Anger management, community service for anti-health care reform Miamian who assaulted pro-HCR man

I understand disagreeing with people. I do it all the time. But why is it that the unfettered anger, the hatred and disdain that causes one to react physically and violently, seems to be a nearly exclusive characteristic of the Right?

We've seen it in the "Teabaggers' Balls" (wait, that came out wrong....) and we've seen it at the health care town halls. One of these in particular resulted in criminal charges in Miami, but as Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) reported today on Twitter, the wingnut offender is getting off with a slap on the wrist.

A Miami-Dade man who punched a demonstrator at a healthcare reform rally has reached a plea deal with prosecutors and will take anger management courses and serve 50 hours of community service as part of his punishment.

Raul Anasagasti, 56, is scheduled to appear in Miami-Dade Circuit Court Thursday. He agreed to the conditions of a pretrial intervention program.

Back in September, Anasagasti punched a 65-year-old man in the face after a heated exchange.

Police said Luis Perrero was attending the rally outside the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, headlined by [Sen. Nelson], when Anasagasti, driving by in his green pickup, stopped and began arguing with the crowd.

When Perrero uttered an offensive Spanish expletive, Anasagasti punched him in the face, knocking him to the ground.

Okay, maybe Mr. Perrero shouldn't have called Mr. Anasagasti a name. But words never justify physical violence, and there's no exception here. Maybe the anger management classes will help Mr. Anasagasti learn to control his temper and even see how the right-wing messages in which he no doubt immerses himself from Fox News and the like are driving him to such displays of anger and hate.

But I'm not getting my hopes up.

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EST: It's not dead yet!

I know it's been a while since Blast Off! Radio graced the airwaves -- hardly a fitting status for the winner of the 2009 Florida Netroots Award for Best Online Radio Show. But sometimes life gets in the way, and November included a household move, two lengthy journeys, and a family holiday for me. Therefore, I just decided to ice the whole month and start afresh in December. Which brings us to today....

The show returns today with a bang as we review some of the key political developments of the month of November in Florida and nationally, including the ongoing, never-ending, perpetual health care debate in Washington, the continued fall of the Republican Party, and the related refusal of the wingnutty tea party movement to hang its head as it justifiably should and fade meekly away. We'll also talk about what it's like to endure a wingnut family over the holidays, as I had to do once again this year. I'm looking for lots of input from that one, as I'm sure many of you are in the same boat....

Since it's been a few weeks, perhaps you need a friendly reminder of just how easy it is to join me on Blast Off! Radio -- really, you're just a click away:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

So I hope you'll help me celebrate the triumphant momentous long-awaited barely tolerable return of Blast Off! Radio this afternoon. Just don't bop the show in the head, okay?

UPDATE (3:45 pm 12/7/09): Crap. Just realized I had put up the wrong "listen" link above. Should be fixed now. Sorry.

Jeff Miller: opposes House health care bill but hasn't read it

I'm not sure whether it's because he won't read it or can't read it, but U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Land That Time Forgot) has managed yet again to make me wonder how he got elected to Congress in the first place. He hasn't read the House Democrats' proposed health care reform bill, but he still knows he doesn't like it:

The bill, crafted by House Democratic leaders, would provide insurance by 2019 to 36 million Americans who are currently uninsured, though the details, are, of course, numerous.

The bill contains about 400,000 words — more than double the words in the New Testament.

"I haven't started reading it yet," Miller said. "And anyone who says they've read it and know what's in it is not being 100 percent truthful."

Still, Miller said that what he knows of the legislation disturbs him. He said the bill, which was lauded by President Barack Obama, will raise taxes, cost jobs and cut Medicare.

Look, I know it's a huge, complex bill. Health care reform is a huge, complex problem. But Congressman Know-It-All here hasn't even begun to read the bill, and yet he opposes it because it "will raise taxes, cost jobs and cut Medicare." Do you have any proof of that, Rep. Miller? I mean, in the bill itself ... because if you're going to take it apart, you should rely on more than merely your blind hatred of President Obama to back up your claims.

I'm not saying Rep. Miller is going to support the bill once he reads it (if he ever does). In fact, I'm quite certain he'd oppose it even if he knew it backwards and forwards. (And, incidentally, Jeff, how the hell do you know that anyone who says they read and understood the bill is lying? What a pretentious ass ...) But what I am saying is that it would be nice if certain members of Congress would take a little time to become acquainted with a piece of legislation before attacking it.

I know -- in the case of Jeff Miller, that's asking way, way too much.

Opt-out: still a bad idea for Florida

Normally I don't re-run blog posts, but in light of the announcement today by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Noballs) that the Senate would move forward with the "public option with opt-out" on health care reform, I think it's important to reiterate what I said on October 8: Florida will opt out of any federal health care scheme if it is allowed to do so via legislation. I believed it then and I see no reason to change my position now.

Below is my explanation, as it appeared on this blog 18 days ago. You also may wish to listen to today's edition of Blast Off! Radio, now archived for your convenience, in which I go into further detail on why opt-out is bad for Florida.

---

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), after consulting with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), one of the five Democratic senators who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-W. Va.) public option proposal in the Senate Finance Committee last week (another was Florida's own Bill Nelson)*, is circulating a compromise health care reform proposal that purportedly is gaining some traction among moderate Democrats and Republicans alike. Under the Schumer/Carper plan, a vigorous public option would be included in the final bill, but individual states themselves would have an "option:" to "opt out" of the federal scheme. But, in a situation when the "public option" already is a compromise -- we've already backed down from single-payer to get to the "public option" level -- this is a further compromise that is both unwise and unnecessary.

Some observers, like Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, insist that the "opt-out" is probably the best compromise we're going to be able to get. Silver contends that anyone on the Left who is opposed to it is afflicted with "public option purism" and that this is "leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated," for several reasons:

1) If the public option is indeed popular -- and the preponderance of public polling suggests that it is -- we should expect the solid majority of states to elect to retain it. Perhaps some Republican governors or legislatures would seek to override the popular will in their states -- but they would do so at their own peril (and at Democrats' gain).

2) Behavioral economics further suggests that default preferences are extremely powerful. Making the public option the default would probably lead to much greater adaptation than requiring states to "opt in".

