T.S. Claudette Wets the Panhandle

All day yesterday, hyperventilating and even hysterical weather warnings about T.S. Claudette crossed the TeeVee screen and popped up on the Internet Tubes. "Claudette threatens Florida," was the common theme. "Tropical storm menaces Gulf Coast."

Early this morning reality sank in with the media when the storm came ashore near Ft. Walton Beach. It's going to be a rainy day in the panhandle, that's about it.

How many times can the media cry wolf (while peddling dog foods and anti-depressants) before people stop paying attention? And how long after that will it be before a real tropical wolf slams into a large, somnambulant population grown skeptical about the media's ability to report anything straight?

Watching Claudette

Claudette Closing In on Panhandle

Tropical Storm Claudette is not gaining much strength, so the NHC forecast discussion remains the same as evening approaches: a landfall somewhere in the Northwest Florida panhandle, copious amounts of rain, and moderately high winds.

Very light occasional rain drops are being felt at times in isolated locations on the beach and Gulf Breeze peninsula. One report we received is that by 4 pm lead storm bands had begun raining in isolated spots over Pensacola and at mainland points north.

Experiencing T.S. Claudette

Tropical Storm Claudette, born to everyone's surprise overnight, looks to be headed squarely for the Florida Panhandle. Early morning predictions targeted Destin. The 11 am forecast discussion, however, offers some reassurance that it will not strengthen.

In all likelihood, we will experience Claudette only as a bad rain storm.

corrected link
8-15 pm

Reporters Discuss Health Reform

"Has anyone actually read the bill?" A satirical take on the media's coverage of health care reform. Unfortunately, not that far off from the appalling coverage you can see every day of the week on TV news and discussion programs.

on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Healther Skelter - Obama Death Panel Debate
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Health Care Reform: Essential Benefits

This is another installment in our continuing series on the affirmative provisions of H.R. 3200, the health reform bill currently pending in the House of Representatives. For earlier installments, scroll down the page.

To repeat what we have said before, if you read the actual proposed legislation, a primary source of factual information, you will have armed yourself against the thugs and hooligans who are trying to shout down all reasonable discussions about reforming America's broken health care system. Do not rely on untrustworthy secondary sources, like "Ross" who left comments a few days ago at the end of this post that make it clear he doesn't know the difference between a primary source and a prime rib.

Notice, if you will, that all the despicable Palins and Grassleys and, yes, even lowly bloggers like our "Ross" fellow, never quote a primary source -- such as the draft legislation known as H.R. 3200 -- to show us a factual basis for their inane arguments. As Darren Hutchinson wrote Thursday (filling in for Glenn Greenwald), critics of health care reform never "point to any specific language in the bill."

Why not? As Hutchison says, because "facts mean nothing in a smear campaign."

So much ink and so many television pixels have been wasted on the shouting bullies and Ross-like rutabaga-heads trying to disrupt town meetings or clutter message boards that the core provisions being proposed for health care reform have been buried under all the garbage. Yet, those essentials are plainly set out in an early section of H.R. 3200:

SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.

(a) In General- In this division, the term `essential benefits package' means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security, that--

(1) provides payment for the items and services described in subsection (b) in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical or other appropriate clinical or professional practice;

(2) limits cost-sharing for such covered health care items and services in accordance with such benefit standards, consistent with subsection (c);

(3) does not impose any annual or lifetime limit on the coverage of covered health care items and services;

(4) complies with section 115(a) (relating to network adequacy); and

(5) is equivalent, as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage.

(b) Minimum Services To Be Covered- The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician's or a health professional's delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients' homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

(c) Requirements Relating to Cost-sharing and Minimum Actuarial Value-

(1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES- There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards), including well baby and well child care.

(2) ANNUAL LIMITATION-

(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION- The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).

(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL- The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.

(C) USE OF COPAYMENTS- In establishing cost-sharing levels for basic, enhanced, and premium plans under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible, use only copayments and not coinsurance.

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE-

(A) IN GENERAL- The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).

(B) REFERENCE BENEFITS PACKAGE DESCRIBED- The reference benefits package described in this subparagraph is the essential benefits package if there were no cost-sharing imposed.

