Latest Attack On A Free Press: Reporter Arrested For Asking Questions To Trump Administration Officials
from the um-what? dept
Another day, another attack on a free press. The latest: a long-time reporter, Daniel Heyman, of the Public News Service in West Virginia was arrested for asking questions of Trump administration officials. Heyman yelled some questions to Health & Human Services Director Tom Price along with White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway:
Daniel Ralph Heyman, 54, with the Public News Service of West Virginia, was freed on $5,000 bond Tuesday night on a charge of "willful disruption of government processes," according to a criminal complaint.
“The above defendant was aggressively breaching the secret service agents to the point where the agents were forced to remove him a couple of times from the area walking up the hallway in the main building of the Capitol,” the complaint states. It adds Heyman caused a disturbance by “yelling questions at Ms. Conway and Secretary Price.”
Whether you like it or not, the press is kind of supposed to ask questions of elected officials. That's their job. And, sure, some will argue that the complaint says that he was "aggressively breaching the secret service agents," but others on the scene indicated nothing beyond ordinary questioning happened:
Valerie Woody, who was there as outreach coordinator for the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, said Price's group was moving quickly down a hallway and Heyman was racing after them.
"I saw nothing in his behavior, I heard nothing that indicated any kind of aggressive behavior or anything like that," she told Public News Service. "Just simple, you know, trying to get somebody's attention and ask them a question. It seems to me there was no violation of anyone's space, or physicality, other than the arrest itself."
And, making matters worse, rather than admitting to over-aggressive enforcement, Price is cheering on the arrest:
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price on Wednesday commended police in West Virginia for “doing what they thought was appropriate” in arresting a journalist who shouted questions at him, but added that it wasn’t his call to say whether they took the proper measures.
Price said the reporter confronted him while he was walking down a hallway. “That gentleman was not in a press conference,” he said.
I'm curious if Price (or anyone else, for that matter) could point to where in the First Amendment there's a rule that says the press is only allowed to ask questions "at a press conference." That's not how it works. There's also this:
Asked Wednesday by STAT whether he thought Heyman should have been arrested, Price said: “That’s not my decision to make.”
Well, that's only partially true. Obviously, the local law enforcement gets to make that decision, but there's nothing stopping a competent public official from telling law enforcement to knock it off and to answer a few basic questions from a reporter.
In an era where we're hearing more and more about both attacks on a free press, as well as the need for a stronger press, these kinds of shenanigans should not be allowed. In the past, when we've covered police arresting reporters, the courts have come out repeatedly in favor of the reporters (that whole First Amendment thing still matters). But that's of little use in the moment when police are dragging reporters off to jail for shouting questions outside a press conference.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, arrested, asking questions, daniel heyman, free press, free speech, kellyanne conways, press conference, tom price, west virginia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
attack, yes. but why you try to distort it with inserting trump in the title?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you tell us who's special advisor was walking with him?
I find it frightening that your only concern appears to be the use of the word Trump to accurately portray the players involved instead of concern that a member of the press who no one else except the public offical seems to think was being over the top.
But by all means hit reply and scream but her emails to try and distract from the idea that the Trump Administration lies to and about the press when it suits them, and that this time it has an arrest that most likely was bogus to keep a politician from being upset because someone asked him a question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't let Trump's constant predecessor blaming fool you. Trump was elected and sworn into the highest office of the land, so the Whitehouse Senior Advisors and HHS Directors are members of the Trump Administration.
This is how Republicans do Government, baby!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Fake News = Not Approved propaganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm still waiting for someone to actually give a hard definition of 'fake news' that doesn't boil down to 'Something I don't like'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't understand the ongoing confusion really. The term 'fake news' first appeared to accurately describe stories being posted that were completely fabricated with little to no basis in truth. Not partisan opinion pieces but events that simply didn't occur. Low-intellect morons are now using it to disparage stories they don't agree with or want to discredit for their own purposes, but they are wrong and the definition hasn't changed. Words still mean things. I hope...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a good job that the FCC did not think of this law the other nigh, as John Oliver certainly disrupted they process of pretending to listen to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its nice we have free speech zones & laws they can use to silence critics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> silence critics.
We actually don't have those. Free speech zones were implemented under the Clinton/Gore administration, specifically at the DNC in Los Angeles, and were found unconstitutional by the court. Haven't been used since.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Haven't been used since - except on college campuses where it's actually the supposed 'progressives'-- the leftists-- who insist on trying to relegate free speech to specific zones and areas on campus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your partisan bias is obvious and does you no credit. The issue at hand isn't specific to R or D or "left" or "right", whatever you think those words mean.
But do go on attacking people you don't know. Enjoy your Two Minutes' Hate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> widespread practice during the Bush Jr.
