MW: Dear Terry: If This is in My Hands, I’m Washing Them

No Thanks, Terry

Today’s email includes a plea from Terry O’Neill, the President of NOW, to pretty, pretty please contact my representative to vote for HR 3962, AKA “The Affordable Health Care for America Bill”. She freely admits that this bill is far from our wildest dreams, but insists that this is probably the best that we are going to do at this point in time. Terry states that Nancy Pelosi is certain that this “compromise” bill will cover 96% of the American public, which is great unless you happen to fall into the 4% that is excluded. Call me crazy, but I had always thought that Congress represents everyone – silly me!

HR 3962 will, she states, curb insurances abuses, provide insurance reforms, cover “a majority” of citizens, provide subsidies to low “and some” moderate income people, assure that at least one plan will cover termination of pregnancy, and contains the essentials of a public health plan. “Much needed repairs” to the health care system are contained in this bill.

So here we go, Widdershins. The true gem of the NOW email is this: “NOW is committed to working on a better public health insurance plan, and eventually (emphasis mine), to see states adapt the much more affordable and comprehensive single payer plans.” Eventually? Sweet jumpin’ Jayzus on a carousel, Terry. We’ve only been at this since the Roosevelt administration. When the hell is eventually? Call me crazy, but I sort of think the time has come.

I’m also stewing over this nugget: “At some near date, we want to see women’s reproductive care covered –  just like any other part of basic health care.” This is from the National Organization for Women? I am speechless. Well, almost speechless – try this one on, Terry: I am willing to back down on women’s reproductive care if my brethren will follow suit in men’s genitor-urinary care. That’s right – no vasectomies, no PSAs to see if you have prostate cancer, no Flomax when said prostate swells to the size of Montana, and no Viagra coverage at all. None, zero, zip, squat, nyet. I would consider this to be an equitable compromise.

Not that the Republican version of health care sounds terrific. The centerpiece of the bill is, of course, tort reform. I live in a state where lawsuits are forbidden except in cases of permanent disability, or the death of a person either married or the parent of a minor child. Physicians in this state may therefore misdiagnose/mistreat the hell out of you, and kill off all of the single people (or those without minor children) that they would like without the specter of litigation dogging their heels. They do not have to carry malpractice insurance, either, if they are willing to post a bond with the state to cover them should they manage to maim or kill someone within the narrow definition of the law through a therapeutic misadventure or two. Despite all of these reforms, the cost of medical care in The State Which Must Not Be Named has skyrocketed right along with everyone else.

The Democratic Party of Fl*rida, which has yet to understand that I am no longer a member, sent a pretty well-referenced email outlining the rest of the Republicans’ plan. Apparently, it does not reduce premiums, does not stop the whole “pre-existing” mess, allows insurers to drop you when you become ill (but does insist that they be nice enough to notify you), would actually raise the number of the uninsured, and (hilariously) appears to be more expensive per the Congressional Budget Office.

Frankly, I am absolutely turned off by both. How about you?

This is an open thread.