3) If the public option indeed reduces the costs of insurance -- and most of the evidence suggests that it will -- than the states that opt out of it will have a pretty compelling reason to opt back in. Say that Kansas opts out of the public option and Missouri keeps it. If a Kansan realizes that his friend across the border is buying the same quality health insurance for $300 less per month, he's going to vote restore the public plan in a referendum or demand that his legislator does the same in Topeka.

4) Even in states that do opt out of the public option, the fact that voters could presumably elect later to restore it creates an extremely credible threat to the private insurance industry that will itself help to create price competition.

[...]

I wish I shared Silver's optimism, but I can't really see a scenario where Florida doesn't opt out. We already have two wingnut members of the legislature who are proposing a bill (which almost undoubtedly would be unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause) that would prohibit Florida from complying with any federal health care plan, and with a legislature that is pretty overwhelmingly Republican -- and wingnut Republican at that -- I am certain that there would be a bill introduced to "opt out" of this compromise faster than you can say "Terri Schiavo."

But then this bill, assuming it passes, would go to Gov. Crist's desk. Crist, you'll recall, refused to join with many of his fellow Republican governors in the South in attempting to reject federal stimulus funds; he openly accepted them -- and he's taken a load of crap from the Right for having done that. And, of course, Crist is facing a primary challenge in next year's U.S. Senate race from the right, by Marco Rubio. Although there is a lot of skepticism about Rubio's chances, I'm not going to pooh-pooh his straw poll success; it shows a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction among GOP grassroots (such as they are), which basically means the extremists who control the party in Florida as elsewhere.

So, does Crist veto this hypothetical bill to have Florida opt out of the federal scheme, knowing that's the best decision for Floridians, or does he burnish his conservative credentials and sign it in order to improve his electoral chances in 2010? Well, in recent decisions when it's come down to what's best for Florida versus what's best for Charlie Crist, he's tended to go with the latter -- his appointment of his crony George LeMieux to the vacant U.S. Senate is evidence enough of that. I suspect it would be extremely hard for Crist to stand in the way of any opt-out effort from the legislature.

I've been challenged on my position several times on Twitter today. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the "Kos" of Daily Kos, has "bet" me that Florida won't opt out. Another insists that the large elderly population in Florida wouldn't stand for opting out ... but, of course, they already have government health care in Medicare, so they're unlikely to be major players in the opt-out debate in Florida. And one contends that any Republican move to opt out would "be the death of the [Florida] GOP ... [Florida will] opt back in in 2-3 [years with Democratic] majorities."

Elsewhere, mcjoan on Daily Kos also predicts that few if any states will opt out, since no state opted out of Medicaid in the '60s (although it took Arizona until 1982 to join):

[L]eaving any people out of the system should be of vital concern to lawmakers. There's a relatively simple fix to that--make uninsured citizens of those states who choose to opt out eligible to enroll in Medicare. Of course, that might create huge citizen lobbies in every state to get their state to opt out so that everyone could join Medicare, but it would be critical fix for covering more of the uninsured.

Well, exactly. There has to be some kind of safeguard so that every American has a chance to exercise the option; otherwise, there might as well not even be a public option for those people whose states opt out. Moreover, I don't think the Medicaid experience is a good means of predicting how things will go now, with rabid wingnuttery having taken a hugely disproportionate role in state government in Florida and elsewhere. Needless to say, it's hardly 1965 out there anymore.

So much for "unwise" ... as for the opt-out proposal being "unnecessary," it's just another in a long series of attempts to earn 60 votes in the Senate ... which the bill doesn't need. I guess it's because Democrats want to make sure they can prevent a GOP filibuster and 60 votes would be needed for cloture ... but Rachel Maddow reported last night that plans were in the works to revoke chairmanships from any Democratic senators who supported oppose cloture ... pretty powerful political pressure, if true, and further evidence (maybe?) that Harry Reid may have grown a pair. But that just shows that all real health care reform needs -- with a meaningful public option -- is 51 votes, not 60 ... so I really don't know why folks like Max Baucus keep pushing for the "magical" 60, except that they really want to dilute the public option beyond recognition.

So, sure, you may support the opt-out, and your state may well reap the benefits of it ... but I'm not so sanguine about our chances here in Florida.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

---

* Carper and Nelson subsequently voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) public option proposal, but that, too, failed.

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: Is it 2010 yet?

We're still more than a year away from the 2010 election, but things are really beginning to heat up here in America's Wang™ despite the cooler temperatures. While the gubernatorial race between state CFO Alex Sink and state attorney general Bill McCollum hasn't really hit its stride yet, there are plenty of fireworks to keep Florida political junkies interested in the U.S. Senate and state AG races.

On the Republican side, the Senate race finds Gov. Charlie Crist still comfortably out in front, but former state House Speaker Marco Rubio is exploiting a few chinks in the Guv's armor. Crist has been working hard to shore up his conservative credentials, but Rubio continues to win straw polls of party faithful in counties across the state. People have scoffed at me, but I've been saying for months that Rubio has a solid shot at winning the Republican nomination, and it's the disaffected conservatives who still run the state GOP who are flocking to him ... and those very same conservatives are the ones who are most likely to vote in the Republican primary next summer. Rubio has an uphill battle, but once the rank-and-file Republicans know who he is, they seem to like him pretty well -- and that spells trouble with a capital "T" for Empty Chair Charlie.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek has enjoyed near-exclusivity in his drive for the nomination, with only a challenge from the likeable yet heavily outnumbered Kevin Burns realistically standing in his way ... until recently. Suddenly, former Miami mayor Maurice Ferre has thrown his hat into the ring ... but there are serious questions about where Ferre's loyalty really lies. Why is Ferre surrounding himself with Republican operatives and Democrats who have worked for Crist in the past? It's an important question, and it deserves an answer ... and you'll get some answers on this afternoon's edition of Blast Off! Radio.

We'll also point and laugh at the Republicans in the state Attorney General race, where GOP voters have an unenviable choice between a Palinesque quitter and an ethically-challenged lieutenant governor -- Holly Benson and Jeff Kottkamp, respectively -- as their nominee for Florida's chief law enforcement officer. The irony is rich ... and so is the schadenfreude!