Only to the extend that the court challenges filed during the waning years of the Clinton term hadn't been fully adjudicated at that point. Once the courts ruled that free speech zones are unconstitutional, they were done away with.
> Your partisan bias is obvious and does you no credit.
As if it's any greater than the rest of the folks here. The only difference is that you agree with the bias of the majority of the commenters here. I sure don't see you calling them out for it the way you did me.
> Enjoy your Two Minutes' Hate.
Now whose bias is showing?
Having a differing political viewpoint or disagreeing with someone's political position is not 'hate'. I said nothing hateful in my post. I merely took a political/philosophical position with which you disagree.
I'm sorry if I triggered you, but labeling everything you don't like and don't want to hear as 'hate' makes your bias obvious and does you no credit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake News engaging in Criminal Journalism
Can't certain questions rise to the level of a crime, "willful disrupting of government processes", or "felony embarrassment of a politician"?
What about a capital offense such as exposing government corruption by engaging in criminal activity known as "investigative journalism"?
Or an act of treason such as when a journalist exposes government official traitors engaging in common ordinary capitalism to sell out our country to foreign interests?
In a real dictatorship, journalists get approval from the government before publishing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake News engaging in Criminal Journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I repeatedly yelled (USING ALL CAPS) in this forum the same statement over and over a dozen times I too would get banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, every reporter should sheepishly retreat the moment an immediate answer is not forthcoming and never ask again. That's how you get answers from reluctant subjects /s
I mean, seriously, you accept the government openly lying to you and it's the press's fault if they don't accept silence as an explanation?
"If I repeatedly yelled (USING ALL CAPS) in this forum the same statement over and over a dozen times I too would get banned."
No, you wouldn't. You'd have your comments reported by the community and future posts held for moderation. But you wouldn't get banned. Nor would the case you decided to post in make any difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's clickbait
If I write "What time is it?" on my hand then punch you with it and get arrested, Mike's headline would read "Man Arrested for Asking the Time".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's clickbait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it's clickbait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it's clickbait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait
So, you're saying that the only valid headline is the one that parrots the official government line. All other reporting should be rejected, even if they're equally (or even more) accurate. Got it.
Sorry, but when the Chinese held Ai Weiwei for "economic crimes", that doesn't mean that the reporters who noted he was being held for his activism were writing clickbait. (for example)
"If this site is mostly advertising supported"
It's not, and there's articles where it's explained why they don't mind people using ad blockers here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait
> So, you're saying that the only valid headline is the one that parrots the official government line.
The only valid headline is one that is objectively accurate. Trying to introduce emotion is where clickbait starts (and this headline is undoubtedly clickbait).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait
Perhaps you would be more happy writing your own blog ... except I doubt many would read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait
I don't think anybody here is afraid of a little constructive criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait
So my constructive criticism for you is that your post was a bit reactionary and clickbaitey itself, under your terms, and maybe you should consider the replies to you as constructive criticism as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait
So what's the problem again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Could that also simply be a form of protest?
In the distant future, say, a few days or a week from now, how will historians judge this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The question he's asking is, should this be illegal? Is it? Under current rights to both free speech and the right of press and public access to government, it doesn't seem like it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's for the courts to decide.
> Should it be?
Should willful disruption of government processes be illegal? Yes. Should asking a question be illegal? No. And it isn't.
> Is this right?
If it went down as Mr. Price says it did, then no, of course it isn't. If it went down as the police report says, then perhaps it is. I guess it depends if he was disrupting government processes or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: getting banned
Would you get arrested however?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good lord that's obscene.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
The reporter was arrested for REPEATEDLY trying to get through the line of Secret Service agents who were on protection detail.
He was warned twice and finally arrested for continuing.
They did EXACTLY what they should have. Don't try to hide his bad behavior behind some journalistic shield.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
"I saw nothing in his behavior, I heard nothing that indicated any kind of aggressive behavior or anything like that," she told Public News Service. "Just simple, you know, trying to get somebody's attention and ask them a question. It seems to me there was no violation of anyone's space, or physicality, other than the arrest itself."
Of course you know more than someone who was there, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
According to other eyewitnesses, he did raise his voice in an attempt to make himself heard and get an answer to his questions, but he neither pushed nor assaulted anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
Kinda like the witnesses for some murders that caused riots were on the other side of that war, and their testimony turned out to be false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
A war between the government and a free press? I know partisanship is getting ridiculous, but they've managed to convince you that the fourth estate is an enemy combatant now?
