WASHINGTON TIMES Editorial:
Nationalized health care will mean fewer people are covered
President Obama keeps saying America needs the Democrats' health care bill to reduce costs. In reality, the government takeover of health care will raise costs and cause a large number of people to lose their health insurance.Read the rest here
7 comments:
Yes!Weekly's publisher blows his annual blog post on this? Hilarious!
So the publisher of Yes! Weekly thinks it's OK for blogs to reproduce entire copyrighted works.
Noted.
"This week, the New England Journal of Medicine released a survey of doctors showing that 46.3 percent of 'primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.'"
Unfortunately, the above survey was NOT conducted by the NEJM but was an unscientific survey disclaimered by them here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003170036.
Cleverly using the word "released" instead of published is intentionally misleading as well as old news by 3 months. There's lots of other links than the one I provided. If this is truly an annual post, then boy, this could've been better researched.
Ed's right: where's at least the link to the original post? Isn't that like a copyright violation or just poor journalistic taste?
Thanks to all those copyright infringement watchdogs out there. The post now meets everyone's standards, I believe.
Sue: I don't read the Washington Times personally — in fact, I try to avoid most publications with stated political agendas because of crap like the stuff you just described. Which is worse, to be uninformed or to be misinformed?
Anyway, the man who cuts the checks can post whatever he likes. It's my job to make sure he stays within the boundaries of fair use.
Thanks for putting me back in line Roch. Since I only post 1x a year, I did not know how to correctly set up the link. Now that I do, mark your calendar for Mar. 19, 2011.
I can hardly wait, Charles. Hopefully you grasped my subtext.
Since you are now technically in a comment thread and would not spoil your one-post-per-year tradition by further commenting, any thoughts on what Sue linked to? You've put your stamp of approval on something that seems pretty clearly to be misleading.
(Brian, I didn't know my comment posted, I had some issues with Blogger yesterday finishing posting comments.) I don't read the Wash Times either; rather, I read the disclaimer by the NEJM that the survey Charles' referred to was fundamentally bogus and did not have the NEJM approval or backing. Using it as a lede to an opinion is specious and if this is really a rare post by Charles (who I don't know), then I find it so lacking in fact that I was really disappointed.
I'm not a OTW'er and don't think that the HCR bill will solve all problems. I hope it's a first step to getting millions more coverage and lead us toward par with other countries who provide affordable health care for their citizens, many very effectively (including Rush's new hangout for medical care and his brush with near-hysteria in our very own Hawaii).
People are dying from lack of medical coverage and are being hijacked by insurance companies if they get sick and need to use what they have. Pre-existing conditions are getting beyond ridiculous. If Charles thinks that the HCR bill is so awful, where is his bold new plan that is better than the one under consideration? Presuming he tends Republican, I haven't seen a real HCR plan from them that's better or vote-ready. Harangue all you want, quote discredited studies and copy talking points, but where's the real alternative?
Post a Comment