Last summer, there was an editorial published in Investors Business Daily that was critical of health care reform because: “People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”
Of course, that’s a preposterous statement, because Steven Hawking WAS born in the U.K.
The original article is here (they removed the above statement, although at least they did replace it was an update admitting their mistake).
You can see more details about the article before they corrected it here:
What I want to know – can anyone think of why the author made that assertion? Was he actually trying to say something else that was less obviously false (like maybe the NHS was created or modified after Steven Hawking was born, and the author is asserting Hawking wouldn’t have been alive under the new system?)
Is there any possible way that statement could be interpreted that wasn’t a completely idiotic? Is there any possible alternative interpretation that simply didn’t come out?