Once again, an outstanding commentary. Thanks, Maggie.

In January, I moved out of the corporate cocoon and into an independent consultancy. Because I am not covered by the agency health plan, I had to "shop" for a medical care plan. What a nightmare.

This is not like shopping for car insurance, or home insurance, where you can list the coverage you want and get quotes on exactly that coverage. Every quote for a medical care plan has fine print that must be read in order to determine if it will supply what you want. But have you ever thought about what, exactly, it is that you want from a medical care plan?

Most people take what they get from the employer plan and adjust to it. Even if you were dissatisfied with the plan, the burden of finding your own is onerous.

Once I found a plan that seemed financially viable (but was by no means nearly as comprehensive as my former corporate plan), I spent three hours filling out a form in which the insurance agency demanded a ten year detailed accounting of my visits to hospitals, doctor's offices, outpatient clinics -- including names, addresses and phone numbers; illnesses and/or injuries treated; outcomes; and a list of all prescription drugs used in that time. Ten years! Who are they kidding? Like I am going to remember the name of the clinic doctor who gave me my tetanus shot in 2006 before I went to work for Habitat in New Orleans. Or the clinic doctor who gave me antibiotics for an ear infection 3-4 years ago -- and, oh yeah, what was the antibiotic?

All of which ties to the above article because it ties to what is to me an inevitable conclusion: we need true national medical care planning, in which one can sign up for and receive medical care without having to parse the fine print on a hundred "options" or send in a form that states at the bottom that the insurance company is not obligated to accept it or to honor the quoted price.

Preaching to the choir, I know. But, we have to get there. Somehow. We have to.

Thanks.

mp

Posted at July 4, 2008 8:34 AM in response to The Score: Physicians 355; Insurers 59: Blood on the Senate Floor

Well, let's see ... I've lived in Florida, Texas, New York, Oregon, Washington state and Connecticut. I'm a consultant who for the past 6 years has travelled about 60% of the time, flying coast-to-coast into and out of about 4 dozen airports. I've worked in the office with and sat across the lunchtable from and talked on the phone with hundreds of Americans. Does that constitute "seeing more of America"? I wonder how much you've seen outside your HDTV?

Let me break it down for you. A lot of Obama-bots drank the kook-aid and spread the message that Barack Obama was the new progressive messiah, The Anointed One™, who offered "change you can believe in." Then he secured the nomination, the more honest candidates having all been vanquished, the supply of kook-aid was cut off and the hangover set it. A portion of the Obama-bots, denied their preferred substance of abuse, became angry when his DLC positions became apparent. They began demanding that he honor the pledges he made during the campaign for the nomination. As you correctly pointed out, he flatly said "NO, I am not going to honor those pledges. You served your purpose, and I don't care what you think, now."

Another portion of the kook-aid addicts -- yourself among them, apparently -- don't care if he honors any of the promises he made. You don't care how many lies he tells, or whether he honors any of his pledges. You are absolutlely opposed to holding him accountable for word or deed. "Just elect him. Nothing else matters."

And then, of course, there is the teetotalling 50% of the Democratic party that never drank the kook-aid and knew he was a Huey Long from the upper midwest all along. We can only shake our heads, once again holding our noses to vote for the worst candidate on offer this season. And hope he doesn't damage our country as much as the other guy most assuredly would.

Thanks for doing your part, again, to contribute to the failure of progressive politics in America.

Thanks.

mp

Posted at July 4, 2008 7:45 AM in response to Obama Reiterates: Combat Troops Out Of Iraq In 16 Months

How many of our children and grandchildren will wind up in a gulag because you didn't think the defense of liberty was important?

You've made it clear: "Live free or die" is not one of your principles.

Nothing to see here. Just another surrender monkey hooting for a banana. Obama will be feeding him soon. Move along, folks.

Thanks.

mp

Posted at July 3, 2008 1:25 PM in response to A Time-line Of Obama's Statements On FISA

So your argument is that Beutler should have whipped out his Colt and started banging away? Yeah, let's all be violent and indifferent to the taking of human life ... just like the criminals.

Good idea!