Of course, we'll undoubtedly have the usual look at health care reform and what's going on in Washington, but we'll also talk some today about the offshore drilling debate in Florida and why you won't "pay less" if we "drill here" and "drill now." We'll discuss the absolutely idiotic "birther" movement and explore why such an utterly false and discredited allegation keeps getting attention (hint: we don't have a liberal media!), and we'll revisit our old friends in Pace, Fla., to see what's next on the horizon in the Christianist assault on the Constitution.

It's sure to be an hour full of insight, intrigue, and hopefully a little insolence. But, as always, you make the show work with your calls, chats, emails, and tweets. It's unbelievably easy to be a part of the show -- in fact, you're just a click away:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

So, what's stopping you? Please join me today for Florida's best online radio show, Blast Off! Radio, for a unique and entertaining look at the issues facing the state, the country, and you.

(cross-posted at FPC Blog)

Playing the race card in Georgia

But he says he's not a racist! Look at his NAACP membership card from 2005, not the mannequin in the KKK costume!

I just have to say that it couldn't have been easy for that reporter to walk into that restaurant, let alone do the interview. Kudos to her, and I hope she's OK.

Finally, because they're just the words I choose to use: Fuck you, Patrick Lanzo.

UPDATE (8:40 am 10/15/09): YouTube took the original video down due to TOS violations. Don't know what happened. I've replaced it this morning, but if there's no video embedded above, here's a direct link to the video on CBSAtlanta.com so you can see this moron in all his glory.

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: Florida Democrats, health care, equality, and more

It's been a big week both in Florida and nationally for Democrats and especially the progressive (or liberal, if like me you're still okay with that label) side of the party. Today on Blast Off! Radio, we'll take a look back at The Week (And Weekend) That Was with a veritable plethora of interesting and illuminating topics.

For starters, right here in America's Wang™, the state Democratic Party held its convention this past weekend in Orlando, and I attended along with hundreds of my closest friends. A lot happened at the convention, and we'll recap some of the highlights on the show -- including the emergence of the Netroots Coalition as an important and well-regarded "force" in the party structure; the debate between Florida's Democratic candidates for Attorney General, Dave Aronberg and Dan Gelber; and of course the 2009 Florida Netroots Awards (and the understandable but needless controversy that seems to have sprung up around them).

But it wasn't just about Florida this past week. We'll discuss the latest "compromises" in the battle for meaningful health care reform and why Florida is likely to be screwed if either "opt-out" or "opt-in" passes. We'll also talk about the weekend's National Equality March in Washington (and in cities around the country) and why it's all about love ... and what, if anything, is the impact of the president's "announcement" Saturday that he will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell? And we'll mention the craze that's sweeping the nation (or at least Twitter) -- the "twammogram," and why it's making a difference in women's lives during National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

As always, you make the show work, with your calls, chats, emails, tweets, etc. How do you listen and become involved, you ask? It's oh, so easy to do:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

So please make plans to join me this afternoon for a Blast Off! Radio chock full of facts and fun. You'll be glad you did!

UPDATE (1:01 pm 10/12/09): Trying something a little new today: a new Blast Off! Radio theme song! I hope it works ... technical challenges are not my strong suit ... so tune in and find out!

(cross-posted at FPC Blog)

"Opt-out" compromise: a bad idea for Florida

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), after consulting with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), one of the five Democratic senators who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-W. Va.) public option proposal in the Senate Finance Committee last week (another was Florida's own Bill Nelson)*, is circulating a compromise health care reform proposal that purportedly is gaining some traction among moderate Democrats and Republicans alike. Under the Schumer/Carper plan, a vigorous public option would be included in the final bill, but individual states themselves would have an "option:" to "opt out" of the federal scheme. But, in a situation when the "public option" already is a compromise -- we've already backed down from single-payer to get to the "public option" level -- this is a further compromise that is both unwise and unnecessary.

Some observers, like Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, insist that the "opt-out" is probably the best compromise we're going to be able to get. Silver contends that anyone on the Left who is opposed to it is afflicted with "public option purism" and that this is "leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated," for several reasons:

1) If the public option is indeed popular -- and the preponderance of public polling suggests that it is -- we should expect the solid majority of states to elect to retain it. Perhaps some Republican governors or legislatures would seek to override the popular will in their states -- but they would do so at their own peril (and at Democrats' gain).

2) Behavioral economics further suggests that default preferences are extremely powerful. Making the public option the default would probably lead to much greater adaptation than requiring states to "opt in".

3) If the public option indeed reduces the costs of insurance -- and most of the evidence suggests that it will -- than the states that opt out of it will have a pretty compelling reason to opt back in. Say that Kansas opts out of the public option and Missouri keeps it. If a Kansan realizes that his friend across the border is buying the same quality health insurance for $300 less per month, he's going to vote restore the public plan in a referendum or demand that his legislator does the same in Topeka.

4) Even in states that do opt out of the public option, the fact that voters could presumably elect later to restore it creates an extremely credible threat to the private insurance industry that will itself help to create price competition.

[...]

I wish I shared Silver's optimism, but I can't really see a scenario where Florida doesn't opt out. We already have two wingnut members of the legislature who are proposing a bill (which almost undoubtedly would be unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause) that would prohibit Florida from complying with any federal health care plan, and with a legislature that is pretty overwhelmingly Republican -- and wingnut Republican at that -- I am certain that there would be a bill introduced to "opt out" of this compromise faster than you can say "Terri Schiavo."

But then this bill, assuming it passes, would go to Gov. Crist's desk. Crist, you'll recall, refused to join with many of his fellow Republican governors in the South in attempting to reject federal stimulus funds; he openly accepted them -- and he's taken a load of crap from the Right for having done that. And, of course, Crist is facing a primary challenge in next year's U.S. Senate race from the right, by Marco Rubio. Although there is a lot of skepticism about Rubio's chances, I'm not going to pooh-pooh his straw poll success; it shows a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction among GOP grassroots (such as they are), which basically means the extremists who control the party in Florida as elsewhere.

