the article focuses on refuting studies used in the reform process by using other studies. at least some issuescited by the gov't relate to insurance company practices as well as to the writers' projections of proposed changes, but this is not mentioned until the end of the article. there are many studies named which seem to offset those used by the gov't, but without links to them or professional reviews offered it's difficult to know how to evaluate the writers' assessment of any of them..

I found the writing confusing along with what the article was trying to "say," besides pointing out various "hot" spots on the health insurance bills, like "best evidence," "best practice," and HR 3200, which was to allow states to have individual universal health insurance as a causeway to saving HR 676. I thought the writing was confusing and the issues were clouded intentionally. it's various points about the potential health insurance bill.

A staff writer for the New Yorker and a physician at one of the city's premier hospitals team up to question Obama's health care initiative, noting what they claim to be manipulations of fact. Some valid evidence presented without necessarily revisisting data that contradicts their claims against universal health care.

The authors pick and choose between various available studies, ignoring too many. They don't make it clear that they are valuing "responsiveness" over the infant mortality statistics that earn the U.S. low ratings by international raters. The authors imply a lack of support for increasing coverage not consistent with many of the polls of doctors and of the general public. In summary, this story is very misleading and doesn't deserve to be printed.

I think this article is quite unfair. It mistrusts any governmental intervention and any guidelines, instead evoking some elusive "patient autonomy" it pretends is best guaranteed by private insurance companies.

Just created another set of unverified "facts"...more of an opinion piece in the guise of analysis. Would have been much more helpful if they really looked at a broader set of data on the issues. Deciding the whole plan doesn't make sense because they don't like one study hardly qualifies as a fact-based analysis.