3 ms·

Yeah his answer was a couple minutes and they edited it into a 35 second clip highlighting the parts they disagree with. It is quite literally "manipulated medi

Yeah his answer was a couple minutes and they edited it into a 35 second clip highlighting the parts they disagree with. It is quite literally "manipulated media". On the other hand, it wasn't "manipulated" in the sense that his direct answer to the question was changed. I don't think the party shared this with an intent to mislead. She even shared a link to a video of the full response in the thread. I imagine this was shortened because social media attention span is low, but Twitter's label is also fair in some literal sense because they removed important nuance.

OJFord 5y ago
Hm, I think that might be a bit too charitable - for what he actually said, 'yes, in addition to', there's not really a reason for an opposing party to share that? Waste of time? Class divide? I don't know what the angle would be. I think it's clearly supposed to sound like 'no more state healthcare'. In the UK we have the NHS of course, but also people (or particularly companies) can opt to pay for private health insurance from the likes of Bupa. As far as I know the Labour (main left-wing pro-NHS) party has never opposed the option. Discounting national insurance contributions or diverting funds to subsidise it (so as to avoid 'double paying' for the NHS you don't then use) is a relatively popular Conservative idea that they probably would oppose - it's also probably way too complicated to ever make it even as far as a manifesto.
- chrisfosterelli 5y ago
  Ah, interesting! I guess it depends on your familiarity with Canadian politics. I don't think anyone who is following policies would think any of the parties are genuinely suggesting getting rid of public health care. That's just not really on the table. The current system here does not allow private health care for things that are covered by public health care (in most provinces), along with a bunch of other policies that effectively make private medical care less than 1% of critical medical care, and changing that is the controversial bit. Though, we do have private care for things not covered by public health ("extended medical") and private insurance for that. Though, not every voter pays attention or really knows the details of how the system works. A charitable, as you said, interpretation is that someone embedded in policy thought that part was not relevant. A less charitable take is that they are misrepresenting the issue hoping to mislead voters.

OJFord 5y ago

Hm, I think that might be a bit too charitable - for what he actually said, 'yes, in addition to', there's not really a reason for an opposing party to share that? Waste of time? Class divide? I don't know what the angle would be. I think it's clearly supposed to sound like 'no more state healthcare'. In the UK we have the NHS of course, but also people (or particularly companies) can opt to pay for private health insurance from the likes of Bupa. As far as I know the Labour (main left-wing pro-NHS) party has never opposed the option. Discounting national insurance contributions or diverting funds to subsidise it (so as to avoid 'double paying' for the NHS you don't then use) is a relatively popular Conservative idea that they probably would oppose - it's also probably way too complicated to ever make it even as far as a manifesto.

chrisfosterelli 5y ago
Ah, interesting! I guess it depends on your familiarity with Canadian politics. I don't think anyone who is following policies would think any of the parties are genuinely suggesting getting rid of public health care. That's just not really on the table. The current system here does not allow private health care for things that are covered by public health care (in most provinces), along with a bunch of other policies that effectively make private medical care less than 1% of critical medical care, and changing that is the controversial bit. Though, we do have private care for things not covered by public health ("extended medical") and private insurance for that. Though, not every voter pays attention or really knows the details of how the system works. A charitable, as you said, interpretation is that someone embedded in policy thought that part was not relevant. A less charitable take is that they are misrepresenting the issue hoping to mislead voters.