For our fact-checking assignment, I selected an alarming article that I came across on the Drudge Report today:

Drudge Report headline on March 13th, 2013.

Drudge linked to a CBS Miami story posted on March 11th with the headline, “Obamacare May Bite You At The Vet’s Office” (video with transcript included). Straight off the bat, this story employs two of the rhetorical tricks described by Wendell Potter— the “Fear” and “Plain Folks” tactics. It opens with:

Pet owners listen up: You may want to start saving more money for veterinarian care this year. The reason goes all the way back to Washington and an unintended consequence from medical reform. Dog owner Lori Heiselman was surprised where her veterinarian posted a warning on Facebook. The notice read: “Because medical equipment and supplies will be going up in cost, that extra expense will have to passed on to the customers.” So Lori is already tightening her belt to pay for the increase in her dog’s care. Though she doesn’t like it, she’s willing to pay more for her pets.

To start, the reporter immediately alerts readers to a new threat to their pocketbooks, eliciting worry, if not outright fear, regardless of whether Spot or Fluffy may actually require special veterinary care this year. And we know this is a real problem because average Jane Lori Heiselman received a notification from her veterinarian.

We’re told that this cost hike is the result of a new 2.3 percent federal excise tax on medical devices, which will help fund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka. Obamacare). A quick reveals that the good folks at Snopes have looked into this and verified this tax went into effect as of January 1st of this year. It was passed as a provision in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872, subchapter E, section 4191) that was passed with the PPACA. Though the tax is primarily intended for medical devices for humans, it does seem to include devices that are also used for animals.

The CBS report claims that the burden lies on manufacturers to pay the tax, “but a recent survey found more than half plan to pass it along.” The first half of this claim is confirmed by an Internal Revenue Service FAQ. The cost-transfer claim is a use of the “testimonial” tactic of PR– graphics in the video report indicate that the source of this survey is the Emergo Group, a multinational medical equipment consultancy[1]. This large consultancy’s expertise is used to legitimize the implication that the cost of this tax will likely be passed on from manufacturer to veterinarian to customer.

The mix of fear and testimonial continue in quotes from a Dr. Mike Hatcher, who is concerned this may be a “hidden tax” on consumers and may “terribly affect our clients’ ability to have quality care.” Also quoted is an expert from the American Veterinary Medical Association, who throws in a clever euphemism– he frames this tax as a veterinarian medicine subsidy of human health care.

Although the glaring lack of facts describing the exact scope of this problem make this story superficial, it also seems conceivable that higher veterinary bills might be a genuine concern for families who have prior financial constraints and whose pets become sick this year. So is it fair to accuse this report of being spin?

It turns out, the connection between Obamacare and sick puppies surfaced a good nine months ago, in this video released last June by the National Republican Congressional Committee as part of a petition campaign to garner support for the repeal of Obamacare. In December, the excise tax’s effect on pet care was reported in a blog post by the conservative Heritage Foundation and an article by the conservative news site Newsmax. The Heritage post and NRCC video even use similar images of golden retriever puppies– the ultimate Glittering Generality of the good ol’ American Dream.

[1] This study did not seem methodologically biased according to my quick glance, but I’d love the input of anyone with more experience with survey design.