This section accomplishes several key goals that are equivalent to, and in several respects better than, most existing private insurance plans. It also addresses the new medical reality that, increasingly, prescription drugs are the most common, and among the most expensive, forms of medical treatment.

For now, we'll concentrate on three of the larger aspects of Section 122.

First, one huge reform is that no "annual or lifetime limit on the coverage of covered health care items and services" would be imposed. If your child, for example, has the misfortune to need especially expensive or long-term medical care -- say, because of Down's Syndrome -- under H.R. 3200, the insurance company could not refuse to pay after the bills hit a certain arbitrary ceiling level. To this extent, continuing medical care coverage is guaranteed for all insureds, just as it is now by federal medical insurance programs such as that provided by the Veterans Administration.

Second, "cost sharing" continues just as it does now under most for-profit insurance policies. But H.R. 3200 would limit the cost-sharing to, roughly, a maximum of 70-30 and no more than $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family" per year.

Third, no cost-sharing is allowed for certain preventive health services, such as "well baby" and "well child care" services. Preventive medical care really does work, as numerous medical studies have established. H.R. 3200 promotes preventive care for children by lowering the out-of-pocket costs for parents who seek to have their infants treated at the earliest sign of medical trouble. Presently, many parents, particularly those among the 47 million who no longer can afford insurance, defer things too long by wishful thinking. By the time they seek medical treatment for a sick child, things have gone from bad to worse and treatment often becomes much more costly.

All of this brings to mind a young mother we once knew who had three exceptionally bright children. The two boys had Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy, a condition that usually doesn't become manifest until age two or three. It's almost invariably fatal by the late 20's or early 30's. The woman's husband, a wealthy St. Louis businessman, left her and the children to fend for themselves.

The husband looked to escape by suing for divorce. Eventually, a settlement was approved by the divorce court under which he was obligated to continue paying for the health insurance policies he had taken out on each of the children when they were born.

Little did the mother or the judge realize at the time that the policies contained a "lifetime" maximum limit on health benefits, or that the described limit would be exceeded by the time the boys were 13 and 11, mostly due to unprecedented inflation, well above the national CPI average, in medical and hospital costs. When the children maxed out on the policy, the insurance company refused to pay the pending bills and dropped the kids.

The now-absent father shrugged his shoulders. 'It's not my problem,' he said. 'The court approved the policy." He also argued, probably correctly, that all the other policies on the market had a lifetime maximum, too.

The mother couldn't buy another health insurance policy anywhere else due to "prior medical conditions." So, she was ruined and took bankruptcy. The cost of the bankruptcy, of course, fell most heavily on the innocent creditors, the mother, the children, the doctors and the hospital where the boys has been treated previously, and the public.

Now that they had become destitute, future medical care was provided by Medicaid. But the program had no authority to pay past medical bills which the private insurer had turned down.

Needless to say, the absent father, his new trophy wife, and the health insurance company did very well for themselves.

Just like commentator "Ross," whose various comments reveal a deplorable disregard for anyone other than himself, the ex-husband didn't think the boys' health was his problem anymore. For him, as with "Ross," when it comes to medical care every man is an island. Such people are not "involved in mankind" and the bell will never toll for them.

Or, so they think.

Health Care Reform: Preexisting Conditions

As we said yesterday, anyone with Internet access and a brain who is genuinely interested in knowing the content of proposed health care reform legislation doesn't have to rely on what some loosely-wrapped bully with anger management problems is shouting. You can check it out yourself by reading the actual legislative proposals.

The first thing to understand about the current status of health care reform is that there is no "Obama bill," as such. Instead, there are more than two dozen specific legislative proposals, large and small, pending in Congress. As of this month, none -- zero -- have made it through all required committees. All proposals are still in the process of being written and studied and rewritten before they will be ready for an up-or-down vote at the committee level and, for those that survive, sent to the floor of the House or Senate for action.

The nearest bill to being ready for a floor debate is H.R. 3200 (also known as "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"). The full text as it stands right now is here. If you make the effort to read the bill itself, you'll learn that H.R. 3200 does not 'encourage senior citizens to kill themselves', as Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News Network claim, or set up "death panels" as Sarah Palin claims.