Interesting that you assume that people who were actually there cannot be believed, so you have to believe the testimony of people who weren't...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
Well, trump is the duly elected dictator; trump must therefore always be considered right; and trump says the press is the enemy (except for Bannon and his friends). What's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
I admit that there are issues with witness biases but you do realize that you are also unable to believe what the arresting officer(s) say because they are on the side of the official who did not want to be bothered by a reporter?
I would love a video but until a video, several because one will never be adequate, appears that shows what happened I would rather side with several witnesses who were only witnesses and not directly involved over what either of the two parties say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
Also, how is asking a question similar to a riot? I don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
"I wouldn't believe no matter what the evidence!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
"I'm assuming they're on the media side of this war." - If you believe this you have no idea how the media works; they're in massive competition with each other. And this "war" you speak of is as fake as hell.
"For some reason, I find it hard to believe any eyewitnesses" - this makes you a bit douchey. For some reason, I find it hard to give your comment any credence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
I envision you with fingers in ears singing "Lalala - I can't hear you"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
That's a bit long-winded for a bingo card, but it's a regular tactic for idiots who think of politics as a team sport.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
---- FALSE NARRATIVE
this incident with Daniel Heyman is trivial and no threat to general press freedom.
However, Heyman should not have been arrested; it's typical police over-reaction, evident all over the nation.
The "willful disruption of governmental processes" law is obviously stupid and unconstitutionally vague. No ordinary American ever heard of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ---- FALSE NARRATIVE
Says you. What makes you an expert on this topic and why should I believe you?
" No ordinary American ever heard of it."
Or maybe they just made that up
Or maybe that is one of those secret laws
But yeah - nothing to worry about, move along, nothing to see here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ---- FALSE NARRATIVE
I mean, yeah, alone it would be trivial. This isn't a lone act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What behavior by a reporter is not allowed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What behavior by a reporter is not allowed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What behavior by a politician is allowed?
Especially in a democracy that is supposed to be answerable to the people those politicians are openly betraying? They don't even try to hide it any more. Just as an example, just an example, they are happy to destroy our health care by passing a highly controversial bill that they won't even bother to read or understand, without letting the other party even see it first. Does that sound like the behavior of crooks trying to hide something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
War On News
When a government labels the news media as the enemy of the people; tries to discredit long time respectable media as "fake news" and "failing"; conducts a war like campaign against the media; and then begins to escalate that to physical violence . . .
. . . that government needs to be changed immediately if not sooner!
It is not just this minor incident. It is the entire pattern of how the administration regards the news media. The freedom of the press is something to be Trumpled under foot.
Assuming democracy survives, which is by no means guaranteed, this will get worse before it gets better. Optimists are full of it and assume everything can be fixed. Pessimists are usually right. When people move from freedom to dictatorship they wonder what went wrong and how it could have happened. We're seeing it before our eyes. Right here on TD. For years now. Creeping by inches. But moving inexorably. No matter which party is in power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: War On News
I'd call it the new level of transparency in government.
See? Now you can only ask questions in a "press conference". So when will there be a press conference? "We'll get back to you on that."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: War On News
"Sorry, you can't ask that. This isn't a press conference."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: War On News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heckling != Asking Questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heckling != Asking Questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heckling != Asking Questions
Heckling != Asking Questions
Let me add Asking questions I don't want to hear != Heckling
He's a public fucking servant. If he doesn't want to answer to the public, then he could just as easily find another line of work, instead of whining like a little bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A press conference. That's where Press Secretary Sean Spicer gets to pick and choose which reporters may ask a question. Often to get soft-ball questions from far-right sites with little or no credibility.
Which is why media scrums are a standard part of reporting on government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess we're all so wrapped up in this shit that it doesn't matter. Good work everyone, we're doing the administrations job for them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Long answer, go read the news yourself and then let us all know what you think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Press' responsibility?
Whether you like it or not, breaching security multiple times to an area he is not authorized to is against the law. How would you like it, sir, if he had broken into your private residence to berate you with questions?
Yeah, I didn't think so....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Press' responsibility?
Nonsense. Media scrums are a standard part of reporting on government. It was a public building, not a private residence. Otherwise:
"How would you like it, sir," if government officials only answered to the public at press conferences where they could personally pick who got to ask a question, favoring those with little or no credibility who will ask softball questions?
Granted, it seems you'd like exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Press' responsibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Press' responsibility?
I'm a bit ignorant of this particular term ... perhaps you could enlighten me.
Certainly, shouting is not a breach of security. Did he touch anyone? Duck 'n dodge? Throw something?
What exactly constitutes this "breach" anyway. My guess is that it is a bullshit charge that will be dropped as soon as he gets council.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Press' responsibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> agents," but others on the scene indicated nothing beyond
> ordinary questioning happened:
> Valerie Woody, who was there as outreach coordinator for
> the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, said Price's
> group was moving quickly down a hallway and Heyman was
> racing after them.
