Please give your input on my LTTE re: health care!

[bbernardini]

My letter is in response to this one:

http://www.dailylocal.com/articles/2009/08/10/opinion/srv0000006054778.txt

Mine is a bit longer than his by word count, so I'm hoping to find a few places to tighten it up a bit. Thoughts? Here's what I've got:

I’m not sure what saddens me more: the fact that the DLN elected to publish a letter by John de Carville that contained more than 41% plagiarized content from another publication, or the flat-out misinformation contained in that letter.

His laundry list of supposed problems with the health care bill is excerpted from a longer list that has been thoroughly debunked. The original list cherry-picks lines from the bill, and takes them out of context, misrepresents their actual meaning, or simply lies about them. There is not enough space to address each of his points, but here are a few of the more “egregious examples” of Mr. de Carville’s misleading statements:

His claim that “government will define how doctors manage their time” is not only wrong, it is a complete fabrication. The section of the bill de Carville refers to actually makes sure that the government is paying an acceptable rate for services, rather than under-funding more expensive procedures.

The claim that the government will have access to your bank accounts is completely false. Mr. de Carville is referring to language in the bill which addresses electronic transfers of money within the government. It does not grant the government access to your bank account.

Of course, there is the obligatory reference to the boogey-man of “rationed care”. Unfortunately, the section of the bill de Carville cites has absolutely nothing to do with the rationing of health care. In actuality, it covers limits on what a person or family might have to pay out of pocket, and does not discuss the rationing of services at all.

If John de Carville is so concerned about facts, he would do well to learn them instead of spreading half-truths and outright lies.

[brooklynite]

1. Depending on the editorial policy of the publication...

...they may be uncomfortable publishing something with clear charges of "lying"; you might want to be a little more subtle in your charges.

Also, criticizing the publication for publishing the first letter may lower the chances that they'll publish yours.

[bbernardini]

2. Yeah, I was thinking about that, re: plagiarism.

Trying to figure out how to get the idea across without bringing the paper into it.

[rurallib]

3. As the other replies noted, I would go with something a bit more generic

and sounding more high-minded. EG:


I have been extremely disconcerted by the laundry list of misinformation and outright distortions that the anti-health care advocates are passing as facts in newscasts, blogs and LTTEs across America. Most of these points are in general distribution and have seemingly been passed out by a central source they vary so little in wording or content.
As examples let us examine a couple of points. Will the government manage a doctor's time as often claimed? No. In no current version of a health care bill is that stated or implied. Nor is there any reference or implications that personal bank accounts will be accessed by government agencies. I would challenge anyone to show specific explicit passages to back up such statements.
I would also challenge our news media, including the DLN, to take on a role that news media in the past had filled - that of fact checker and reporter. Health care is a serious and far reaching issue. To allow misrepresentations and fabrications to be published without comment seems unethical.

[izquierdista]

4. Depersonalize it

If it is 41% plagiarized content, then Mr. deCarville should only be blamed for being a parrot. Cite the thoroughly debunked list and trace it back to the health insurance industry (if that is who spawned it). Don't get into an argument with a shill, go straight to the source.