I would guess that the author is trying to remind us that yesterday's tragedy can happen again tomorrow so long as we do nothing about it today.

The streets will run red with marinara sauce for this outrage!

Wrong.
A 12:1 ratio just means that if you want to pay your CEO $12million/year you just have raise the wage of your lowest level employees up to $1million/year.
The proposed law would do nothing to forbid that.

In our house, VHS won because longer tapes were available to record more porn.

Stretching the word "hurt" to include sitting-in at a place of business is compatible with the way some people stretch the word "theft" to include taxes.

The comment I'm replying to is the perfect example of why people are so tired of Obama-haters:
Because you can't seem to limit yourselves to talking about how much you hate his healthcare plan (or anything else about him for that matter), even when it has absolutly nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You don't like his plan: everybody everwhere in the world has heard your complaints about a million times already; give it a goddamn rest.
Just save your two minutes of hate for the next "What's wrong with HealthCare.gov?" article of which there is sure to be one every day for the next few months.

That's some pretty big talk from a person who's sig line is: "Somewhere in Chicago a community is missing an organizer."

Here's one for you:
Whatever your beef with your political opponents, sneering at their community service only makes you look ridiculous.

The IPCC creates reports based on the scientific studies of Climatologists.
These reports include both natural and human contributions to climate change.
The IPCC could not have come to the conclusion that human activity is partly responsible for the current period of warming if they hadn't looked at natural contributions.

NASA's Earth Observatory has a great article on the topic:
"Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans."
Source (emphasis mine).

The description of the project: An attempt to explain the current period of warming without considering human contributions sounds like a repeat of the Koch brothers funded project "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature" (BEST).

I'll let the founder of BEST, Richard Muller, summarize their findings:
"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
Richard Muller

Maybe what you've described happens in places like Cuba (maybe), but it's pretty unlikely to happen in first world democracies with national healthcare systems.
It sounds to me like someone once told you a story that reeks of BS and you were gullible enough to fall for it because it fits with your ideological narrative.