Writings and observations

2 Comments

  1. Directmale said:

    The author shows his bias when he describes the pro plan supporters as pro reformers and, by inference, calling the anti plan people anti reformers. That couldn’t be further from the truth. I want health care reform but I do not agree with the government bill because it doesn’t address malpractice insurance or tort reform among other important aspects of the health care system. The health care system is inefficient in some ways but it is not “broken”. The government has driven Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid into the poor house and by taking over the entire health system it would put the country in the same shape.

    Another indicator of the bias is that the author makes a point to describe conservatives at the meeting but there is no mention of liberal groups that I am sure attended.

    August 11, 2009
  2. Thanks for the response. Two points:

    Second, first: I’ve amended the story to include a reference to non-locals attending. The original didn’t make specific reference to that at all, but that was an oversight. Both sides did bring people from elsewhere.

    On terminology: I paused before deciding how to refer to the two sides – and clearly, there were two sides. I settled on pro- and anti-reform because the people on one side overwhelmingly were in favor of one of the versions of legislation in Congress, the intent of which is “reform,” and those on the other side were in opposition to those. Many of those in opposition argued that the system should be let alone. This is oversimplifying, though, because opinions person by person were more scattered than that. I’d be open to another shorthand description. (I didn’t, you might note, call the antis “shouters” or “protesters” – in general, they were expressing a policy view not so different as people on the other side.)

    August 11, 2009

Comments are closed.