Who better than the New York Times to capitalize on a lunatic murderer to push its own agenda? Check out this headline, gracing the paper's homepage now:
There's even more to the silliness of this Times story -- and it begins in the lede:
Seconds after gunfire erupted outside a supermarket here last month, Randy Gardner, one of those struck during the barrage, said another looming crisis immediately entered his mind.
“I wondered, ‘How much is this going to cost me?’ ” he said. “It was a thought that went through my head right away.”
While most people, seconds after getting shot and watching others nearby getting shot, might think about their own well-being and the safety of those around them, the Times was able to find one person to talk about health care. And from there, the piece's political undertones come out:
Ms. Giffords, who received a bullet wound to the head and was the most gravely injured of those who survived the shooting, also had probably the best insurance, a Congressional plan known for its comprehensive coverage that was held out as a model during last year’s debate over the health care overhaul.
Dr. Peter Rhee, chief trauma surgeon at Tucson’s University Medical Center, has repeatedly said that Ms. Giffords received the same care there as any other gunshot victim. “We don’t have time or luxury to ask for insurance cards or to know if they are a good guy or how they are going to pay,” he said. “We deal with whoever comes in the door. We don’t know if they are immigrants, if they are legal, illegal. We just treat them.”
Still, some of those who are following Ms. Giffords’s treatment, including her speedy transfer from Tucson to a top rehabilitation facility in Houston, can only wish their health plans were as responsive.
The whole piece, though attempting to be subtle, is a plug for Obamacare. The key question supporters of Obamacare sought to have answered during the debate was, Why can't everyone have as good of health care as members of Congress? When, in reality, the question should've been: Would this bill do anything to help health care in America, and would it be at an appropriate cost?
Here, the New York Times tries to use a tragedy for its own political agenda.