I believe they're extremely prone to exaggerate any bad parts, and there was room for a lot of weaseling in their descriptions. Especially considering that the bill isn't finished yet.
I'm still waiting to see the death panels. Since they'd never lie, of course.
I didn't criticize Heritage for being conservative. I criticized Heritage for being Republican, regardless of principle or policy.
EDIT: To clarify, it's entirely possible that the provisions in the bill still being written are just as bad as the WSJ says. It's also possible that they're significantly less bad. Regardless of which they are, the WSJ would have written this exact article. Does that make my complaint regarding their worth more clear?
I'm still waiting to see the death panels. Since they'd never lie, of course.
I didn't criticize Heritage for being conservative. I criticized Heritage for being Republican, regardless of principle or policy.
EDIT: To clarify, it's entirely possible that the provisions in the bill still being written are just as bad as the WSJ says. It's also possible that they're significantly less bad. Regardless of which they are, the WSJ would have written this exact article. Does that make my complaint regarding their worth more clear?