So, does Crist veto this hypothetical bill to have Florida opt out of the federal scheme, knowing that's the best decision for Floridians, or does he burnish his conservative credentials and sign it in order to improve his electoral chances in 2010? Well, in recent decisions when it's come down to what's best for Florida versus what's best for Charlie Crist, he's tended to go with the latter -- his appointment of his crony George LeMieux to the vacant U.S. Senate is evidence enough of that. I suspect it would be extremely hard for Crist to stand in the way of any opt-out effort from the legislature.

I've been challenged on my position several times on Twitter today. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the "Kos" of Daily Kos, has "bet" me that Florida won't opt out. Another insists that the large elderly population in Florida wouldn't stand for opting out ... but, of course, they already have government health care in Medicare, so they're unlikely to be major players in the opt-out debate in Florida. And one contends that any Republican move to opt out would "be the death of the [Florida] GOP ... [Florida will] opt back in in 2-3 [years with Democratic] majorities."

Elsewhere, mcjoan on Daily Kos also predicts that few if any states will opt out, since no state opted out of Medicaid in the '60s (although it took Arizona until 1982 to join):

[L]eaving any people out of the system should be of vital concern to lawmakers. There's a relatively simple fix to that--make uninsured citizens of those states who choose to opt out eligible to enroll in Medicare. Of course, that might create huge citizen lobbies in every state to get their state to opt out so that everyone could join Medicare, but it would be critical fix for covering more of the uninsured.

Well, exactly. There has to be some kind of safeguard so that every American has a chance to exercise the option; otherwise, there might as well not even be a public option for those people whose states opt out. Moreover, I don't think the Medicaid experience is a good means of predicting how things will go now, with rabid wingnuttery having taken a hugely disproportionate role in state government in Florida and elsewhere. Needless to say, it's hardly 1965 out there anymore.

So much for "unwise" ... as for the opt-out proposal being "unnecessary," it's just another in a long series of attempts to earn 60 votes in the Senate ... which the bill doesn't need. I guess it's because Democrats want to make sure they can prevent a GOP filibuster and 60 votes would be needed for cloture ... but Rachel Maddow reported last night that plans were in the works to revoke chairmanships from any Democratic senators who supported oppose cloture ... pretty powerful political pressure, if true, and further evidence (maybe?) that Harry Reid may have grown a pair. But that just shows that all real health care reform needs -- with a meaningful public option -- is 51 votes, not 60 ... so I really don't know why folks like Max Baucus keep pushing for the "magical" 60, except that they really want to dilute the public option beyond recognition.

So, sure, you may support the opt-out, and your state may well reap the benefits of it ... but I'm not so sanguine about our chances here in Florida.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

---

* Carper and Nelson subsequently voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) public option proposal, but that, too, failed.

Is Harry Reid becoming a vertebrate?

While watching Democrats from the state House to the White House roll over and play dead in the face of Republican opposition, even when the Dems are a supermajority (I'm looking at you, Congress), I've often wondered whether the folks on the Left (such as it is today ... kind of center-left, but I digress ....) would ever grow a backbone ... especially U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Could it be happening now?

First, I read over the weekend that Sen. Reid, a notorious weak link in Democratic leadership (maybe the fact that he's Mormon and anti-choice might have been a clue, Dems?!), came out* in support of next weekend's National Equality March in Washington and elsewhere.

click image for larger version

In all seriousness, it's nice to see Sen. Reid take a prominent stand on something so important. Particularly as rumors swirl about President Obama taking another look at Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- remarkably, also at the behest (in part) of Sen. Reid -- it's time to stop treating the GLBT community as second-class citizens and end what really amounts to the last legally permissible discrimination in America today.

Meanwhile, in the ongoing debate over health care reform, where Sen. Reid also is playing a critical role, there are reports that the president is working hard behind the scenes to preserve a public option ... without which health care reform really is no reform at all.

The Los Angeles Times reports that President Obama is quietly trying to shore up support for some form of a public option. "In the last week, however, senior administration officials have been holding private meetings almost daily at the Capitol with senior Democratic staff to discuss ways to include a version of the public plan in the healthcare bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) plans to bring to the Senate floor this month, according to senior Democratic congressional aides. Among those regularly in the meetings are Obama's top healthcare advisor, Nancy-Ann DeParle; aides to Reid; and staff from the Senate Finance and Health committees, both of which developed healthcare bills."

Previously, the Obama administration has relied on a bipartisan group of governors to support his various legislative initiatives; but on health care (in particular Medicaid), he could find bipartisan opposition as state governments worry about how to pay for an expansion of Medicaid.

[...]

[Sen. Max] Baucus [(D-Mont.)] and Reid are “approaching a breaking point” over inclusion of the public option in a final Senate proposal. While Reid “deferred the issue” to Baucus over the summer, the leader indicated last week “that he is prepared to join Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who both pushed a public option amendment that failed in a committee vote last Tuesday.”

Reid and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), also a strong supporter of the public option, indicated that in order to attract centrist Democrats wary of the public option, that they would be open to “[wrapping] the controversial elements of reform in a politically attractive message to the centrists’ conservative-leaning constituents. That could include the addition of provisions aimed directly at problems or issues in each Senator’s state, such as tweaks to state funding formulas for federal programs, aides said.”

The public option ought to be non-negotiable, Sen. Baucus' insurance-company-funded opposition notwithstanding. In short, you only need 51 votes, so Baucus and colleagues Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) basically can take their votes and shove 'em.

Regardless of what happens from here in these vital issues, it's nice to see Harry Reid finally doing what his office requires him to do: lead the Senate Democrats. Let's hope it continues.

---

* Pun most definitely intended.

Grayson apologizes

Rep. Alan Grayson apologized today.

No, not to Republicans in Congress for hurting their itty-bitty widdle feelings when he said -- correctly -- that when it comes to health care reform, Republicans "want you to die."

Not only did Grayson stand by what he said yesterday -- again, correctly -- but he actually apologized to dead people for Congress' failure to enact health care reform sooner.

"I've spoken to other members of leadership and nobody has asked me to apologize. Nobody is going to ask me to apologize. As I said before, no rules of the House were broken. We have a - if you bother to look it up - there's something in the Constitution called the Speech and Debate Clause and I think it well covers this situation. So no, nobody is going to ask me to apologize among the Democrats. I think the Republicans have something to apologize for but I made clear exactly what that is last night," he said.

