Steve M.
Jedi Master
I'm pointing my finger a little and laughing, but I don't get some of the thinking coming out of the media.
In this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care it says:
"WASHINGTON – The White House and its Democratic allies on Sunday tried to play down the role of a government insurance option in health care legislation as the party in power worked to reclaim momentum on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
His spokesman described the public option as just one way to achieve Obama's goal of providing coverage to the estimated 45 uninsured Americans without insurance. His senior adviser contended the White House was ready to accept that Congress would reject the idea, though he, too, said it was an option, not a make-or-break choice.."
I kind of thought, and maybe I'm wrong, that Uninsured "Americans meant," in and of itself, that the person is "without Insurance."
Then of course, what's the big deal about health insurance, only 45 Americans are without it. ?????!!
While I am pointing my finger and laughing at the article, I don't understand how such information passes as an article at all. I'd give this line a D- for a 7th graders article: "..providing coverage to the estimated 45 uninsured Americans without insurance," but I can't give it that much if it is supposed to be written and passes as news. Also if you go to the site (currently) it's been 'buzzed up' 1,264 times. How Discerning?
I'm no great news critic and I'm certainly not without flaw and do (often) write as bad or worse, but my posts (articles for that matter) don't make it on the cover of Newsweek or whatever. As someone once said to me about something I wrote, it felt like I got dumber just reading that article.
In this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care it says:
"WASHINGTON – The White House and its Democratic allies on Sunday tried to play down the role of a government insurance option in health care legislation as the party in power worked to reclaim momentum on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
His spokesman described the public option as just one way to achieve Obama's goal of providing coverage to the estimated 45 uninsured Americans without insurance. His senior adviser contended the White House was ready to accept that Congress would reject the idea, though he, too, said it was an option, not a make-or-break choice.."
I kind of thought, and maybe I'm wrong, that Uninsured "Americans meant," in and of itself, that the person is "without Insurance."
Then of course, what's the big deal about health insurance, only 45 Americans are without it. ?????!!
While I am pointing my finger and laughing at the article, I don't understand how such information passes as an article at all. I'd give this line a D- for a 7th graders article: "..providing coverage to the estimated 45 uninsured Americans without insurance," but I can't give it that much if it is supposed to be written and passes as news. Also if you go to the site (currently) it's been 'buzzed up' 1,264 times. How Discerning?
I'm no great news critic and I'm certainly not without flaw and do (often) write as bad or worse, but my posts (articles for that matter) don't make it on the cover of Newsweek or whatever. As someone once said to me about something I wrote, it felt like I got dumber just reading that article.
