How long have you waited for a doctor’s appointment? 6%

By Natalie Yahr4% Wisconsin Watch12%

7/15/2026, 12:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Framing Effect, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 9.7% saturation with 34 hits. Analysis detected 199 faulty-reasoning hits from 351 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.1% and a BS Rank of 6% (20,624 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.20% of the article peer group.

In early May, as I sat waiting for a connecting flight at O’Hare, I decided to finally do something that had been on my list for far too long: schedule a checkup. 
It had been years since I’d seen a primary care doctor. 
I had a baby the year before, and with all the pregnancy appointments, I felt like I was getting enough checkups. 
But when I called my clinic, I learned that I’d been away long enough to be considered a new patient, and they didn’t have space for me. 
No problem, I thought. 
I looked up other primary care providers on my insurance company’s website and chose one more or less at random. 
I called to schedule an appointment. 
The person who answered the phone warned me that the doctor was booking “quite far out.” 
I wasn’t shocked: I’ve heard that a shortage of primary care doctors is leading to long wait times. 
I waited to hear just how long it would be. 
I don’t recall if the next available appointment was in August or October. 
I do recall that it was in 2027, more than a year away. 
“Let’s try someone else,” I said. 
I scheduled an appointment with another doctor for August 2026, about three months out. 
What about you? 
How long have you had to wait to see a doctor recently, and how does that wait compare with years past? 
As a pathways to success reporter, I report on how workers get trained for the jobs Wisconsin needs most. 
I’m interested in the steps Wisconsin is taking to help more people become primary care providers, and whether those efforts are working. 
Drop me a note at nyahr@wisconsinwatch.org or call or text me at ‪608-620-5610‬. 
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. 
Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup. 
How long have you waited for a doctor’s appointment? 
is a post from Wisconsin Watch , a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. 
Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.0%Natalie Yahr: 1.9%Wisconsin Watch: 2.1%Confirmation Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 1.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Natalie Yahr: 1.8%Wisconsin Watch: 2.2%Availability Heuristic5.1%This article: 5.7%Natalie Yahr: 1.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.7%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Natalie Yahr: 1.7%Wisconsin Watch: 3.8%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 1.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%Natalie Yahr: 2.0%Wisconsin Watch: 2.5%Optimism Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 2.3%Wisconsin Watch: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 4.6%Wisconsin Watch: 5.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 1.3%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Natalie Yahr: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 1.6%Halo Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Natalie Yahr: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Recency Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 2.4%Wisconsin Watch: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 1.9%Wisconsin Watch: 2.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 3.7%Wisconsin Watch: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 4.1%Wisconsin Watch: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.1%Natalie Yahr: 4.0%Wisconsin Watch: 2.8%Anecdotal5.1%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.8%Wisconsin Watch: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Natalie Yahr: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 2.1%Wisconsin Watch: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 1.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 0.8%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie Yahr: 1.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Natalie Yahr: 1.9%Wisconsin Watch: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.7%

351 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker13%attributed speech307writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWisconsin Watch • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWisconsin Watch • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWisconsin Watch • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWisconsin Watch • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Wisconsin Watch

48%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words100% of attributed speech52% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +43.5 ptsWriter: 4.2%Wisconsin Watch: 47.7%47.7%Unattributed Quote-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.