Upper-end journos at work: Yesterday, David Leonhardt wrote an unusual column.
For starters, the column was unusual because, at least on line, it featured a version of the data shown below. As we've noted again and again, that's simply never done:
Health care spending per person, 2018We draw those remarkable numbers from the OECD site to which Leonhardt links.
United States: $10,586
United Kingdom: $4070
To see Leonhardt's less relevant version of the data, involving several less relevant smaller nations, you can just click here.
For the record, those data didn't appear in the hard-copy Times at all—but then, such numbers never do. The fact that those numbers appear on line makes Leonhardt's column very unusual.
That's one thing which made Leonhardt's column unusual. Those crazy numbers explain why this country has so much trouble creating a viable health care system.
But those numbers about our gigantic health care spending are almost never shown to us the people. For the record, Leonhardt blows past them very quickly as his column proceeds.
What made Leonhardt's column downright peculiar? In our view, it was this paragraph, near the end of his piece:
LEONHARDT (11/4/19): It’s important to remember that Medicare for All almost certainly is not happening in 2021 even under a President Warren. It faces too much opposition from congressional Democrats—unlike many of her other ambitious plans, on climate, taxes, education and more.Leonhardt spends his entire column evaluating Warren's health care proposal. He then says this:
It's "important to remember" that Warren's proposal isn't going to pass!
Let's be fair! Leonhardt only says that Warren's proposal won't pass in 2021. He goes on to suggest the possibility that the proposal could pass into law at some later date.
But if Warren's proposal won't pass in 2021 because congressional Democrats oppose it, what are the chances, in Leonhardt's estimation, that it ever could pass at all?
We can't have health care in this country because of that unexplained massive over-spending. Despite this fact, the data about that crazy spending almost never appear—and when they appeared yesterday, they only appeared on line, and the author quickly blew past them.
Meanwhile, Leonhardt spent his entire column evaluating Warren's proposal. Only at the end did he tell us that the proposal can't pass.
Does any of this seem to make any sense? Our journalistic elites have been working this way for the past many years.
"Drink and be whole again beyond confusion." We believe Robert Frost said that!