This is one of the most misleading articles I've seen it quite some time.
At first glance with how the article is setup, one can assume that with the picture of Ron Paul and the Headline, Ron Paul had said that the uninsured in need of intensive health care should be allowed to die. I know that's what I had thought when I looked at it for a second. But I do support Ron Paul, and I just couldn't believe he would say such a thing.
Reading further into the article this here was the actual exchange between Blitzer and Paul that occurred during the debate:
“But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die,” Blitzer asked.
“Yeah,” came the shout from the audience. That affirmative was repeated at least three times. Paul, who has always had a reputation for being a charitable man, disagreed with the idea that sick people should die, but insisted that the answer to the healthcare problem was not a large government.
“I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s when I got out of medical school,” Paul said. “I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio. And the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals. And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends; our churches would do it. This whole idea — that's the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because we dump it on the government. It becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies, then the drug companies.”
Attaching an affirmation that the candidate wants to let uninsured people die because of the response from an audience member in the debate? This is absolutely ludicrous. Again, like all of the articles I've read, you'll notice in the comments and discussions there are people who actually read further into the subject. These people are appalled by these articles that are so obviously intended to marginalize certain candidates and ideas. This 'journalist', if one can even call him that, should be fired on the spot. I always thought that the purpose of journalistic news was to report on the facts, not to misinform the audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment