It seems to me that in recent years, the press has become too liberal. What I mean by that is that they have bent over backward to give equal time to people who were horribly misinformed or certifiable nuts.
I like to read all points of view, but only if the premise makes sense. For example, I would expect the press to censor out people who want to argue that the world is square, or it is suspended in space on the backs of 4-elephants, or, well, you get the idea.
In recent years there have been those who have been denying global warming, or criticizing Obamacare on the basis of falsehoods. As the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”
I was glad to read this past weekend that the Los Angeles Times has put an end to this. For example, a “contributor” wrote, “No one (especially those in Congress) can realistically expect the president to budge on Obamacare. This bill is his lifeblood, his legacy. Yet still, is it asking too much for him to not exempt himself, as well as Congress, from his own health law?”
If the above statement sounds OK to you, then you really need to study Obamacare some more. In reality, the law treats the president and the rest of the executive branch the same way it treats anyone else covered by a group health plan that was in place before the Affordable Care Act was enacted. Such plans are exempted from some of the law’s requirements, but they do have to eliminate their caps on lifetime payouts and, by next year, their annual benefit caps. How many of you would really object to that?
For lawmakers and their aides, the act goes an important step further: It requires them to buy insurance through the new state exchanges. In other words, it kicks them out of the federal employee health plan.
Further, the LA Times cracked down on Climate Change deniers. There is simply too much proof that is very observable to the average person. Unless the denier is a noted scientist who has credentials in the field, they should be ignored.
Bravo LA Times!