Ever since Obamacare was foisted on an unwilling American electorate I've been noting the example of the 1989 repeal of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act.  It seems the NY Times now also sees the similarities in how both health programs oversold benefits, understated costs and saw some people's taxes go up in order to subsidize benefits for others:

The tortured history of the catastrophic-care law is a cautionary tale in the context of the struggle over the new health law, the Affordable Care Act. It illustrates the political and policy hazards of presenting sweeping health system changes to consumers who might not be prepared for them. And it provides a rare example of lawmakers who were willing to jettison a big piece of social policy legislation when the political risks became too grave.

Ah, those stupid consumers who are not prepared for how the government can help them!  It should be noted that unlike Obamacare the highly unpopular MCCA had been passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and only affected retired Americans, not the entire population as well as how a sixth of the economy is to function in the future. 

So why did the Times decided to take this particular trip down memory lane following Obama's disastrous news conference from last week and Nancy Pelosi's equally disastrous appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday?   With the leadership flailing in its efforts to hold the Democrat caucus together on Obamacare, is the Times signaling it may be time for rank and file Democrats to save themselves?