Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
There were plenty of Doctor’s voicing their opinions...but the MSM ignored anyone who didn’t join lockstep with them.
If the AMA came out against it the way they did Hillary Care, they would have been snubbed in the same way and it would have been news.
Doctors have checked out and not a whole lot of folks feel sorry for them.
They’ll be missed, but they won’t pull in the salaries they once commanded. A little known fact is that ehy bled Medicaid and Medicare so badly it changed medicine forever in the early ‘80s when insurance companies, to protect hteir capital, had to invent DSM to regulate how much MDs were taking advantage of (cheating) the system.
Patients will be the losers in the whole deal, as doctors will stay out of the field. The money is gone. It can arguabley be traced back to MDs.
There is really only one problem in American politics - but it’s a lulu.The problem is that the wire services (there’s mostly just the AP, but the same problem would be almost as bad if there were 5 wire services of equal market share) inherently homogenize journalism and produce hubris within it. The claim of journalistic objectivity is IMHO a claim that multiple wire services would make, even in the presence of competition; wire services need that particular fiction. The claim of journalistic objectivity is pure hubris, and hubris blinds its carrier to his own weakness and folly. And journalism propagates that hubris to all who are not sensitive to its existence in journalism.
There is really only one problem in American politics - but it’s a lulu.The problem is that the wire services (there’s mostly just the AP, but the same problem would be almost as bad if there were 5 wire services of equal market share) inherently homogenize journalism and produce hubris within it. The claim of journalistic objectivity is IMHO a claim that multiple wire services would make, even in the presence of competition; wire services need that particular fiction. The claim of journalistic objectivity is pure hubris, and hubris blinds its carrier to his own weakness and folly. And journalism propagates that hubris to all who are not sensitive to its existence in journalism. It does so by creating a vast mutual-admiration society of all who accept the conceit that producers of goods and services are at fault for making the decisions which are necessary but which subject them to the possibility of the second guess.
“Objective” journalists and its acolytes whom journalism awards the admiration-society positive labels such as “progressive” and “moderate” (not to mention “liberal,” which in its literal sense is a positive label) arrogate to themselves the credit for the provision of the goods and services which the second-guessable decisions of management and entrepreneurship actually produce.