The NYT Unknowingly Mocks Itself
In an editorial today, the New York Times rails against "the ban on abortion coverage" in the House ObamaCare bill. Obviously written by a member of its star-studded pantheon of intellectual giants, the editorial complains:
The restrictions would fall on women eligible to buy coverage on new health insurance exchanges. They are a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a woman’s right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors.
Really, NYT? Really? That's truly the best attack you can come up with on the Stupak Amendment? Here's a couple of things to think about.
(1) To most of America, the notion that because you have a "right," you therefore have a associated right to impose an obligation on others to pay for your exercise of that right is -- how shall 'Puter put it? -- arrogant horseshit. If you want an abortion, pay for it. If 'Puter wants pec implants for Sleestak, he'll pay for them. Refusal of the government to pay for your abortions does not equal denial of your made-up-emanating-from-the-penumbras "right" to have one. Sack up and pay your own freight.
Using the newly-minted NYT logical fallacy, 'Puter has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Therefore, Maureen Dowd must buy 'Puter a brand spanking new Sig Sauer P229 chambered in .40 S&W in order that 'Puter may exercise his right.
Dumbasses.
(2) So the Stupak Amendment is a horror show because it represents "unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors." Are you frikkin' kidding 'Puter? Just what exactly do the genii at the NYT think the whole gosh-darned ObamaCare bill just crammed through the House by Speaker Pelosi is? Does 'Puter have to get the Czar to read the House bill (again) and explain to you (again) the myriad "unjustified intrusions" it requires?
Heck, just off the top of 'Puter's pointy head: criminal and tax penalties for failure to acquire government-approved coverage; death panels; rationing; below market Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors; public option crowding out private coverage; and mandatory conjugal visits with Speaker Pelosi on an as needed basis (her needs, not yours). 'Puter made the last one up, but you catch his drift.
The entire ObamaPelosiHealthCareApalooza bill is one gigagntic, never-ending exercise in government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. Heck, it counts on untoward intrusions in order to keep costs low. And this little rant leaves aside for the moment the bill's damage to the economy.
Double dumbasses.
If this is the best the intelligentsia at the NYT has to offer, it's no wonder the NYT is circling the bowl.
gormogons.com |
