It takes pure gall for the NYTimes to write that "Government should rule with the consent of the governed"....
one day after Obama ignored the will of the people and shoved his toxic version of health care reform down the throats of an unwilling public. (polls consistently showed the public solidly opposed to ObamaCare.)
The Times was thrilled that ObamaCare was crammed down the caw of America. So...What were they referring to in their statement above then?? That felons be given the right to vote, a right that states should not be able to restrict. Bizarrely, the Times also wants to count prisoners currently in detention as residing in their prior home address.

So if you rape and kill a woman, you may be sent to the pokey upstate or in another state, but the NYTimes wants to count you as still being cosy at home --for political reasons, as well as assuring that men who rape and kill women are able to get out of jail and vote for things such as sex offender laws.

Silly Silly Silly, NYTimes.

More silly Times:

In their editorial that same day (Health Care Reform at Last) NYTimes is ebullient about reform but in a half-page editorial NOT ONE mention of the hurt reform puts on Middle CLass women and their now severely restricted access to abortion services.
LADIES BE NOT FOOLED, ABORTION RIGHTS IS NOT A LIBERAL CONCERN UNLESS TO PUSSYGET YOUR VOTE. Then...VOTE ONCE OBTAINED... IS THEN LAUGHED AT AND YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE IGNORED AND RESCINDED!

In that editorial the Times is happy that the middle class will think twice about getting a medical test done because under ObamaCare it will come out of your pocket directly. (The Times BASHED the HELL out of Bush Admin for suggesting that the same tactics be used to reduce health care costs.)
Shame on journalism these days.
(Yes, there should be incentives to keep costs down, but...to celebrate that "The Impact of {this effect} gets increasingly strong as the years progress," is a lot scary.
How will this pay out:
Well.... some poor sap with say, MS, may think twice now about getting an MRI test to see how much damage has been done to his brain by the disease so that she or he can plan ahead for the future.
but...In years to come, under the hurt of "increasingly strong" restrictions on what health care benefits for the middle class: she or he will be left uncovered for the test completely.
That is the essence of death panels. There will be no person in a room with a cattle prod electrocuting patients, just a "fair for everyone" panel that says: in order to immunized all six of this unemployed person's children a person who worked for years and is now riddled with disease must forget the new treatments that may well make life livable for that person. This is bringing the lower class up while at the same time bringing the middle class down.

We lament that Obama didn't take the approach of leaving the middle class intact while bringing the lower class upwards.

Other bizarre oddities: Gail Collins, simply put, lies in her recent column saying that American are now firmly behind ObamaCare.
From Wapo today:

"Overall, 46 percent of those polled said they support the changes in the new law; 50 percent oppose them. "

And that is generous with most polls showing a wider margin against the Bill.
(about 55% opposed to 39% in favor)

A WSJ item sums up the large danger in ObamaCare:

The Democratic political calculation with ObamaCare is the proverbial boiling frog: Gradually introduce a health-care entitlement by hiding the true costs, hook the middle class on new subsidies until they become unrepealable, but try to delay the adverse consequences and major new tax hikes so voters don't make the connection between their policy and the economic wreckage. But their bill was such a shoddy, jerry-rigged piece of work that the damage is coming sooner than even some critics expected.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870410060457514600244513606...
Read this for the immediate negative fallout they mention.

Now today. and this week, the NYTimes is prepping the public for tax hikes that are SURE to come as broken Medicaid is vastly expanded without a clue as how to pay for this expansion.
"States Seek Tax Services from Head to Toe" warns about new taxes to your haircut, dry cleaning bill, and just about anything else not already taxed by the state of Feds.

"States find a Font of Taxes in Workers Passing Through" encourages lax state regulators to tax workers double duty if their company sends them to another state for a day to conduct a meeting. That is, if you work for a company in NY and pay state taxes in NY, but travel on biz to CA for a day, you can be required to pay both NY and CA state income tax, even though you reside and work in NY. Just imagine your tax preparation bill! That will also be taxed!

Obama is going Orwellian with legions of Roman Tax Collectors set to be hired to police HIS Welfare STATE.
Watch for your property taxes to skyrocket as Medicaid burdens every state in the nation.

The NYTimes thinks we are really stupid, selling ObamaCare and its wonders to the pubic while REFUSING to report the negatives in the same amount of detail.

As we have said many times before : a smart bill would have taxed just 10% of employer-based benefits and allowed individual buyers tax credits for their out of pocket costs and we could have done this without expanding gvt. to a ludicrous Medicaid for all system. Or subsidies for a families in Kansas who are making 90K a year!

In Maine 25% of the population is already on Medicaid. In Southern states this is much worse and the system is totally broken and BROKE. But adding millions to the roles of utterly broken system is a good way to force govt. to grow and go broke and then usher in Obama's ONE STATE SOLUTION.
Lastly....
I leave you all with a slap in the face by the times to all woman: "From Bitter Campaign to Strong Alliance" the NYTIMES writes this:

"Mr. Obama has been solicitous to Mrs. Clinton, yielding to her at times in internal debates, even showing signs of adopting some of her more hawkish world views."

Folks, the one thing we can surely say about BHO: he has NEVER been solicitous to Hillary Clinton. He has USED her to do his dirty work and keep her from challenging him in 2012-- and that is all. He is determined to marginalize her and keep her away from 2012. Barack Hussein stole the election from HRC and for the Times to use the word solicitous in relation to Mr. Obama's treatment of HRC is absurd. But hey, women are pretty dumb and easily managed. Just look what Obama did to their abortion coverage. Women are weak and weak-willed and men know it. Or are we??