Collective Force

Consequences
In the New York Times today Nicholas Kristof uses the story of his Harvard University roommate to criticize Mitt Romney's plan to repeal Obamacare. Kristof's friend voluntarily chose not to buy health insurance and then developed stage 4 cancer. (Our thoughts and prayers go out to him. We know something about cancer.) The friend admits he knew the risks and should have protected himself by having insurance but chose not to nonetheless. Kristof argues that under Obamacare his friend would have been forced to buy insurance and therefore his prospects for survival would be better today than they are. This must be the latest Liberal riff on Mitt Romney killed/wants to kill citizens.

So Kristof apparently believes that society now needs to protect Harvard-educated professionals from the consequences of their own poor decisions. The Liberal argument for Obamacare has until now focused on the uninsured poor. Now it apparently is going to shift to uninsured 1%ers. 

Some have suggested that the healthcare system absorbs the cost of the friend's treatment notwithstanding his lack of insurance (i.e. you and I pay rather than the insurance company) and, therefore, it is preferable to mandate the purchase of insurance. Well another way to handle it is to say to this individual: 'You made an incredibly reckless decision. It is not fair for society to bail you out. If we did it for you, we would have to do it for everyone. We can give you medicine to ease your suffering, but we cannot offer you access to expensive surgery, drugs and experimental treatments.' Harsh? Yes, but the word would get out.

Cry, Cry, Cry
"But wait," they cry, "unemployment is down to 7.8%!"

Put aside your suspicion and believe the number.

That's it? That's the re-election campaign? Unemployment down to 7.8%?
(Hugh Hewitt, Townhall.com, 10/13/2012)

Obama and team have seized on the dual tracks of 'Romney is a liar/Romney isn't being specific.' Obama has given us: 'we can't go back to the policies of (more than) four years ago, even though my policies have not really made things better.'

Playdown
Amid concerns that some in the mainstream media are downplaying the Libya terror attack, The New York Times' public editor scolded The Grey Lady this week for burying its coverage of the first congressional hearing on the deadly assault. 

The pointed rebuke from Margaret Sullivan, whose job is to represent the interests of Times readers, said the hearing story "belonged on The Times's front page." 

Instead, it was on A3 -- while other major papers like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post put it on the cover Thursday. (Foxnews.com, 10/12/2012)

The reference we cited in yesterday's post. The explanation of Times' editors as to why they did not lead with the story? The issue was being "politicized" by Republicans. Maybe they would rather give us another Big Bird story!