WSJ Misinformation

Since we’re talking affordable care, Paul Krugman and Aaron Carroll do a masterful job today separating the misinformation from reality in yesterdays Wall Street Journal editorial on  the prospect that Oregon’s Medicaid system might seek to limit spending on treatments with low effectiveness and/or patients who aren’t going to live much longer in any case. But the WSJ has a slight conflict here, and these two bring it to light:

” On one side, it’s fanatically opposed to Medicaid expansion — that is, it’s eager to make sure that millions have no health coverage at all. On the other side, it claims to be outraged at the notion of setting priorities in spending on those who do manage to qualify for Medicaid. It’s OK for people to die for lack of coverage; it’s an utter horror if taxpayers decline to pay for marginal care.”…

…..“Now, the Journal isn’t really confused on this point. Surely it understands the difference between rationing care and limiting public spending on care. The point, however, is to confuse readers, and make them think that spending controls on Medicaid are the same thing as having bureaucrats pronounce death sentences on the middle class.”

Just like yesterdays topic, folks are deliberately trying to confuse the public. In this case the Wall Street Journal…sad. Read up before falling for the BS simply because it comes from a “respected” journal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *