Why Politics Is Not Serious
Forgive the inflammatory rhetoric but it is true that there is a PENALTY for seniors who CHOOSE to sign up late for the new Medicare drug handout. This PENALTY is so onerous that it inspired Charlie Rangle to say, "I really think its a cruel thing to penalize people for what has been admittedly a very complex procedure in order to get drugs. To put a penalty for the rest of their lives on our oldest citizens, I think, is just an improper and wrong thng to do." The PENALTY is...I hope your sitting down...$2.31 per month. This is not a serious issue and Charles Rangle is not a serious person.
The article allows the idea that this is a very confusing program. But for some reason it fails to question whether it is needed at all. Somehow, prior to the passage of this boondogle, seniors managed to balance drug costs and other costs. I never witnessed dog food isles clogged with grey hairs at my super market. Or any supermarket. Because seniors were never choosing between food and medicine and gobbling down Alpo to compensate for shortfalls. That was an urban myth, but one uncritically reported by the media. Just as the necessity for this "solution" is being uncritically reported. I've been enlightened by the great minds of Hydrablog time and time again that there is no media bias. And it still amuses me.
Posts
1 comment:
I'm not exaclty sure why you're upset with this article. Reading it, it looks like a positive article about the Medicare Drug Benefit. Sure some want to get rid of the peanalty, but by the end, it seems like most people are starting to understand and compliment the program (as reported, I don't know what the facts are). Since this benefit plan was one of the big domestic things Bush did, it seems odd that a biased media that hates Bush would do such a thing. Yes, some random democrat used words like "cruel" and "peanalize" but he said them, not the reporter, and this very aticle told of the $2.31 monthly peanalty (that will rise), and placed that info before Rangle's quote, thus, as you picked up on, evicerating his rhetoric. Besides, I thought you were comfortable with political speak, expect them to exaggerate, lie, etc (or do you reserve these rights for politicians you "like"?). If anything, this article goes against your "the media hates Bush" mantra.
As far as not reporting the "whole" story...well it doesn't belong in this article. Surely you get that every article can't be a 10 page expose on the issue. This article is about getting rid of the penalty, an investigative session on the merits of a bill that already passed would be completely out of place. If this was talk radio, or an editorial, sure, go off on a tangent, but this is just an AP post aqbout a specific issue. If anything, its an anomolay. Short, concise, and pro Bush.
If your complaint is that "the Media" never does real investigation on stories, and just reports the hype, we agree. I remember the way the Regan admin created the story of the "Welfare Queen" and the media ran with it, even though it was completely made-up (which the Reganites who created this myth have admitted). Here a conservative President was massively hepled in an election cycle by a biased media that hates the right. Same with "crack babies," the idea that one wiff of crack and your addicted, teen super-criminals, and lots and lots of other cases.
Again, when it comes to "the media" you see error and see hatred, I see error and see error.
Post a Comment