It wasn’t exactly front page news—it’s the lead story in the Money and Policy section—but nevertheless, the Times ran it. The headline is “Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen With Health Law.”
Here’s how the story starts: “RIVERSIDE, Calif. — In the Inland Empire, an economically depressed region in Southern California, President Obama’s health care law is expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 300,000 people by 2014. But coverage will not necessarily translate into care: Local health experts doubt there will be enough doctors to meet the area’s needs. There are not enough now.”
There you have it—yet another example of tomorrow’s news today on the show. I’ve been stressing for months that there is a difference between health CARE and health COVERAGE. As my good friend Jim pointed out a week or so ago (and he was only halfway kidding), if the nation had been fully laboring under ObamaCare, I’d still be waiting on a doctor. But by golly, I’d be covered!
Cognitive dissonance plagues me as I urge you to read the whole New York Times story—and, for once, take it seriously.