4 ms·
I find this kind of fact checking quite specious. The person wasn’t given a COVID-19 test (presumably because the testing has been a disaster), but visited the
by claudeganon 7y ago
I find this kind of fact checking quite specious. The person wasn’t given a COVID-19 test (presumably because the testing has been a disaster), but visited the ER, was tested for 22 other respiratory pathogens, found negative, and discharged.
Wouldn’t this be true for anyone who went to the ER under similar circumstances? They would have to clear the same tests, pay the same ER fee, etc before being given the COVID-19 test.
These preliminary cost hurdles to testing aren’t going to be removed simply because the test itself is now required to be covered by health insurance and Medicare/Medicaid. And what about the uninsured?
- cevn 7y agoYes, exactly. The logic is completely flawed. It doesn't matter what the test costs if it wasn't applied. If I thought I had Covid 19 and I went to the hospital I could be facing 3k because the nurses start running random tests..
- thom 7y agoExactly, and I agree that this type of fact check seems to be on the rise, where you carefully rearrange and redefine all the words in the initial statement, and find some narrow way in which it's then not strictly true. Fun game, but not especially enlightening.
- runawaybottle 7y agoIt’s literally the opposite of good investigative journalism. We’ve come full circle from click bait to click bait fact checking.