Someone long familiar in these parts, Kathy Flake, helps us out:
It’s a sacrifice, but someone has to do it. And obviously, it’s not going to be Sarah Palin.
I start my day with a cup of tea, or three, a bowl of shredded wheat, strawberries and soymilk. This takes time, so I sit at my desk and I read what people who really understand health care reform have to say. They’re journalists, economists, and writers who’ve studied the issue for years, and understand the intricacies of health care policy and the current proposals for reform much better than I do, even though I paid attention in my Economics classes.
She says, “If you read nothing else but Ezra Klein’s columns, you’ll be very well informed on the health care reform debate. In fact, on days when I’m limited to one cup of tea, I make sure Ezra’s the one I’m reading while I’m sipping.”
KathyF has more.
OpenCongress, Avelino’s place of employment and devotion, is a good source, too: House Health Care Bill – H.R.3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
I gave up stuff like this when I went from political to wine blogging, but yesterday I got into an email argument with a friend and spent much of the afternoon reading through sections of the House version of the bill. The sections I read focused on whether the bill would make the government plan mandatory, as is widely believed.
I think I read about 50 or 60 pages of it, legal language with lots of references to other parts of the legislation and even standing laws going back to the 1950s. And I’ve got to say: this law is really well thought out. (Keeping in mind that it won’t get really cluttered with special interest crap until it goes to conference.) The protections in the law for people who don’t want to give up their private insurance are detailed and comprehensive.
It got to be kind of fun. My friend would email me a complaint, and I’d go find the relevant portion of the legislation and discover that the rightie scare story he was reading had the law exactly wrong. It’s going to forbid companies from offering private insurance! No, it’s not. It’s going to force me into the government plan! No, it’s not. If I have another kid, that kid will have to go into the government plan while the rest of the family stays in the private plan! No, it’s not. If I decline the government plan, I’ll have to pay a tax penalty! No, you won’t.
The legislation bends over backwards to let people and companies make their own choice, but to hear the opposition tell it, it’s a Nazi takeover. Instead of town meetings, politicians should host small-group readings of the legislation. I thought the afternoon was fascinating.
There are things in the law worth debating. (For example: The tax on small business seems to me kind of extreme, “small business” being defined by size of payroll, with the tax kicking in at $250,000. That’s a small, small business.) But it’s amazing, after an afternoon of exchanges with a friend who is a serious wingnut, that absolutely none of the complaints he raged over turned out to be true in any way, shape or form. That’s a pretty good batting average, if you think about it. Almost like someone is deliberately making things up.
Thanks for the plug Ken.
Tom, I haven’t spent too much time reading the bill, but I have spent some. I’d agree with you: the section on “death panels” and “orders” is completely filled with language defending the patients’ right to choose their options for end-of-life care.