Grayson also took to the House floor to offer a different sort of apology - to those who have died for lack of health insurance. "I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't acted sooner to end this holocaust in America," he said.

I love this guy ... in a manly way, of course. Thank Jeebus one Democrat (and from Florida, no less!) has the balls to say what needs to be said. And when lesser Democrats -- Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, et al. -- bow and scrape at the slightest breath of Republican consternation, Alan Grayson is one Dem who says he's mad as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore.

More like Grayson, please. Many, many more. It's nice, finally, to have someone who, as another Floridian once put it, won't back down.

Comic relief

I just don't understand why the Right doesn't "get it" with regard to health care reform. If I had to guess, though, I suppose they don't want to get it, because they're in bed with the insurance companies (this goes for "Democrats" like U.S. senators Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln, Tom Carper, and our own Bill Nelson, too).

But it's really quite simple. Maybe an illustration will help:


See more such dark humor -- hey, sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying -- at The Far Left Side's website.

Good for Grayson

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), one of the very, very few true liberals (or progressives, if you prefer that term) in Congress, pissed off a whole slew of Republicans last night when he declared on the floor of the House that "Republicans want you to die." Here's the video:

As usual, Republicans in Congress can't handle the truth. The bottom line is that Republicans have no plan for health care reform; their only tactic is to delay and obfuscate and demonize ... pretty much everything they've done for the last decade or two, at least.

And Rep. Grayson was exactly right. Since the GOP (and their sycophantic boot-licking colleagues from the other side of the aisle -- I'm looking at you, Max Baucus and Bill Nelson, among others) essentially feels that the status quo, with insurance companies making health care decisions and condemning people to die, is just fine and dandy with them, it follows that they would want sick people to die more quickly, thereby saving their insurance company supporters a lot of money ... which they then can contribute to the campaigns of those legislators whose selfish and irresponsible actions saved them the money in the first place. Talk about a vicious circle ...

Of course, the GOP is outraged!!!one!11!!! at Rep. Grayson's statement, and they're pulling out all the stops to vilify him. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-Va.), about whose ties to an apparent gay Republican murder-suicide in Florida it would be irresponsible not to speculate, tweeted his consternation this morning using the customary strawman/false equivalency "logic" of the Right: "Will Pelosi hold vote to reprimand #Grayson? http://bit.ly/4pGUWN Or was JWilson reprimand just partisan politics after all?" Yeah, Pat, way to compare a member of Congress calling the president a liar in a joint session of Congress (when, by the way, the president wasn't lying) with the kind of political speechifying that happens every single day in Congress, on both sides of the aisle (and which is also truthful, at least in this case). McHenry is a tool, though, so at least we don't have to pay him much attention.

No, there won't be any reprimand for Grayson. If anything, he should be celebrated. At a time when too many Democrats think it's chic to roll over meekly and let the Republican minority have its way with them (no, McHenry, I don't mean that way), it's good to see that one congresscritter is willing to tell it like it is.

More stupid from The Land That Time Forgot

Yeah, I'll be talking about the rise of The Stupid in America on Blast Off! Radio tonight, but just to whet your appetite, I found some choice examples in (unsurprisingly) the Northwest Florida Daily News, and specifically the letters to the editor there. The NFDN, which touts itself as "A Freedom Newspaper," proudly proclaims its batshit-crazy wingnuttery ... but, to give credit where credit is due, at least they know their audience.

Two members of that audience had letters published in today's paper. In the first, titled "Race isn't an issue," Patti Thornhill of Crestview argues that if we claim that the ubiquitous (but poorly attended) tea parties are racist because the protesters aren't taking Drunky McStagger to task, well, then we're all wet.

I resent the insinuation of the letter writer (“Late to the party,” Sept. 19) who wondered where the tea party patriots were during the Bush administration. He wrote: “What kind of people are you? I think I know.” If he is implying we’re racists, he is deeply wrong and should apologize.

The fact is, many signs at the D.C. protest denounced George W. Bush as well, including a couple of him with the infamous Joker makeup. I know. I was there.

I assume Ms. Thornhill is referring to the 9/12 fisting party Beckgasm protests in Washington, which she presumably attended. Well, I wasn't there myself (although I had to laugh this weekend when a friend of a friend, who also wasn't there, swore that 1.7 million people attended, rather than the 70,000 reported by D.C. authorities ... if there were that many, why weren't roads and the Metro jammed beyond capacity ... like, say, at the Obama inauguration?), but I did search the Internets for pictures from tea parties criticizing Drunky and -- guess what? -- I couldn't find any. Sure, there may have been one or two ... even "many" (which I guess would be, what, five?) ... but (a) I doubt there were any at all and (b) even if they were, that doesn't negate the inference that most teabaggers are just mad that there's a Scary Black Man in the White House. I mean, how dumb do you have to be to think that a few isolated signs that you can't even prove exist would support the argument that most teabaggers are NOT racists? Ah, wingnut logic ...

Unfortunately, the second letter I want to share with you, titled "A lazy majority" and written (I use that term loosely) by one William J. Roberts of Fort Walton Beach, isn't available online. But I'll transcribe for your entertainment just the opening paragraph, so you get a taste of the kind of stupid on display here:

The writer of "It's not an option" (letter, Sept. 13) wrote that because the Declaration of Independence delineates the right to enjoy life/health, there exists a right to health care. Why, then, aren't food, clothing, shelter and transportation rights? Surely there are more immediate requisites as one pursues liberty and happiness.

Well, Mr. Roberts, let me answer your question as simply as I can: health care is critical to life and must be provided to people by others, unlike food, clothing, shelter, and transportation. Food? You can grow your own, hunt, whatever ... clothing -- not necessary to life ... shelter -- again, create your own ... transportation -- also not necessary to life. Jeebus, is it that difficult to figure out? You selfish bastards are so bent on refusing to help your fellow man (didn't I read something about that in the Bible?) that you have to do these logical contortions just to preserve your twisted, insurance-company-enriching status quo. This kind of stupid makes my head hurt.

