Bush Targets Medicare (what biased headline did your paper have?)

AJC ^ | January 3, 2003 | Robert Pear

[concerned about politics]

Proposal would increase competition

Oh ouch! Politically incorrect capitalism!
If these folks don't end up needing Universal Heath Care, the Facist left is doomed! Oh, the horror, the horror!

Heh heh heh. Strategery.

[JDGreen123]

Reminds me of what Michael Savage said yesterday. Take any local paper and look at it and you will see mainly deviants, leftists, criminals, or the bizzare and profane displayed across the pages. I canceled my subscription to the local rag last year and have been much happier since. The real news is on sites like FR anyway.

[Jack Black]

The Republicans are Democrats Lite. This is a perfect example. Instead of aboloshing horrible socialist programs he is proposing tinkering around the edges of them. In fact the prescription drug benefit is a major new entitlement that is going to be proposed and enacted by a our new Republican Majority. I feel so good about the work I did to get them there! Of course once it's up and running the Demmys can remove what ever paltry limitations prevent it from covering everyone in the USA. Look at how Medicare now covers the disabled, an ever growing class defined by the left in their Diagnostic Manual v. 5. to include kids who don't pay attention in class.

Has Jorge eliminated any programs yet? Will he? If we can't eliminate any programs and we need to spend more on defense because of 9/11 then maybe the Dems *ARE* the party of fiscal responsibility because at least they are willing to tax and tax and tax to cover all these wonderful socialist programs. Bush and the Rs seem to want to eat their cake and have it too.

[concerned about politics]

. Bush and the Rs seem to want to eat their cake and have it too.

Oh sure. Cut out all social funding tomarrow (not that I'd mind, personally) and the democrats would rule for life!
Incramentalism is how the social programs got here, and incramentalism is how we'll get rid of them.
People fear drastic change, which is why libetarians aren't presidents.

[rwfromkansas]

Targets is a word with negative connotations; a journalist should avoid that word.

The other real headlines on this thread don't seem bad though; they are not biased.

[rwfromkansas]

I would like to get rid of the whole thing also.

That would NEVER get out of Congress. At least he is doing something to encourage reform and let people choose how to pay for their medicine.

Incrementalism is better than doing nothing at all.

[RobFromGa]

Targets is a word with negative connotations; a journalist should avoid that word. The other real headlines on this thread don't seem bad though; they are not biased.

I agree that the other headlines all seem reasonable. Thanks to all for your contributions. Some of the better ones may even come tomorrow. But for today, it looks like the AJC is today's "Liberal Slant Award Winner" for

Bush Targets Medicare

[unspun]

Or maybe we'll be seeing...

Bush's answer to Medicare Crisis: SOYLENT GREEN

[Inspectorette]

This should be a new FR daily feature - finding and posting the most outrageously liberal fishwrap headlines and picking a winner (or loser, depending on how you look at it.

[RobFromGa]

I have thought about this for a while and I believe this "most liberal headline" idea could be a good recurring feature- the Daily Fishwrap Award, or such. It is also a great role for Free Republic as a newspaper monitor.

The only problem is that it should be oriented around major topics of the day and the most biased headlines. So it might be difficult to organize. How does something like this happen on FR?

[Inspectorette]

I don't know how it would be organized. We would need somebody who's got the time to maintain the thread, because I would imagine the submissions are going to be plentiful.

[DannyTN]

There are some alternative plans out there now. But what they do is cut benefits that people don't realize they need and offer benefits that people think they need but they really don't.

The average individual doesn't have enough information or time to research to make the decision. Therefore Health Insurance should be relatively comprehensive.

So do they hold down costs in the short-run? Cost to the Government yes. Total costs of healthcare, I don't think so. It just means people run out of money quicker and end up on Medicaid. Or they don't get treated and end up in the Hospital or Nursing Home costing them and taxpayers thousands more.

Bush should allow Home Health's to flourish and cut through the red tape for providers. Intermittent care in a patient's home costs a fraction of either a nursing home or a hospital. The patients are happier, recover faster and are healthier.

Unfortunately the government looks at the growth in spending on Home Care and thinks it's a problem instead of realising how much they are saving by avoiding hospital and nursing home stays.

[TheBattman]

Bush's Tax Cut Plan Grows
Far Exceeding Expectations, Proposal Draws Democrat Attack

Arkansas Democrat Gazette 1/4/2003