better than nothing?

This appears to be the new philosophy of Democrats vis-a-vis the health care debate in the wake of Ted Kennedy's death. Instead of rallying around the ultimate champion of health care (as many hoped initially hoped), the White House, at least, appears determined to continue its strategy of seeking increasingly unacceptable compromises with the Republicans. Just when the absurd idea of having a "public option" run by a health insurance co-operative (yes! let's have a non-profit reporting to the government on healthcare--what a brilliant way to cut bureaucracy!) seems to have momentarily blown over, the Obama administration is now investigating the possibility of transforming the public option into a "backup" plan.

Under this version of the plan, the public option would only be offered in states where fewer than 95% of residents had access to "affordable healthcare." Although Congress would set barometers as to what qualifies as "affordable" on a sliding income scale, there is no indication that the government would determine what services need be covered in these affordable healthcare plans. Without a public option that would cover some minimum level of benefits, health insurance companies can easily come up with relatively cheap (read: the maximum amount allowed by Congress's sliding scale of affordability) policies that provide the most meager amount of coverage. Instead of being a legitimate insurance program that would increase competition and bring down costs, the public option would just become another loophole that insurance companies could work their way around.

Furthermore, by only allowing a public plan in states where fewer than 95% of residents have access to affordable healthcare, the plan defeats one of the primary purposes of universal healthcare: namely, that it is, in fact, universal. Although the bills in Congress would provide tax subsidies and other incentives for people to purchase coverage, there is no guarantee that affordable healthcare plans would be available. So, in the end, we're left with a system that will charge people who are not on approved health plans, but refuses to guarantee that affordable coverage will exist.

Will this plan be better than the current system? Perhaps. But, unlike the arguments made by Obama's remaining supporters on the left, that is not enough. The Democrats have the opportunity to truly reinvent how healthcare in this country works, not just to throw on a few Band-aids that leave the current system more or less intact. What the Democrats will eventually regret is allowing this opportunity to provide true, affordable, universal healthcare to slip through their fingers. Furthermore, no matter how much the Dems bend over backwards to accommodate the GOP and the more conservative members of their own party, there is absolutely no guarantee that the Republicans will ever accept any reform. The more the Democrats have been willing to compromise, the more the Republicans have dragged the debate farther to the right. Days after the ill-advised health-care coop plan began to gain traction, GOP leaders in Congress summarily rejected the idea (Jo Kyl, the Senate's number two Republican, dismissed it as "a government plan by another name.")

The Republicans are too afraid of any sort of public option to ever agree to a plan that allows one in any capacity. And for good reason: a government healthcare plan would significantly increase competition for private insurance companies. It would essentially force them to lower prices and improve care or drop out of the business (you know, the way capitalism is supposed to work). It seems that the big, inefficient government is just better at providing healthcare than the private sector: people on Medicare are significantly more satisfied with their coverage than people on employer-based insurance plans. Private insurance is not a solution to our health care problem, it is the problem.

get the u.s. out of my... foreskin?

The amazing thing about the health care debate in this country is that just when you think it couldn't possibly get any more ridiculous (see death panels, Sarah Palin), it does. Evidently, the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control is considering whether to encourage universal circumcision of baby boys born in the United States. Now, on the surface, this seems like a fairly reasonable proposal to consider. After all, numerous studies have shown that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV during heterosexual intercourse by as much as 60%. The World Health Organization already recommends that male circumcision be considered as a way to reduce AIDS transmission in parts of Africa.

But--as potential benign as a public health campaign to encourage infant circumcision may seem--it is actually, according to right wing anti-health care crusaders like Rush Limbaugh, the government's attempt to institute a circumcision mandate. Limbaugh went on to warn that: "If we need to save our penises from anyone, it's Obama." So, there you have it: universal health care is really part of Obama's secret mission to wage war against American male genitalia (for that matter, this whole circumcision thing probably has to do with the fact that he's a Muslim).

And if that isn't enough to convince you that Obamacare is an Islamofascist communist scheme, the Republican party wants you to know that you may well not even be covered by this government run "health care rationing system.". That is, if you're a registered Republican. A recent RNC fund-raising survey included the following question:

It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibly concern you?

That's right, now the Democrats can pull the plug on Grandma not only if she's deemed an unproductive member of society but also if she voted Bush into office.