Besides, we don't look to the Declaration of Independence for any of our rights. Those come from the U.S. Constitution, which provides that the federal government should "promote the general welfare" ... and that undoubtedly includes health care, particularly for those who cannot secure it themselves.

But, you know, I should learn not to argue facts and logic with radical rightists. They'll never learn.

(More to come on tonight's Blast Off! Radio at 7pm Eastern.)

Vern Buchanan needs remedial reading comprehension

I've been puzzled by the strangely detached, surprisingly uninformed tweets lately by U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Sarasota) regarding health care reform. On the one hand, I recognize that Florida hardly lacks for ignorant GOP members of Congress who seem to be unaware of the U.S. Constitution ... but Buchanan seems not to understand the English language -- an especially bizarre concept, considering Buchanan's own xenophobic, pandering call to make English the official language of the United States.

The word in question here -- the one that the erstwhile car dealer who originally won his congressional seat under highly questionable circumstances apparently doesn't comprehend -- is "option." As in "choice" or "selection." OPTION.

Yesterday, Rep. Buchanan tweeted, "If the public plan is so great, why shouldn't members of Congress be required to enroll in the same plan?" The obvious answer -- obvious to anyone with the ability to reason coherently, that is -- would be that no one would be required to enroll in the "public plan," because it would be an option. A choice, which one may make or not make as desired. That's the fundamental idea of an option, and I made that point (in abbreviated form) in my response to the congressman.

But I cut Vern some slack since he didn't use the word "option." That all changed today, though, when ol' Vern cut loose with this nugget of numbskullery:

click image for larger version

Vern ... poor, deluded Vern ... how many times do I have to tell you? A "public option" means you don't have to enroll. Even members of Congress don't have to enroll. And don't give me that crap about Max Baucus' massive FAIL of a bill. That's not a public option in any way, shape, or form.

What this country really needs is single-payer health care, like every other civilized nation on the planet and like the U.S. military and Medicare. Barring that, though, it appears we'll have to settle for a public option. And "option," Vern, means "choice." Everyone can keep their employer-provided coverage, Vern, if they so choose (or opt). But there would be an option (there's that word again!) to elect coverage under the federal health care plan for those who don't have the privilege of employer-provided coverage -- as members of Congress do, I know, and yes, even as I do through COBRA.

It's really not that hard to understand, Vern. It's just a matter of comprehending our country's would-be official language ... a skill you -- and your fellow signatories on that absurd, meaningless resolution -- suddenly seem to be lacking.

Remember "states' rights?" Republicans in Florida do

Students of American history learn that while slavery per sé may not have been a root cause of the Civil War, certainly the dispute over states' rights was a key factor ... and one of those "rights" over which the states fought was slavery. Well, the wingnuts never really have let go of the states' rights argument, which they've applied to the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, education issues, gay rights .... and now, the debate over health care reform.

Two Florida legislators have introduced a bill that purportedly would keep the state's employers from having to follow any federal health care system:

Sen. Carey Baker, R-Eustis, and Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, are behind the Florida Health Care Freedom Act. Twenty-four House members, including Peter Nehr, R-Tarpon Springs, are co-sponsors.

Legal scholars question whether such an amendment would have the desired effect, and backers acknowledge the challenge. But they see the measure as consistent with a larger campaign to combat expansion of federal power.

"This amendment draws a line in the sand about socialized medicine," Baker told a crowd of about 60 people at Tucson's Southwest Grill in Clearwater [Sept. 15].

Unlike some public discussions of Obama's plan to revamp health care, the tone of Tuesday's gathering remained civil, though it was certainly spirited. Those gathered overwhelmingly supported the amendment.

"Do you really want to put your life, your health care, into the hands of some weenie up in Washington?" asked Steven F. Burden, a 53-year-old software engineer from Lutz.

Under Obama's proposal, large businesses — those with more than 50 employees — would be required to provide insurance for their employees or pay a fee, and individuals would be required to purchase health insurance. Tax credits would be available to help cover the cost for individuals. Those unable to afford insurance could get hardship waivers.

The proposed amendment seeks to nullify these provisions by barring employers and individuals from being compelled by law to "participate in any health care system."

I guess the idiots who support this proposal, like the above-quoted Mr. Burden (how's that for an appropriate name for someone opposed to health care reform?) would rather have their life and health care in the hands of "some weenie" in an insurance company -- you know, like it is now. Said idiots also are completely ignorant about the law -- again, how is it that people who don't understand the law keep getting elected to make our laws? -- because they obviously fail to understand that, under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, any state legislation in this area would be superseded by federal law. In other words, the bill proposed by Baker and Plakon can have no effect -- by definition. If there's no health care reform, their bill is moot, and if there is, the bill is "preempted" by the federal scheme of legislation.

Hold on, though ... Carey Baker? Where have I heard that name before?

Oh, yeah! Baker is the gun nut who wants to be Agriculture Commissioner ... so he can oversee the gun permitting process! I knew I remembered him from somewhere ....

Anyway, the grandstanding is great red-meat for the radical Republican base, the "21-percenters" who still think Drunky McStagger was a great president, but it's ultimately useless. Kind of like the space Baker and Plakon are taking up in Tallahassee. But, you know, it's just another day at the office for the wingnut-dominated Florida legislature, where "common sense" is a four-letter word.

UPDATE (10:37 am 9/23/09): Here's another historical take on the futility of what Baker and Plakon are trying to do, courtesy of FOBO (Friend of Blast Off!) Ray Seaman of Progress Florida. Nullification fever: CATCH IT!

Billionaires for Wealthcare

More superb satire from the folks who brought us "Billionaire$ for Bu$h."

By the way, I seem to remember someone else reminding the teabaggers that they consistently were voting against their own interest ...

Mario Diaz-Balart gets it exactly wrong on health care debate

Actually, it wouldn't really be precise to say U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Miami) gets it wrong, when he manages to avoid questions altogether so skillfully.

I'm talking about an interview conducted the other day by Brent Batten of the Naples Daily News, wherein Diaz-Balart was asked to "put himself in a virtual town hall facing supporters of the national health-care reform being supported by the president and Democrats." And I don't know which is worse: Diaz-Balart's gymnastic gyrations in sidestepping the questions or Batten's obsequious ass-kissing in somehow interpreting the sidesteps as direct answers.* Either way, it's just more right-wing hypocrisy and fact-free rationale, both from Congress and the corporate media.