But was the hallway closed to public and press? If the USSS closed down that area as part of the secure perimeter and this guy decided to ignore it, then he breached security, which is a violation of 18 USC 1752.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> be closed to public and press.
That's pretty routine. Backstage areas, ingress and egress routes, are all kept clear and sterile in case of the need for evacuation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Plus, if an evacuation ingress and egress route is for emergency use only, then why is the elected official using it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For all definitions of 'desperation' equal to standard operating procedure, sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> in a hallway, not an emergency exit doorway or staircase.
And what leads to emergency exits and stairs?
Yep, hallways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> emergency use only, then why is the elected official
> using it?
The Secret Service keeps ingress and egress routes clear in case *they* have an emergency and need to quickly and safely evacuate the protectee. The emergency routes are set up *for* the protectee.
(And neither of the protectees in this case were elected officials, so I don't even know why you brought that up.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Broader Issue
1. Increasingly, our nation as a society, seems to comfortably believe that to speak or be heard can only be done in narrow ways and with narrow timing if at all.
2. We have large numbers of people who are mostly not heard and whose concerns are largely unrepresented. The responsibilities of both politicians and media are supposed to fall heavily in this area.
3. Much of our popular culture effectively, when not willfully, "celebrates" the absence of invisible people.
4. Membership in the invisible people club is accelerating, diversifying and pressuring in different "domains".
5. Notice that some of the reaction to this incident is similar to popular attitudes on protests. We suppress the opportunities to speak, inquire and be heard. We create frustration and desperation. Then try to suppress and vilify the natural and inevitable responses.
6. Problems like this are part of the spectrum of a single type of issue that I will refrain from labeling. Many of us "arbitrarily" object only at certain levels*. Due, in part, to this nation's "original sin" (which still has never been addressed) and that other manifestations of the issue are "useful". The Media helped grow the invisible class and are now being pressured to join it.
OA
*Whenever there is talk of another cop shooting of an unarmed black male there are plenty on the INTERNET who aggressively insist that being black is completely unimportant. Abuse against blacks by police is a very old issue. It was GUARANTEED to eventually spread outside of vulnerable minorities (for reasons that are outside the scope of this comment). ONLY after it spread did this "invisible issue" become outrageous. This spread also came with foolish and disingenuous comments like: "it's about class not race". Too many, in a wide variety of scenarios, think they can "solve" problems without correctly identifying them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Broader Issue
aka: conservative/GOP/tea_party/freedom_caucus/law&order
- the rest of us do not think that at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know...
Was the reporter going into an area that was supposed to be secure? It may be "just a hallway", but if it's supposed to be a secure area, and this reporter keeps barging into it... then I could see both versions being kind of true, but the arrest as still being justified.
But as I said, I don't know. Did anybody by any chance grab some video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't know...
I've also seen the press thinking that they have the God-given right to be incredibly rude, intrusive, and even rule-breaking in pursuit of any faint chance that they might be able to get a story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't know...
Given there was another eye-witness who wasn't arrested, I would guess that the area wasn't 'secure' and was open for others to use, so that at least would be out as far as justifications for the arrest.
The statement made by that eyewitness would also seem to contradict the 'aggressive' narrative that the arrest was based on, though it's possible that the SS had a different idea as to what constituted 'too close' that differed from the eyewitness' and the arrested reporter's.
The fact that 'yelling questions' was categorized as 'causing a disturbance' is all sorts of questionable on it's own, and the fact that it was included in the complaint does not bode well for the rest of the thing, especially given the other two points above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like the real issue here is whether Mr Heymen's pursuit of asking his questions crossed the line of proper behavior and into the area of becoming a public disturbance. Sounds like some law enforcement thought so.
Hopefully, there is some video of the incident prior to the arrest that can be viewed to see if Mr Heyman's actions in any way were a public disturbance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't see "asking loud questions" in there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't have a socialized healthcare system if you have no incentives for people to join while they're healthy...But this so-called journalist claims that we should continue to allow people to game the system by only paying for health insurance once they're sick or hurt without any penalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, your complaint is completely unrelated to the issue at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He's an aggressive activist, not a journalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pfft False Flag Journalism
Sorry but the 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to act like an aggressive prick to anyone you please most especially if it was your intention to get your self arrested.
Listen, this loon is talking about a tiny fraction of the population and is over-inflating all of this in some white night effort to draw it attention as if it's some terrible injustice - which it's not. This idiot doesn't understand that under the current conditions people end up paying less by going uninsured followed by joining the moment they get sick or hurt which is hurting everyone. "The purpose of these provisions isn’t to punish people who are sick, but to create an incentive for people to buy insurance while they are healthy."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]