Expectations from the Health Care Conference
The link provides a NY Times describing the likely tactics of both sides and outcomes of the White House Conference on Health Care/Insurance Reform.
I think interesting the fact my own Congressman uses a Wall Street Journal editorial to express his feelings on the legislation. The WSJ is, of course, the mouthpiece of business. Is that an indication my Congressman is more in tune with business interests who fund his campaigns than he is with the interests of the people who actually vote for him?
Think about that one.
Here's the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/business/economy/24leonhardt.html?th&emc=th
I think interesting the fact my own Congressman uses a Wall Street Journal editorial to express his feelings on the legislation. The WSJ is, of course, the mouthpiece of business. Is that an indication my Congressman is more in tune with business interests who fund his campaigns than he is with the interests of the people who actually vote for him?
Think about that one.
Here's the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/business/economy/24leonhardt.html?th&emc=th
Posted by Larry Bradley at 2/24/2010 1:56 PM 
Categories: Politics
Tags: Health care reform Health Care Conference President Obama
Categories: Politics
Tags: Health care reform Health Care Conference President Obama
Larry,
You write "The WSJ is, of course, the mouthpiece of business. Is that an indication my Congressman is more in tune with business interests who fund his campaigns than he is with the interests of the people who actually vote for him?"
The implied logic is that if a person uses a reference from some publication, somehow that brands that person with that publication's reputation.
I disagree with this construct on two counts. First, it implies that the WSJ and business in general are bad influences. I reject that. Second, if referencing an article from the WSJ somehow ties a person to business, what can be said about bloggers who make frequent references to the New York Times?
For me, reading most NYT articles is like eating birthday cake without frosting. At first, the cake will taste good, but soon, one realizes that something is missing. In many NYT articles, the words sound good, but soon there comes the realization that something is not right. What often is missing is an objective treatment of an opposing view.
In the NYT article referenced here, the missing puzzle piece is how the writer ignores the elements of the opposition. He talks about the political implications of opposing this legislation, but the real reasons for the opposition - government overreach, ramming a bill through, silliness about what the bill will actually cost, what it will do to the medical profession, others - are ignored. I can't tell if the writer is ignorant of these influences or just chooses to ignore them.
To provide balance, here is an article that in one way describes what the other side thinks. There is a reference to the WSJ article in the first sentence.
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/02/24/the-presidents-plan-all-you-need-to-know/
Just my opinion.
Reply to this
Hello, Jim
Once again I appreciate your comments.
I do not imply the WSJ is a bad influence. They have a point of view and they're entitled to it. We have a Congressman who repeatedly and exclusively uses their point of view as his own. Where is his balance? Where is his acknowledgement the current system is a disaster for millions of Americans and the fiscal health of the country as a whole?
I find the NYT does try to show the viewpoint of both sides. I regret demands on my time limits my time to read other sources, so I rely on those who I've found to be more balanced in the past. I rely on folks like you to contribute an opposing point of view if you think its necessary.
I especially think its interesting to compare the commentary about the two articles. Having read both, I feel the NYT article is the more dispassionate of the two.
Reply to this