NY Times Editorial Says drug bill is worthy

[kerry-is-my-prez]

wtf is up with THAT? Have they been taken over by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon? Who wrote this editorial & where are they coming from? Anybody know???

I just spoke to one of my elderly campaign workers about this issue and apparently since the NY Times says this bill is "hunky dory" he thinks it must be okay... Another elderly one is up in arms, however. This will be a big deal in Florida - with all of our elderly people here.

Medicarehttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/opinion/19WED1.html?ex=1069822800&en=586c0ea309bf7734&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[el_gato]

1. it's a propaganda rag

waddya expect?

[SahaleArm]

2. So I read the article.

Pretty Lukewarm endorsement.

The provisions that alarm some liberals mostly involve issues beyond the drug benefit. They particularly worry about demonstration projects in up to six metropolitan areas that would stage a competition between Medicare and private plans. The competitions would not go into effect until 2010, assuming that political opposition did not block them. There is clearly a danger that the deck would be stacked in favor of the private plans. But our guess is that the elderly, a potent political force, will be able to head off the worst nightmares imagined by proponents of traditional Medicare.

Sounds like take what you can get now and wait for a Democratic President/House/Senate. I don't agree, it gives Bush too much of a political advantage going into the election.

Our own choice would be to rescind the Bush administration's reckless tax cuts for the wealthy to pay for drug coverage of benefit to all. But any lawmakers who voted for the tax cuts cannot in good conscience support the drug bill unless they are ready to stand up and explain what should happen when the train wrecks occur.

[gratuitous]

3. Holy smokes, read that last paragraph again

Is there anyone currently on the Times editorial staff who got past third grade??? "Lawmakers . . . <should be> ready to stand up and explain what should happen when the train wrecks occur."

First of all, every last one of them will have long since retired when the "train wreck" happens. And who is going to hold them accountable? The Times? Don't make me laugh. Lil George killed thousands and thousands in Iraq, and his rationale for doing so shifts every couple of weeks; but in a life-and-death matter like that, when was the first, last or any time in between that the Times took him seriously to task about it?

I hate thinking they're that stupid; which leaves me the unpleasant alternative that they think I'm that stupid.