It's a challenge to write something you're pretty sure NYT doesn't agree with, but do it well enough that their editors still choose your post out of the hundreds they receive. True, blind justice.This time, Geronimo posted a continuum of options available to health care supporters. The premise? The conversation has become such a mess that any effort to re-position will have pretty unattractive explanations to offer.
NY Times' editors chose it again!
Here it is, with a link to the relevant page @ NYT website below.
127.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
Strong: We were right all along and still are; we’re making minimal changes; you were too stupid to know what’s good for you; we’ll explain it slower this time.
Not as strong: OK, electorate, we are in a dialog with you. We have changed 10% to show we’re listening. See if you can find it.
Medium: We’re really changing this. Please don’t ask us why we came up with the wrong answer the first time, after working on this for the whole Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 administrations. Let’s just move forward. Interrogation techniques? No, we don’t want to move forward on that one. Why do you ask?
Pretty weak: We’re offering discount cards and calling it health care reform. We finally figured out that we need to get re-elected.
Capitulation: We have all learned that America has to set priorities in this economy. We have had a great dialog with the American people, and we will use what we learned to make substantial changes in health care in the future. Someday.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/health/policy/03care.html?sort=oldest&offset=6