In fact, it does nothing like what the fear-mongering critics and townhall bullies falsely charge. They're counting on you not to take the time to check out the facts yourself. They think you're too stupid or lazy to consult primary sources.

Also as we've said before, Please Cut the Crap is doing yeoman work in taking the deeply deceptive claims of many secondary sources and comparing them with the reality of the actual words in the proposed legislation. For now, the main focus is on H.R. 3200, a House of Representatives version of health care reform that is the farthest along in the legislative process.

The bill is, however, lengthy. That became inevitable when Congress rejected our personal proposal for a three-sentence Health Reform Bill which we sent in on the back of a napkin. On our napkin, we wrote: "Everybody is eligible for Medicare or the same health insurance U.S. Senators have, whichever is better, regardless of age. The option is yours. Take one, or the other, or stick with what you have."

"Please Cut the Crap" is doing a great job of exposing the lies being spouted by health reform opponents. But we would like to focus on the positive aspects of H.R. 3200. Because of its length, it's helpful to read the House bill in small bites.

More's coming, but here's your first spoonful:

SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.

A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any health status-related factors (as defined in section 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation to the individual or dependent.

What this provision of H.R. 3200 means for many of our friends -- and everyone else, too -- is plain. They would have more options, not less.

• One dear friend we're thinking of is a lawyer in the Middle West who just had prostate surgery after a very bad PSA. He's not the silk stocking kind of lawyer that crowds Wall Street. He's the Atticus Finch kind of lawyer who helps rescue old ladies from con artists, charges only what the client can afford, gets paid with tomatoes from the client's garden, and then, when he hears she's feeling poorly, shows up Saturday morning to mow her lawn and bring her a hot meal. If he loses his job or decides to move out of state to be nearer his new grandchild, he probably can still get some kind of health care coverage -- but future cancer treatments will be excluded unless something like H.R. 3200 is adopted.
  
• If a recently widowed woman we know accepts her physician's suggestion that she should go through a few grief counseling sessions, when it comes time for health insurance policy renewal if H.R. 3200 was adopted, she wouldn't be forced to swallow an "exclusion from coverage" addendum for depression or other mental health treatment -- as we know others in the same situation have been forced to do by Blue Cross of Florida, among other private insurance companies. "Take it or it leave it," Blue Cross tells new arrivals in Florida when they try to switch their old Blue Cross of Some-Other-State to Florida.
  
• If another friend of ours who is living on Pensacola Beach, and who beat breast cancer a year ago, wants to change insurers or for some reason moves out of the area, she still would be eligible for full health insurance coverage under H.R. 3200, with no "preexisting medical condition" exception. As it is now, this cancer survivor is paying almost as much for single person health coverage as most Americans pay monthly on their home mortgage. And she's stuck where she now lives for life if she wants to keep fully insured.
  

H.R. 3200 would change all of that by requiring health insurance policies to fully insure your health (as well as to make them portable, as we'll see later). There's more positive news in the primary source document of H.R. 3200, as we'll be pointing out in the near future. If you can't wait, great! Read the bill yourself, all the way through.

When you're done, you'll be more informed than any of the critics and protesters, like the bully with the Air Force hat, Sarah Palin, or even Newt Gingerich -- who deliberately misstated the bill's contents until he was punked by George Stephanopolous.

Exposing Health Care Reform Lies

Ordinary Americans are more easily frightened today by despicable lies and extreme distortions than perhaps ever before in our history. Never more, or so it seems, than with the issue of health care reform.

Why? Based on the confusion we hear from many locals, on and off the golf course, we suspect one of the reasons is that too many Americans these days know too little about their own government. They're barely familiar with the child's story-book version of own nation's history, how its government functions, how a bill becomes law, or why the legislative process at times is so damnably complicated.

That last one you can blame on the Founding Fathers and their fondness for Montesquieu's then-radical idea that power is best checked by dividing it among three co-equal branches of government. It was a good idea turned into nightmare by the Founding Fathers when they took one step more by re-dividing one of those three branches of government into two, called the House and Senate.

