"The Sun may have to brace for charges that it 'rose' this morning."

They really do think you're stupid. No; really. They do.

An editorial in the New York Times last week began:

A government-sponsored study has found that annual CT scans could reduce the mortality rate from lung cancer in very heavy smokers and former smokers by 20 percent. Its leaders suggest that many thousands of lives could be saved annually.

This seems like good news. The Times wisely notes that such screening would be expensive:

This will not be cheap. Initial scans might cost a couple of hundred dollars apiece and are not currently covered by Medicare or private insurance. Follow-up screening and procedures will be more expensive. All told, the costs could reach billions of dollars a year.

But the conclusion reached by the editorial seems to us more than a little bit odd (emphasis added):

Government and private insurers that try to limit their coverage of CT scans based on the experts’ judgments — as they should — will need to brace for charges that they are attempting to “ration” health care.

That is, access to such screening should be rationed, and those responsible for the rationing should prepare themselves for "charges" that they're rationing health care.

No "death panels," of course, just the Government or private insurers deciding whether they'll provide you with access to a procedure that might save your life.

Please move along; nothing to see here.