On Health Care, Bipartisanship without Compromise?

FiveThirtyEight by Nate Silver | Jul. 18, 2009 (News Analysis)

The big news of the day is the letter sent by a "gang" of six "bipartisan" senators (there was a sale on scare quotes at Target today) urging Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell (and by implication, the White House) that "taking additional time" on health care would be advisable. It's easy to read the letter cynically: "later" in senate speak quite often means "never". That might be particularly so on health care: odds are, frankly, that the Administration will ... Full Story »

Posted by Derek Hawkins - via FiveThirtyEight

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics, Health
Topics: Republicans, Obama Administration, Health Care
Member Tags: political capital, bipartisanship, Senate
Stats Help
# Diggs: 2 (as of 2009-07-17)
# Tweets: 12 (as of 2009-07-17)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Derek Hawkins - Jul 17, 2009 - 6:36 PM PDT
Reviewed by: Fred Gatlin (review), Patricia Blochowiak (review), Randy Morrow (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Related Comments: Health Care (8) | Obama Administration (3)

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Patricia Blochowiak
2.0
 by Patricia Blochowiak - Jul. 19, 2009

The implication that there is anything the least bit liberal in the "more radical restructuring of the health insurance system" proposed by Wyden's Healthy Americans Act is easily debunked ONLY by reading the link.

See Full Review » (18 answers)
Fred Gatlin
1.9
 by Fred Gatlin - Jul. 20, 2009

This is at least part of the reason I am not a fan of blogs. In this case it is one person’s opinion with little to no sources. This is simply not journalism. It lacks quality control that is a bell weather of good journalism.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Randy Morrow
3.3
 by Randy Morrow - Jul. 20, 2009
See Full Review » (9 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

2.4

Poor
from 3 reviews (43% confidence)
Quality
2.4
Facts
3.0
Fairness
2.3
Information
2.0
Insight
2.0
Sourcing
2.3
Style
2.3
Accuracy
2.0
Balance
1.0
Context
2.3
Depth
2.0
Enterprise
2.7
Expertise
2.0
Originality
2.0
Relevance
3.3
Transparency
4.0
Responsibility
3.0
Popularity
2.2
Recommendation
1.5
Credibility
3.0
# Reviews
1.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!