Effectively, that makes a total of three-and-a-half branches. That "half" branch, the U.S. Senate, strictly for political reasons was designed to thwart the will of the majority of citizens, as Henrick Herzberg recently pointed out:

In 1790, the least populous state (Delaware) had one-twelfth as many people as the most populous (Virginia). And now? Now the emptiest state, Wyoming, has one-seventieth as many people as the fullest, California. Guess which of the two has a senator who, having clung to his seat long enough to become chairman of the Finance Committee, has more power over the fate of health-care reform than anyone else in Congress? (Hint: his state has more people than Fresno, but fewer than Fresno and its suburbs.)

Worst-case scenario, the filibuster means that a forty per cent minority of the Senate, representing as few as one-tenth of the nation’s human beings, can thwart the other sixty per cent, representing as many as nine-tenths. But even a majority of the Senate—fifty-one votes—can represent as little as eighteen per cent of the population.

In the United States Senate, there is no such thing as a “simple” majority.

In the "Information Age" we find ourselves in the vast majority, sadly, relies for its news and information on television, radio call-in-shows, and the endless stream of circulating email messages which are intended to frighten, enrage, beggar, or cheat the recipients. Even the best of these sources can be only secondary in character. That is, they are mere intermediaries. Sometimes, they are many steps removed from the original information source -- the actual facts, as it were.

A few newspapers, magazines, and TV programs in our popular culture of secondary sources have proven over time to be reasonably reliable. Occasionally, a more political organization also will have reliable information, as the White House does with its new Reality Check web site.

Still, these are all secondary authorities. When it comes to enacted legislation, the gold standard is what's known as primary authority. For that, there always have been primary sources of information such as statute books, transcripts of lawmakers at hearings and in floor debates, and the Daily Record of congressional bills and other doings -- the very kind of evidence that judicial rules of evidence permit, unquestioned, in determining the intention of a statute.

Time was when access to such primary sources was limited largely to those who lived in big cities with great federal repository libraries and good law libraries. No more. Today, thanks to the Internet, many of these primary sources are easily accessible to the general public.

If you really care about an issue such as health care reform, you'll spend the time learning where the reliable primary sources are. If you have the sapience to understand and analyze the information available, you can justly claim to be fully and accurately informed. Scare tactics won't work on you. You'll know more than the scare-mongers.

When it comes to pending legislation not yet enacted, the best primary source for information on the Internet, hands down, is www.Thomas.gov. It's run by the Library of Congress, a notoriously non-partisan branch of government. Among other services, Thomas.gov publishes the full text of every bill introduced in Congress, all recorded actions taken by congressional committees, the votes, and the daily Congressional Record of official House and Senate actions and debates.

So, anyone who is genuinely interested in knowing the content of a proposed bill -- say, for example, one to reform health care -- doesn't have to rely on what some hypocritical bully with tell-tale dried spittle at the corners of his mouth, has to say. You can check it out yourself by reading the actual legislative proposals.

"Please Cut the Crap" is doing just that. Paralegal Milt Shook has been assembling all of the outrageous lies and deceptive misrepresentations being shouted around by health care reform protesters. Then he compares the assertions to the primary source: the actual, proposed legislation.

So far, "Please Cut the Crap" has written three separate articles comparing the critics' claims to the actual legislation pending. Each article is lengthy, yes, but a lot shorter than the bill itself. It's now clear that Milt Shook is one of those few reliable "secondary" sources we mentioned earlier.

Two of his blog articles, helpfully, are divided by references to pages in the pending House bill. Read all three for yourself to compare the critics' delusional lies with actual reality:

Part I: Deconstructing the Right Wing Lies on the Health Insurance Bill, Pages 1-500.

Part II: Deconstructing the Right Wing Lies on the Health Insurance Bill -- Pages 500-730

Part III: Even Newer! Deconstructing the Right Wing Lies on Health Care Bill - Part III

To be sure, the White House has a new web site known as Reality Check that tries to do the same thing, too, mostly through videos rebutting misinformation from the shouters, cranks, and nutcases. Even that web site, however, doesn't focus on the positive aspects contained in pending legislation.

