The big debate right now is on health care.  There was a nice little attempt at a distraction a couple weeks ago when a snobby Harvard professor (and our president) acted like an idiot and the media attempted to turn the debate to racism in America.  Black leaders were indignant, police groups were on the defensive, and we all counted down to that damn "beer summit" like it was the new millennium. We learned Harvard professors can be rude, officer Crowley is a really nice guy, and our president drinks pee-pee-water-sorority-girl beer.  Thank God the People pulled the discussion back to health care.  I guess.  It'd be great if the debate was actually about health care, but the debate has changed from the actual bill to discussing just how angry the People are (usually described as "those" people meaning right-wing extremists and GOP operatives) and how rude they're acting to their representatives. 

Rachel Maddow, for instance, (who I used to kind of like, I don't agree with her but at least she mixes her progressive sentiments with some light-hearted laughs here and there) is busy digging through the records of the heads of Freedom Works and American Solutions and other conservative political action committees and showing how they're programing "those" people showing up at the townhalls to thinking all kinds of garbage that's not in the bill, but actually is in the bill.... oops.

Is there top-down tinkering in politics, of course there is, on both sides of the issue.  Just because someone agrees with Obamacare doesn't mean they're paid off by George Soros and is a mindless ACORN lacky, adversely, if someone disagrees with Obamacare, it doesn't mean they're a GOP operative bought and paid for by Rupert Murdock.  Accusing both unfoundedly of conspiring together only hampers what actually matters--the debate.

Republitarded leaders do a service by listing the things in the bill, but then give health care proponents fodder and do a disservice by giving those things extreme names to scare people.  Democraptastic leaders are just as guilty by simply rubber-stamping the legislation without reading it and then blindly calling opponents nazis.

So how about it, gang, can we talk about the bill please?  We all agree something happens to be done.  The politicians are saying "something has to be done, may as well be this" as if there's a crisis.  A crisis?  Really?  A CRISIS?  Buck up!  Moscow pointing missiles at us is a crisis, health care is not at crisis levels!  Plus, even if we pass it now, it won't be effective until 2013!  So, if the crisis isn't so deep that we can wait four years after passing it, I think we can spare a couple months to come up with something better.  With that said, I'll propose my idea!  This idea is so good, it'll make you poop yourself your cheeks will be so relieved after being so tightly puckered for this whole debate!  I have a beautiful idea so that everyone can get whatever they want and be happy and SHUT THE HELL UP! 

Ready?

States' rights.  How about that? 

A huge problem with our health system is that it is all ready highly nationalized.  How about denationalize it?  If California or Massachussetts really wants universal health care, they should be allowed to do it.  If Indiana and Illinois want a public option to "compete" with private insurance, go for it, if Texans and Georgians want to get the government out and further privatize health care, they should be allowed to do so as well.  "We want single payer!"; "We want court reform!"; "We want a public option!"; "We want the government out of health care!"; "We want contract reform!" whatever floats your boat, you can have, and if it's not in your state, hey! you're free to move to a state that has what you want!  Brilliant!

Why is it that the whole nation HAS to be under the same health care system and the same mandate?  We all obviously want different things; why not let us have different things?

Oh wait... Washington wont get new powers...

Well, dammit...  I guess that idea's scrapped.

Wake me when the Death Panel calls me.

-WDP