The takeaway from my comment is to consider the source and agenda for things you read, especially regarding controversial issues. The biases in how the author frames their points, as I outlined in my original comment, indicate to me that the author may have an agenda.

Agendas are a big red flag to me -- they indicate the author is trying to convince me of their P.O.V., rather than presenting the information and allowing me to make my own decision.

Sure, everything has an agenda. But structural biases such as those outlined above, serve to decrease my trust in the author.

That's all. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. I think health care is incredibly complex, and sometimes suffers from profiteering. I also suspect that the likelihood is low to be screwed like the people covered in the article, but the structure of the article is designed to make me fearful.

When I detect an agenda to create fear, I question the motives of the author. In short, I cannot separate the useful information in the article from the author's agenda, and am forced to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. (Apologies if that idiom doesn't make sense -- it just means that I have to throw the signal out with the noise because the author doesn't seem to be sufficiently unbiased.)