Here, let me give you some examples:

Q. I keep hearing about euthanasia, death panels and “pulling the plug on grandma.” But reading the passage of House Resolution 3200 that people keep citing, beginning on page 424, it talks about advance care planning. Things like living wills and hospice care. It says nothing about forcing people to end their lives early. Isn’t this just a tactic to scare senior citizens into opposing the plan? How do you get euthanasia out of a discussion about living wills and hospice care?

A. “There’s obviously a problem because the Democrats took the language out. We need to at least have hearings on that. It’s obviously a bi-partisan concern. You’re dealing with the government, particularly a government that wants to do all and say all.”

How exactly is Diaz-Balart's answer responsive to Batten's question? We need to have hearings on language that (1) was removed from the bill and (2) was completely misrepresented, mostly by right-wing corporate media (not to mention Sarah Palin) with the acquiescence and, indeed, encouragement of "mainstream" Republicans? Diaz-Balart should be drummed right out of Congress (let alone the GOP) for suggesting such an utter waste of time and resources.

Besides, he clearly failed to answer the question, which was "how do you get euthanasia out of a discussion about living wills and hospice care?" (I did edit out a piece of the answer, but the stuff I removed, which followed the quote shown above, was no more responsive than the above-quoted tripe.) Diaz-Balart never even comes close to addressing the question.

Next ...

Q. A concern seems to be that the government is angling for a single-payer system. You dig out a quote from 2003 in which President Obama says he favors a single-payer system yet he’s said numerous times since then he doesn’t think one will work here. The House plan offers a public option that is just an option. Why do you think that will result in just one payer, namely the government?

A. “Three things. First, Barney Frank. Have you seen the video?” Diaz-Balart asks, referencing a video available on You Tube that shows Frank saying on July 27, “I think if we can get a good public option it could lead to single payer and that’s the best way to get to single payer.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98)

“Another word that comes to mind is ‘Citizens,’” Diaz-Balart continued, referring to Florida’s government-run hurricane insurance option. “Remember the insurer of last resort? Where we are today, it’s essentially the only game in town. Citizens is not actuarially sound, which would be the case (with a government-subsidized health insurance plan). They say the way you have competition is to have a government-run option. Should we have government-run grocery stores? It’s ludicrous on its face. They’re proposing something that would have lower prices through subsidies. It will inevitably lead to government-run health care.”

I'm not sure Diaz-Balart could miss the point, or the question, any more egregiously than he does here. First off, what the hell does Citizens Insurance have to do with health care? Diaz-Balart throws up a superb strawman here, suggesting that the failings of Citizens, as a government-subsidized insurance plan in Florida, somehow are characteristic of all government-subsidized insurance plans. Yet he makes no such claim with regard, say, to Medicare, a government-subsidized insurance plan that bears far more resemblance to the plans currently under consideration by the Obama Administration and Congress than does Citizens. Lovely strawman, Congressman, but your argument is a massive FAIL. (Besides, it's not the least bit responsive to the question, which has to do with the desirability of a single-payer system.)

And the Barney Frank thing? It's a video where, as Batten indicates, Rep. Frank suggests that public option could lead to single payer. But again, Diaz-Balart misses the point, because Barney Frank doesn't speak for Congress. He's one member. Sure, he hopes that a public option someday would lead to single-payer. I do, too. That doesn't mean it's inevitable, and to suggest otherwise, as Diaz-Balart does here, is more of the scare tactics that are practically instinctive acts by Republicans. (Moreover, needless to say, single-payer would be an eminently good thing for America, but I'll leave that for another post.)

(By the way, Congressman Diaz-Balart, you said "three things." What's the third? Did Batten edit it out or did you just forget?)

Republicans, especially in Congress and in the mainstream corporate media (where they are legion), have a charming habit of using strawman arguments like this to dog-whistle their supporters ... bringing up Barney Frank is a sure way to do this because the wingnuts hate that gay congressman from Taxachusetts so very, very much. But ultimately, like nearly all right-wing arguments, it's a lot of talk and very little substance.

So once again we see a wingnut congressman who can't answer questions and who opposes health care reform, well, just because. And we see a wingnut newspaper columnist who will do or say nearly anything to prop up those tired right-wing arguments. And the beat goes on ...

---

* In Batten's own words: "[Diaz-Balart] was happy to do so, responding via telephone with answers specific to the questions asked, as opposed to Congressman Connie Mack, who represents western Collier County and who answered the same questions two weeks earlier with vague generalities about more freedom and less government."

I guess that somehow is different than vague generalities about insurance and death panels, which is what Diaz-Balart gives us.

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: I'll take "Potpourri" for $400

Did you ever have one of those days when you just weren't sure what you should do? I mean, there's no one BIG thing on the agenda, so you just kind of pick up the threads of a bunch of little things hanging out there ...

Well, that's kind of what today's Blast Off! Radio is like. We're going to go free-form, stream-of-consciousness today to some extent ... but we'll make sure to touch on a few interesting items of note from the past week in Florida and national politics. There's the selection of George LeMieux, a trusted Charlie Crist aide, to be Florida's next U.S. senator ... the ongoing wingnuttery with regard to health care reform (and the town halls that evidently make the right-wing crazy!!) ... a look at the latest hypocritical hate from Florida's radical Christianists ... and of course some discussion of the legacy of Ted Kennedy. Plus, we'll commemorate the four-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's destructive visit to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, not too far from the broadcast location of Blast Off! Radio today, and we'll take a moment to recall what the president was doing that very day.

As always, though, your participation makes the show happen. It's oh, so easy to be a part of Blast Off! Radio ... here's all you need to know:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

I hope you'll make a point of joining me today for all the snark and substance of Blast Off! Radio. Catch you this afternoon!

(cross-posted at FPC Blog)

Blast Off! Radio RETURNS today at 4:00 pm EDT: The more things change ....

.... the more they stay the same. I know it's a cliché, but I think it's never been more true than it is right now.

