved to the editorial section, where commentary belongs and expectations are clearer.