What makes Milt Shook's effort so notable is he rebuts the lies by contrasting them with primary authority -- namely, the specific provisions of the health care bill, itself, that has advanced the farthest in the legislative process.

spell edit 8-13

Tropical Forecast Riddle

This morning's discussion by the overnight crew at the National Hurricane Center, about newly-designated Tropical Depression 2 -- which is, for the nonce, far away -- raises a nettlesome question. Here's what the forecast discussion says:

As usual there is considerable uncertainty as to the strength of this system later in the forecast period. If the cyclone moves farther North than anticipated below it will probably encounter stronger shear and not intensify as much as forecast. On the other hand if the system moves farther south than expected late in the period... It will probably become stronger than anticipated here.

Is it a logical oxymoron to anticipate the unexpected path and intensity of a storm? Or, is it simply a down-to-earth quantum effect of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

Manufactured Misinformation

James Fallows only recently returned from another of his extended stays reporting for The Atlantic from Asia. He's shocked to discover "the world's most mature democracy, informed by the world's dominant media system... getting tied up by manufactured misinformation. No matter what party you belong to, you can't think this is a sign of health for the Republic."

Truly, the demented ravings of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly have wormed their way into the mainstream media like a deadly virus, infecting everything about our body politic. Newspaper and television outlets cover rabid, spittle-spitting shouters and gun-toting Neanderthals at public health care reform meetings as if they were normal participants in a First Amendment civics demonstration.

They are not normal. They are not there to inform the discussion or advance debate. They are there to prevent free speech by others. And, to misrepresent the various health reform proposals that are being deliberated in Congress.

This kind of behavior has never been sanctioned by the First Amendment, any more than falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. News reporters who cover them have some real reporting to do beyond describing the manufactured outrage on display. Find out who the protesters really are; where they really come from; and what biased baggage they're bringing into the room. As did Green Bay TV reporter Christoffer Engebretson.

Even better, as Jamison Foser suggests, ignore them.

A dozen people shouting at a town hall meeting -- even a dozen people shouting at each of a hundred town hall meetings -- just doesn't tell us anything meaningful about public opinion. It tells us that there are at least few thousand angry people, and that they're organized. We already know that.

Look: Sarah Palin drew big crowds last year -- and a lot of those people were angry. They yelled, they held up nasty signs, and they convinced a lot of the media there was some huge groundswell of opposition to Barack Obama. Then he went out and won North Carolina and Indiana.

* * *

Video of people yelling about health care may make for good television, but it makes for lousy journalism. It exaggerates the numbers and significance of the people who yell the loudest, whichever side they're on.

To return to the Oliver Wendell Holmes' analogy, large segments of our news media have sunk so low that if a mental case suddenly shouted "Fire!" to stampede a theater crowd, too many reporters in America today would cover it by filing a story that says, "One man offered the opinion that the theater was on fire. While some disagreed, everyone ran for the exits."

Health Care at the 19th Hole

Yesterday we played golf, mostly with a lot of retired, undereducated Republicans. Most of them do not subscribe to any newspaper, get all their information from Fox News, and haven't read a book this side of Laura Leigh in decades.

At the 19th hole, after toting up the scores and distributing the modest prize money, drinks were ordered and the conversation quickly drifted into current events -- namely, health care. If conversations came with footnotes, "some email I got from someone" would have been the most popular citation of authority.

As illustrated all too well even here-- in a spate of idiotic, fact-free, scare-mongering messages attached to older posts over the weekend from multiple "Anonymous" readers -- misinformation about health care reform has gone viral across the nation. In rapid succession, we were told (1) Obama isn't a U.S. citizen; (2) Obama is no longer a Muslim, he's the devil ("He really is, I'm not kidding."); (3) Obama wants to "take away my health insurance;" (4) Obama's health care bill will cut Veteran's benefits; (5) Under a health care bill proposed by Obama "everybody will be put on Medicaid;" (6) Obama plans to "require everyone to have a living will so they have to die when they get sick;" (7) "they're going to take away my Medicare;" and more errant nonsense along the same lines.

Over the weekend, the White House finally began pushing back.

