I very much enjoyed reading this. It was a great example of how the prospects of future change are portrayed in two different ways: one of opposition and one of support, no inbetween. I would say this is newsworthy due to it being important information - which is presented through quotations and study citations - that will likely influence the coming years of public policy, yet I would also label it as having a political agenda because it clearly portrays a supporting democratic perspective. It also highlights the incestuous two-party setup our political system continues to be plagued with. Consistently referring to each party collectively as "The Democrats" or "The Republicans" and inferring that a given individual from either party must or should be able to answer pointed questions directed at the whole party sounds awfully similar to stereotyping and profiling. Ultimately, if this article were to get 100% trustworthy from me, it would require the author's critical analysis of both sides, not just quoting bill proponents like Sanders and Harris and making Republican opponents look like they don't care about "American lives."

This is an article that reports on a political move and all reactions from all sides. Both parties are given a chance to give their opinion on single-payer healthcare and the potential ramifications. The opinions expressed are those of asked for a response, so the only potential bias is not getting enough sides to comment. All sources are primary, reputable, and relevant.

Litmus or not to Litmus? That is the question proposed in this article and repeatedly mentioned by authors Sullivan and Lillis as well as politicians and other media critics. The dilemma mentioned in the headline is how Democrats should stand on the issue of single-payer health care now, as it will affect their running stance in future years... or the potential to not be considered at all. Although this story lacked responses from Republicans on the same topic, the article still provides a seemingly full picture of how other Democrats will respond when asked about single-payer. I did not detect bias from the authors but a potential bias in only reporting one side of party lines.

A nice overview of how and why this important issue is becoming so prominent for upcoming elections. A balanced piece simply discussing why it's hard for democrats to take a side on the issue and how some of them are falling on a particular side.

It's time to see where Democrats stand. Let's see who is willing to stand behind this bill and work for the people's interest and who is worried about their re-election and donor base. Good job Bernie. Make these hypocrites feel the burn.

This article has a heavy political agenda, and more specifically an establishment bias. This article doesn't even consider single-payer as a possible outcome, and acts as if it's a losing policy even though the majority of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, support it. This fact was conveniently left out of the article. Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk does a fantastic critique of this article here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIU6GaO1dyA