New York Times Admits (Grudgingly) That the Lack of Health Insurance Does Not Equal the Lack of Health Care

In a New York Times article on the Supreme Court's examination of Barack Obama's health care law, Adam Liptak comes closer than ever to admitting — although it is far from the opening paragraphs, needless to say — that the lack of health insurance does not equal the lack of health care:

Justice Ginsburg seemed to agree, saying the mandate was a response to the fact that uninsured people receive free health care that ends up being paid for by others. “The problem is that they are making the rest of us pay,” she said.

In the global edition of the Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Adam Liptak article has been shortened and therefore slightly rewritten, so that Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comment is stated as a neutral and objective description of the situation by Donald Verrilli, i.e., what the reporter considers fact:

Uninsured Americans each year use $43 billion of health care they cannot pay for, effectively transferring those costs to other American families to the tune of about $1,000 per year, Mr. Verrilli said.

The cost of health care is certainly a problem, as liberals never fail to mention, pouncing on me angrily whenever I point out that the poor do get health care. Certainly, but the libs have changed the subject — as liberals are invariably in the habit of doing.

First, we get this description: the nightmarish hellhole that is America with its poor, miserable uninsured who have no health insurance (again, this is supposed to incontrovertibly mean that they get no health care) — oh, how tragic, oh why can't we imitate Europe? And when it is pointed out that the poor, miserable uninsured do get health care, regardless of health insurance, the liberals go berserk, mentioning the costs and basically accusing the poor of freeloading — or actually, to be more precise, deliberately going to great lengths to avoid accusing anyone of freeloading (i.e., being mean and hateful, which only conservatives are) by agitating, instead, to implement a system that will force all freeloaders, along with everyone else, to pay for health care. (So who is it who is more obsessed with money – the left or the right?!)

So the Left wants to have its cake and eat it too — appearing in all cases in a heroic light: first, they want to be seen as the knights riding to the aid of the poor, describing America as a nightmarish hellhole for the masses; when that fallacy is pointed out, they quickly change the subject, like that (snap of fingers), and describe the poor, consciously or otherwise, as freeloaders, while the leftists turn out to be the wise people with fiscal responsibility.

In any case, it is never a bad time to make a link to the Free Market Cure website and to Stuart Browning's film, Uninsured in America.