As of today, there's now a web site devoted expressly to correcting the most common misconceptions, disingenuous criticisms, and outright lies being circulated -- and often shouted -- by town hall meeting protesters, through the internet pipes, in circulating emails, and at all the 19th holes where we were trapped. In addition to several short but informative video clips, the web site has a Frequently Asked Questions section that gives you the latest info on where we are with health care reform.

Below, one of those videos. Check out the others, too.

Miller's Double-Crossing

It was predictable that Northwest Florida congressman Jeff Miller (R-Chumukla) would double-cross his own constituents by voting against the consumer-friendly Cash-for-Clunkers auto rebate program. Twice. The first time, when it was created. The second time when it became so popular Congress had to extend it.

He's the one who thinks small businessmen "should go away."

The cash-for-clunkers program works, so of course Miller opposes it. It's good for the environment, good for the auto industry, saves jobs, stimulates the economy, and helps the average guy and gal on the street.

Nothing there for Miller.

By contrast, our incumbent congressman loves the disastrous F-22 "stealth" fighter plane. He still wants to restore $4 billion in additional funding for this disastrous, corporate-friendly pork barrel project, even though the Defense Department doesn't want it, the plane typically flies only 1.7 hours before "critically failing", and it's exposed to the enemy whenever it rains.

If Jeff Miller had designed the automobile stimulus program, average citizens would be forking over their cash to arms merchants and towing home nothing but clunkers.

"Outlandish"

"President Barack Obama calls health insurance reform critical to our nations long-term economic strength and dispels the outlandish rumors being promoted by those who are defending the status-quo."

Health Care Reform Prostestors Revealed

His face was splashed all over the media and Youtube as one of the first so-called "health care reform protesters." He's the manifestly undereducated guy who admits,"I don't have sophisticated language" and then simultaneously refused to let House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer speak while calling him a "liar."

He later told a credulous local TV reporter he went to the meeting being held by another local congressman about a new transportation bill just "to ask... if he was planning a town hall meeting regarding healthcare reform during the August recess."

So who is this guy? More to the point, what kind of health care does he have?

His name is Don Jeror. He is a right-winger who, last April, organized one of those bizarre, unfocused "tea party" anti-tax gatherings. He claims "my group" (get that -- 'my group') "consists of me, five women over the age of 60, and one young African American woman... ."

No one seems to have noticed, but Jeror is wearing a U.S. Air Force cap. It's the kind popular with a lot of retired U.S.A.F. veterans. We see them all the time around the Pensacola area.

What that suggests, of course, is that Don Jeror has for himself and his dependents the very best health care in the United States: Veterans Administration health benefits. Totally managed by the federal government. Totally free.

"Socialist," some would say. "No, just sensible," we would reply.

Jeror has no need to work at a shitty job just to keep his health insurance. He will never be notified that his new medical problem is excluded from coverage because of "prior conditions." He has no reason to fear having his health insurance summarily canceled if he really gets sick. He and his doctor will never have to wait on "approval" for some medical procedure from an anonymous corporate flunky for some private insurance company.

Come to that, "his" group of five women includes at least four "over the age of 60." Soon enough, all of them will have the second-best health care in the nation (if they don't already). We mean, of course, Medicare.

Again, run by the federal government. Again, no "prior exclusions" nonsense. No "change your job and lose your benefits" confusion. No waiting for prior approval from some faceless voice on the phone before you get that surgery your doctor recommends.

So, why is it that Don Jeror and "his" little group of older women, who enjoy such great health care benefits themselves, want to deny them to the rest of us? Is it a selfish, reverse Robin Hood syndrome? Is it some twisted reasoning that says, "me get, you don't"? Is it ignorance? Is it partisan politics? Is it "I'm against whatever Obama is for?" Is it racism?

Whatever the answer may be, you can be sure of one thing: Don Jeror and his grandmother groupies aren't going to be changing their own health care benefits any time soon. They like it just fine for themselves. They just don't want you to have any, too.

A Leading Health Care Reform Opponent Speaks Out

Rick Scott, CEO of "Conservatives for Patients [ha ha] Rights."

"Yeah, $1.7 billion for fraud. But they never put me in jail."