Blast Off! Radio returns today after a summer hiatus of 2½ months, and not only are the right-wing crazies still around (and still getting an inordinate amount of mainstream corporate media coverage), they seem to be more rabid and violent than ever. I didn't even think that was possible ...

A lot has happened since I last inflicted my radical rantings on the webradio waves, and I'm not just talking about the Florida Bar exam. Why, this summer has seen the political seppuku of Sarah Palin, a precipitous and dangerous upswing in violence and hate from the Right (not the least of which is the ridiculous, disruptive displays at congressional health care forums nationwide), and more total disdain for American constitutional law from extremist Christians in northwest Florida. Indeed, it seems that as the temperature has risen, so too have the tempers of the fringe Right, most of whom just can't believe that a black man is president.

Well, I'm back to set things straight, and I hope you'll join me. Today on the show, we'll discuss the health care reform debacle and see if we can figure out why the president seems willing to back down on a public option. We'll also look at the prayer-in-school debate still raging in Santa Rosa County, Florida, as well as the gun nuts who think that a Scary Black Man™ will invade their homes and take away their guns (and, presumably, their masculinity as well ... and that's just the women gun nuts!). All that and more ... plus your calls, chats, and tweets.

How can you listen -- and participate? It's as easy as a click:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

It's good to be back, and I hope you'll plan to be a part of the show this afternoon. There's an awful lot of pent-up ranting in here ...

(cross-posted at FPC Blog)

UPDATE (4:12 pm 8/17/09): The show has been archived here for your listening pleasure. Hope you'll listen -- it was a rollicking good time (although we never got around to talking about much besides health care reform).

Deconstructing the wingnut view of health care reform

It's interesting sometimes, in limited doses, to see what the other side thinks about certain issues. Of course, usually it's very clear and you don't have to read any of the hate-driven garbage: you know, "Sotomayor bad, Buchanan good" or "Where's the birth certificate?" or "Don't tax me, bro!" But on an issue as complex as health care reform, even though it has the wingnuts in a tizzy, it's important to show them just where they are wrong in their analysis. And, naturally, they're wrong a lot.

I don't even mean this in terms of the standard GOP "I've got mine, screw you" mentality, the endemic selfishness that ultimately drives nearly all American conservatives today. Rather, I want to point out the inherent flaws in the argument from the Right, and to do so, I'll go to a part of Florida Blast Off! rarely covers: the largely wealthy, über-Republican southwest -- specifically Naples.

Today's example of wingnuttery from southwest Florida comes from Naples Daily News columnist Ed Farmer (left), who is trying to show us that he really doesn't agree with the fringe nutjobs who, driven nearly insane by the idea of a black president!!!!1!!eleven!!, are shouting down members of Congress at all these health care town halls -- honest, he doesn't! But, naturally, he's not very convincing.

They’re not throwing rotten vegetables at those town meetings about health care, are they?

They’re not throwing punches like members of the Japanese parliament, are they?

They’re not carrying swastikas, as the ever-embarrassing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed, are they?

And they’re not breaking the noses of town meeting moderators, the way a guy throwing a folding chair did to Geraldo Rivera on his TV talk show 20 years ago, are they? OK, forget this example.

Better yet, let's forget all those examples, Ed, because they all suck and they all miss the point. For starters, just because they're not throwing rotten vegetables or punches yet doesn't mean they won't. For Jeebus' sake, Ed, a guy in New Hampshire was openly carrying a pistol outside the president's town hall meeting just this week! Rotten vegetables are a convenient strawman, sure, but they kind of pale in comparison to bullets.

And as for your statement about Speaker Pelosi, Ed, well, you're just flat out wrong (nice respect for the speaker, by the way ... shouldn't you be embarrassed about your mistake?). Do you even do the slightest amount of fact-checking? Nazi imagery has been spotted at numerous town hall meetings, including swastikas. And even if you say, well, that one swastika (in Fort Collins, Colo.) had a circle and line through it, as if to say "No Nazis," first, the image was still there, and second, think less literally about swastikas -- maybe you'd prefer the picture (shown here, as seen on CNN) of President Obama with a Hitler mustache, displayed at a Michigan town hall. Face it, Ed: you blew it.

I have neither the time nor the energy to take apart the entire column, although it would be remarkably easy to do so. But I'll just make a couple of other points, Ed. You say:

Many Americans fear having the federal government making life-changing health care decisions rather than their own doctors. When the president made a reference to an elderly person just being given a pain pill rather than a state-of-the-art treatment, the remark scared some people. Their blood pressures rise when Pelosi talks about mobs and labels big insurance companies as immoral villains.

Ah, yes, a variation on the old "Many people say ..." canard. "Many people" (like, maybe, seven) also say that Ashton Kutcher is the greatest actor who ever lived, but that doesn't make it true.

Anyway, first of all, big insurance companies are immoral villains, Ed. We can argue about that another time, because I suppose that's a matter of opinion. But your first sentence there, about "the federal government making life-changing health care decisions rather than their own doctors," well, again, it's just flat out wrong. Doctors aren't making those decisions now, Ed -- insurance companies are! Surely you're not so naïve that you didn't know that?! And they're doing a piss-poor job of it, too. Under the president's plan, the government will have no more say in health care decisions than insurance companies have now, and indeed, it's likely to be a lot less. Get your facts straight, Ed, because until you do, you're just embarrassing yourself and your newspaper.

And finally, the whole idea of that frightening, big, scary federal government taking over, well, that just chaps you and your fellow wingnuts, doesn't it, Ed? But look at it this way: the government can't possibly do health care (or, really, anything else) worse than the private sector has. Let me be blunt: you had your chance with privatization when the Bush crime syndicate was in charge. And it was a colossal failure. The subprime mess, skyrocketing government spending, damage to the environment, and, yes, shitty health care all were results of deregulation under Drunky McStagger, and we're paying the price for it today. Hell, yes, I trust the government more than I do a bunch of insurance companies to make decisions on funding health care, and you know what else? I would be willing to pay more in taxes, even though I have health insurance, to let those less fortunate have health coverage as well. But I know you wingnuts don't do compassion ....

Anyway, Ed, thanks for the entertainment, but if you're going to come to the ballpark (to extend the metaphor in your column) on health care reform, you need to bring more than a Wiffle bat.