OT RE: "would place your comment under editorial or opinion rather than under reporting, which is supposed to be factual."
I agree my comment (about the factual information) is an opinion, and I agree the factual information of my post would be better suited for the reporting section, ssuming my post was separated into two parts: fact part & opinion part.
RE: "Your opinion is completely one sided"
As it is presented, it appears to be one-sided. When I've already done my analysis/homework on a topic, I draw a bottom-line conclusion (which is what you were reading). Before I draw conclusions, I tend to ask questions, search out the pros/cons of both sides, and then draw conclusions. I did my research on this back around 1993, so you were reading my bottom-line conclusion.
RE: "is lacking context"
Just curious: did you feel empathy for what happened to the administrative assistance? I'm definitely not saying this is the case, but I'm curious if your preference for a particular party, in any way made you less empathetic to the circumstances?
RE: "of why each side was supporting such legislation and other side was opposing it."
On a somewhat related note, when I looked into this back around 1993, I was quite intrigued with the analysis of the higher "back-end" costs of health care that this country has when compared to one country that has a streamlined and cost-effective solution -- the assertion was back-end costs are lower when certain types of coverage laws are in place (specifically, the ones they were trying to pass at the time, and which did pass).
Amy J |
