Not much context I can give. Just read this. You’ll be glad you did. From TPM Reader SB …
Would it interest you to hear about “Obamacare” from the perspective of a provider?
I’ve been a private practice psychologist for over twenty years with multiple institutional affiliations. When the Affordable Care Act passed I made the decision to turn my private practice into public practice by signing up to become a provider on the multiple panels that arose under the umbrella of the Affordable Care Act. Many senior people eschew such plans. The pay is anywhere from 33% to 50% less. The endless paperwork can snag one’s time. The clinician loses some control over treatment options.
Virginia GOP succeeds in denying Medicaid benefits to 375,000 people.
TPM Reader MW isn’t the only reader who questions whether it’s appropriate for photographs or videos of domestic violence to be published by news organizations. First, MW, followed by my thoughts …
I’m fully informed and in agreement on that publishing must always favor transparency. More the better, trust the public, sunshine disinfectant, when in doubt print it, etc.
But is there a bar that applies to images of direct ‘domestic’ abuse? If not, then what was the point of the eruption of outrage (some manufactured, I’m sure) over the JLaw (and others not) leaks?
Are you hanging on every poll out the big senate races this year? Or maybe there’s a big governor’s race in your state? We’ve just released a totally new version of PollTracker Mobile, the only mobile app that notifies you, right on your smartphone, the moment a new poll is released in any race your following. And best of all, it’s free. Click here to download it for iPhone. This year we’ve also released a version for Android. If you’re an Android user, click here.
We’re on the cusp of a vote that may signal the end of the United Kingdom. And somehow it’s treated as just another news story. And that just strikes me as strange.
I’ve defended what is often al Jazeera’s great coverage of a number of international stories – at least in English. But stuff like this and some other recent decisions makes me wonder. The network quietly pulled a story suggesting that the beheadings of US reporters Foley and Sotloff had actually been faked, perhaps by Foley himself to create a pretext for Western intervention. Even retraction emphasized that the step was taken out of “respect to families of the victims.”
Though McDonnell wiped his tears and said his “trust remains in the Lord” as he left the courthouse after his guilty verdict on 11 counts of corruption, his trust will likely also remain in the legal appeals process and his lawyer said as much. Catherine Thompson looks at the grounds on which the McDonnells are likely to appeal. Mainly, they seem to center on what constitutes an “official act” and how the jurors were asked to interpret that question.
Is narcissism the independent candidate’s major comparative advantage?
From TPM Reader EF …
Josh, I think you’re right that money was the main arbiter in deciding who would drop out of the Kansas Senate race, but I suspect that another factor was nearly as important, maybe even more important. Independent candidates tend to be more narcissistic than major party candidates.
After publishing a book review that disdained treating African American slaves as “victims,” The Economist “apologises” and concedes that “slavery was an evil system.”
Postscript: I’m thinking there’s one person especially who’s really happy this morning that The Economist still doesn’t use bylines. –jm
The Economist notes that we can’t take the testimonials of slaves who say slavery sucked at face value. Because, did they really speak for all slaves?