Arrogant NY Times Editorial Board defends Obama’s dishonesty: Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping

by Samuel Gonzalez | November 3, 2013 9:44 pm

The so-called Leftist paper of record, the New York Times [1]went into full “circle the wagons” mode to protect their beloved President Obama and explain away one the biggest cases of presidential dishonesty in U.S. history.: 

The following are excerpts:

[2]When referring to the fact President Obama clearly lied to millions when he said, “If you like your insurance, you can keep it”: :  The Times said “Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that.”:  Yeah, I guess Obama misspoke about 300 times on the campaign trail.: 

In referring to those who are losing their insurance: “So they’ve sent cancellation notices to hundreds of thousands of people who hold these substandard policies.”

Substandard? According to whom?:  These are the policies they liked and wanted to keep.:  It’s not the government place to make that determination.:  This exactly is what’s the problem with this intrusive law that removes people’s choices.:  There’s a word for this.:  It’s called Slavery!

In describing some of the policies the NY Times reverts back to White House talking points: “Indeed, in all the furor, people forget how terrible many of the soon-to-be-abandoned policies were. Some had deductibles as high as $10,000 or $25,000 and required large co-pays after that, and some didn’t cover hospital care.”

If someone could carry a policy like that they obviously could afford it.:  Otherwise I doubt highly this applies to most Americans.:  It’s a Red Herring at best.: 

Here’s another WH talking point The Times parrots:

“This overblown controversy has also obscured the crux of what health care reform is trying to do, which is to guarantee that everyone can buy insurance without being turned away or charged exorbitant rates for pre-existing conditions and that everyone can receive benefits that really protect them against financial or medical disaster, not illusory benefits that prove inadequate when a crisis strikes.”

This is the kind of journalism The Times exhibited during the ObamaCare debate.:  That is to say it was no journalism at all as far as examining the 2,700 leviathan of a law.:  I doubt very much not as single member of the Times editorial board read it.:  Singing the law’s praises is not objective journalism.:  It’s called cheerleading.:  Truth be told, The Times was a co-conspirator to Obama’s deception for failing to serve the people instead of slavishly serving Obama

Originally published at The Last Tradition:  [3]