BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 53.2% saturation with 420 hits. Analysis detected 2,295 faulty-reasoning hits from 790 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.2% and a BS Rank of 71% (5,968 of 20,498 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.90% of the article peer group.

American voters desperately want relief from rising prices  especially the increasingly unaffordable cost of healthcare. 
Democrats have a plan for that. 
Massachusetts Sen. 
Elizabeth Warren recently introduced the Break Up Big Medicine Act with Sen. 
Josh Hawley, R-Mo., a bill that would split up the huge conglomerates that have made the current healthcare system so expensive and frustrating to navigate. 
Businessman Mark Cuban recently quipped that breaking up these near-monopolies could bring costs down by 40%. 
If Democrats run on this healthcare affordability agenda, we stand a good chance of flipping not just the House, but the Senate too. 
Insurers like UnitedHealth or Cigna don’t just sell coverage. 
They’ve consolidated power over virtually every part of our healthcare system, operating hospitals, clinics and pharmacy networks. 
And they use that control to generate billions in profits  by pushing patients toward care at the facilities they control. 
America isn’t prepared for what comes after the measles crisis 
UnitedHealth Group, for example, generates about 40% of its revenue  about $180 billion  from transactions between its thousands of subsidiaries. 
Its insurance branch steers patients to its roughly 90,000 affiliated doctors, and pressures those physicians to refer patients to its affiliated hospitals and clinics rather than lower-cost independent providers. 
And that’s not all. 
The company’s pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) arm pushes patients to affiliated pharmacies. 
Those pharmacies frequently upcharge patients for medicines, sometimes by 10 times the acquisition cost. 
UnitedHealth Group is the largest of these conglomerates, but it’s hardly the only firm that operates this way. 
CVS Health owns Aetna, one of the nation’s largest insurers, in addition to the more than 9,000 CVS pharmacies it’s best known for. 
It also owns CVS Caremark, one of the nation’s largest PBM. 
In theory, PBMs exist to save employers money by overseeing all the drug-related details of health insurance plans, and using their bulk-buying power to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for big discounts and rebates. 
PBMs often tell employers that they pass along all the discounts and rebates they receive to the employer, minus a small fee for their services. 
Start your day with essential news from Salon. 
Sign up for our free morning newsletter , Crash Course. 
What they typically don’t mention is that many PBMs are affiliated with foreign-based entities called “group purchasing organizations.” 
In 2025, the House Oversight Committee launched an investigation into whether PBMs are using these overseas entities to skirt government oversight. 
Lawmakers have raised concerns that these arrangements allow PBMs to retain rebate-related revenue and fees within opaque corporate structures, rather than transparently passing those savings on to employers and patients. 
Meanwhile, insurers continually deny coverage for treatments and procedures that patients need. 
They often force doctors to get insurer approval  known as prior authorization  before prescribing, or they force patients onto less effective drugs. 
That places an immense administrative burden on physicians, who can spend an average of 12 hours per week completing prior authorizations, time that they’d certainly rather spend with patients. 
Prior authorization can have dire consequences for patients. 
More than eight in 10 patients that face prior authorization simply give up on treatment. 
About a quarter of doctors say that prior authorization delays have led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care  whether that’s hospitalization, permanent damage or death. 
Breaking up the healthcare conglomerates that have enriched themselves by immiserating patients and cheating employers is good policy. 
Our Summer sale is on! 
Support Salon’s bold journalism. 
Annual members save 58% 
Polls show that voters overwhelmingly support bold healthcare reform. 
According to a recent poll, nearly seven in ten insured Americans identified either lowering out-of-pocket costs or nixing prior authorization as the single most important change they want from their health insurance. 
It would be a mistake for Democrats to content themselves with merely tweaking the Inflation Reduction Act, the party’s last major healthcare reform, which primarily focused on reducing the federal government’s pharmaceutical spending. 
That kind of incrementalism won’t work  Democrats cannot win by being Republican-lite. 
We need to target the insurer and PBM practices that directly drive up Americans’ out-of-pocket costs and force too many people to choose between filling their prescriptions and filling their gas tanks. 
If Democrats are looking for a 50-state strategy for the midterms  something I insisted on as chair of the Democratic National Committee during the 2006 blue wave  Sen. 
Warren’s bill offers a great place to start. 
MLK would be appalled by America’s health injustices 
A year after Luigi Mangione’s arrest, health care is even worse 
Health care costs are skyrocketing. 
Americans are starting to panic 
The post Democrats’ key to winning the midterms appeared first on Salon.com . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.9%Howard Dean: 6.4%Salon: 5.2%Confirmation Bias20.9%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 3.7%Salon: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Howard Dean: 5.8%Salon: 3.1%Availability Heuristic11.6%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 1.5%Salon: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Howard Dean: 10.5%Salon: 7.2%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 4.1%Howard Dean: 1.0%Salon: 0.4%Loss Aversion4.1%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Howard Dean: 2.9%Salon: 1.4%Optimism Bias2.9%This article: 3.7%Howard Dean: 1.2%Salon: 2.2%Pessimism Bias3.7%This article: 48.4%Howard Dean: 21.9%Salon: 10.9%Negativity Bias48.4%This article: 6.1%Howard Dean: 2.5%Salon: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 2.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Howard Dean: 0.3%Salon: 2.4%Halo Effect1.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Howard Dean: 0.3%Salon: 1.3%Recency Bias1.4%This article: 1.5%Howard Dean: 0.4%Salon: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 3.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.8%Howard Dean: 6.6%Salon: 3.1%Appeal to Authority11.8%This article: 12.8%Howard Dean: 5.1%Salon: 2.3%False Dilemma12.8%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.8%Howard Dean: 18.2%Salon: 10.6%Hasty Generalization16.8%This article: 0.5%Howard Dean: 0.5%Salon: 0.2%Red Herring0.5%This article: 1.1%Howard Dean: 0.6%Salon: 0.6%Bandwagon1.1%This article: 19.2%Howard Dean: 11.1%Salon: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion19.2%This article: 3.8%Howard Dean: 2.8%Salon: 1.4%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 7.0%Howard Dean: 1.7%Salon: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.2%Howard Dean: 0.8%Salon: 0.5%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.7%Howard Dean: 1.9%Salon: 2.5%Anecdotal5.7%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.5%Howard Dean: 2.7%Salon: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.5%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 53.2%Howard Dean: 13.3%Salon: 2.1%Unattributed Quote53.2%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.7%Howard Dean: 5.4%Salon: 15.1%Biased Writer Voice5.7%This article: 11.9%Howard Dean: 6.9%Salon: 2.6%Indoctrination11.9%This article: 16.8%Howard Dean: 11.8%Salon: 7.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias16.8%This article: 0.0%Howard Dean: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Howard Dean: 3.9%Salon: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.9%

790 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers17%attributed speech657writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Warren • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 25 words • 100.0% coverageMark Cuban • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCVS Health • 23 words • 100.0% coverageCVS Health • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageSalon • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageHouse Oversight Committee • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageSalon • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageSalon.com • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mark Cuban

100%flagged-word coverage
16 attributed words12% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+96.2 ptsWriter: 3.8%Mark Cuban: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-51.8 ptsWriter: 51.8%Mark Cuban: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-20.2 ptsWriter: 20.2%Mark Cuban: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-14.3 ptsWriter: 14.3%Mark Cuban: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Mark Cuban: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.