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." -- Pogo

"Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." -- ML King

Yeah, much easier to simply kill people, maybe nail an innocent bystander or two, than to actually solve the problems that lead to the violence.

Beutler has my sympathy. I know firsthand how scary it is to be confronted by naked violence (though I've never been shot). And I'm glad he wasn't as murderous as his assailant. He has something to live for; his assailant is dead to the world.

Thanks.

mp

Posted at July 2, 2008 4:30 PM in response to Well Known Liberal Blogger Shot In Washington, D.C.

Yeah, the feel-good part is when you enter a restaurant and there's a sign on the door, "Concealed weapons are not allowed on these premises." And then, you think about all the restaurants you've been in, that did not have that sign. And think twice about going into one of them again. It's creepy to think about that guy at the bar sucking down a beer and laughing too loud has gun under his coat.

The violent crime rate in Texas is not lower than elsewhere. There are just more people with guns hidden on their persons.

Thanks.

mp

Posted at July 2, 2008 4:18 PM in response to Well Known Liberal Blogger Shot In Washington, D.C.

"Some degree" of compromise? Is there a single issue on which he hasn't flipped? Iran, Iraq war, "John McCain's service," telecom immunity -- give us a major issue on which he hasn't backed down since becoming the "presumptive" nominee. Oh yeah, "lay off my wife." That's an issue of major national importance.

He has no 'nads of his own and he's obviously taking the advice of the same crowd of eunuchs that advised Kerry in '04. Maybe we should run his wife. At least she knows how to do a "terrorist fist bump."

Thanks.

mp

Posted at July 1, 2008 8:36 AM in response to Clark Stands By Comments About McCain

And then there's people who simply accept everything they are told, and never question "their superiors."

Your notion that Obama camp is incapable of making a mistake does not bear much scrutiny. You probably said the same thing about Kerry in 2004, when his camp decided to ignore the "Swiftboaters." They were the experts, right?

How'd that work out for you?

The reality is that a botched play is much easier to identify from the sidelines than it is in the heat of execution. The reality is also that Barack Obama is a slick politician from central Illinois with no national campaign experience prior to 2007. He's never run, nor participated in, any other national campaign. His campaign experience is zilch.

Do you think that matters -- or is he just The Anointed One™ : End of discussion?

Thanks.

mp

Posted at June 30, 2008 2:16 PM in response to Obama Campaign Condemns Wes Clark's Comments About McCain

An apology would be appropriate after Obama apologizes for helping Lieberman get reelected. This particular circumstance should be an object lesson to Obama, et al., on the dangers of membership in the "good ol' boys" club.

Obama stabbed the CT Democratic Party in the back because he thought it would be to his own political advantage. Whoops.

Thanks.

mp

Posted at June 27, 2008 9:09 AM in response to Lieberman Plays The Wright Card

Well, really. Name an occasion where Obama has ever acted on principle, without regard to the political consequences. Ever.

I'll answer my own question: You can't name such an occasion, because the event has never occurred. Here's the part that twists my knickers: people actually accept his positions on issues like FISA and Iran and healthcare, offering the argument that "He's just lying now so that he can get elected; but he'll really be progressive once he gets into office." Say what?? And the reasons why he would suddenly grow a pair and become morally enlightened on 1/21/09 ... yeah, pretty fuzzy on that part.

Drop the cup of kook-aid. We may feel like we have to vote for him because the alternative is horrendous; we don't have to take the press releases as revealed truth.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Thanks.

mp

Posted at June 26, 2008 11:53 AM in response to Supreme Court Decision on Child Rape: An open Letter to Barack Obama

Way to demonstrate a complete ignorance of modern political history.

Everything that Carter predicted about our political, economic and social future is now the undeniable present. Because of gutless Democratic politicians, backed by rudderless voters like yourself, we have at best some chance of maintaining this nation into the intermediate future.

You're in the tank for a candidate who will never choose to do what is right over what is politically expedient. Ever. Therefore, I don't need any lectures from you about my affiliations. You need both a college course in modern politics and a candidate with some moral courage.

Get back to me when you've completed the one and found the other.

Thanks.

mp

Posted at June 22, 2008 1:38 PM in response to Stop Nickel and Diming Obama: He Should say Whatever It Takes