Erica Burnstein of the New York Times is one of many journalists turned advertising copyright that is being used to spin the benefits of the new health care law and save President Obama from fading into American history. Burnstein reported "Millions of Americans visited new online health insurance exchanges as enrollment opened on Tuesday, suggesting a broad national appetite for the affordable coverage that President Obama has promised with his health care law." Burnstein also writes that "Federal officials said more than 2.8 million people had visited HealthCare.gov, the federally run exchange that serves residents of more than 30 states". (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/us/health-insurance-marketplaces-open.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0)
The truth is that unique visitors to Healthcare.gov was only at 829,000 for September 1, 2013 and is easily verified by sites long used by webmasters for analytics. The queen of these sites is Alexa. So why would a the federal government lie about such a mundane issue? I mean adding 2 million to a number is not very good math, especially when that number more than triples the actual number. More importantly, how does the New York Times continue to call itself a newspaper when that implies reporting factual information. Is it not the duty of the journalist and the editor to fact check information before they publish?
The answer is the New York Times is a laptop for the democratic party and by default so are the journalist it employs. The truth is the administration, that is to say all the employees of the executive branch, pushed spin to the New York Times knowing full well it would be reported as is without further questioning as a feel good story meant to bolster the democrats position that part of the Republic Party in party of one house of Congress are anarchists and to save face for the President. I mean imagine reporting that in reality if each person in the nation representing a the universe of possible unique visits, only 0.00258934169279 % of the population bothered to even visit the federal portal t look into the details of this new health care revolution.
Rather than suggesting their is a "broad national appetite" for the new health care law; perhaps Burnstein would have been better served by questioning the plausibility of these claims knowing full well that many large national polls showing that 70% of the American people want no part of this law. If Ms. Burnstein would work on less fawning and more research, she could have further enriched her article by including the fact that the marketing company govdelivery.com has been hired by the federal government to market the wholesome goodness that is Obamacare to the American people. After google search, this company is responsible for driven the most visitors to the new healthcare.gov portal.
I wonder how much money I am paying an advertising company to market to me about the healthcare program I don't want. That makes as much sense as your wife performing a lap dance for you knowing full well she will run off to bed with a "headache".