Guys,

[Note: Because of the nature of this discussion and the ghastly amount of misinformation that has been spread on it, I've chosen to cite sources in this essay as I would in an academic thesis or Wikipedia entry. My hope is to avoid being pedantic while still sidestepping any back-and-forth about the facts in question. On each point, I have either gone straight to original source (i.e. transcript or recording of Rush Limbaugh's radio show) or chosen as mainstream a factual source I could find.]

------------------------------------------------------

The much-anticipated Senate health care bill was made public this week. On the morning it was released, I downloaded the .pdf file from the government website, printed it out, made a big pot of coffee, and went though the bill section by section taking notes.

I can't claim to have read every word of the bill. But I feel okay about that, because in the past few days, it's become clear that I put more time and attention into studying the bill than many members of Congress and the parade of conservative talk show hosts who have savaged the health care reform effort since its latest revival last year.

Turns out both sides of the aisle in Congress are rather dissatisfied with the Baucus bill, named for its author, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). Liberals complain the bill is diluted, doesn't go far enough with reforms, and panders unnecessarily to private insurers and pharmaceutical firms. [1] Some even suggest it may do more harm than good. Meanwhile, many on the right remain as implacable as ever, steadfastly refusing to support anything that even remotely smacks of reform.

It's the GOP and its pundits' and media mouthpieces' maneuvering which at present seems particularly troublesome:

Before reading the bill or knowing its contents, rising GOP star Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called on fellow Republicans to "make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.” [2] This coming from a woman frequently mentioned as a 2012 GOP Presidential contender. [3]

Before reading the bill or knowing its contents, pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh trash-talked and denounced both this bill and the Obama administration's reform efforts in general. They label the undertakings socialist, communist, fascist, and totalitarian. Last month on his radio show, Beck went as far as to claim, "This guy's a Marxist!" [4]

On health care and subjects such as his recent address to America's schoolchildren, Fox News' commentators have compared President Obama to the genocidal Pol Pot, North Korea's Kim Jung Il, and Mussolini. [5] Beck insists that Obama's political initiatives are shaped by a "deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture ... this guy is, I believe, a racist." [6]

Before his own committee's bill was finalized and made public, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), a member of the 'Gang of Six' charged with formulating the reform legislation, told a riled-up crowd they had "every right to fear" seniors might be put to death under the plan. [7] Taken to task for his terror mongering, Grassley did a quick retreat on CBS' August 23rd Face the Nation broadcast and admitted that the "death panels", and notions of seniors being exterminated, were pure fiction. Grassley went on to try to pin the inflammatory rhetoric on President Obama [8], though this effort collapsed almost immediately under the weight of its own absurdity.

Before reading the bill or knowing its contents -- and AFTER Grassley's mea culpa -- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wrote an op/ed piece in the Washington Post reiterating the false claim that, under the bill, death panels would make end-of-life decisions for seniors. [9]

Before reading the bill or knowing its contents, good ol' boy Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted "You Lied!" at the President during his health care address to Congress. Now that the Baucus bill has been released, it turns out Wilson's charge was completely wrong. He apologized to Mr. Obama only after being strong-armed by cooler heads in GOP leadership [10], but has yet to publicly acknowledge that his accusation itself turned out to be baseless. In fact, Wilson stands by his false claim even as the ice around his feet cracks. He also attempts to diminish his outburst by suggesting it was spontaneous and emotional. Perhaps Mr. Wilson forgot that he tweeted his intentions to supporters the day prior, and that his tweet is now part of public record. [11]

Both sides -- Dem and GOP -- claim about 80% agreement on the provisions necessary for health care reform. [12] One of the big sticking points has been the public option. I personally am a strong supporter of public option, establishing what would amount to Medicare for all. But Baucus left it out of this bill.

One might expect the GOP to jump up and down and cry "We Won!"

Instead, there are sour faces and anther round of distortions from leading GOP voices. (To keep things civil, let's use the word "distortions" here, instead of something potentially more accurate yet inflammatory.)

Standing in contrast to the low level of rhetorical sophistication of many of her GOP colleagues is the handiwork of Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME), another of the health care 'Gang of Six'. Over the weekend, she proposed an amendment to the Baucus bill that would contain a triggered public option. For a moment, it seemed like a jaw-dropping breakthrough. Then came the details -- the place where the devil lives -- which revealed that Snow's trigger switch would stay fixed in the 'off position'. Her amendment would require that 95% of us be unable to afford health care before a public plan would launch. [13] This gives her bragging rights as a reformer while the puppet-masters at big insurance can smile knowing there will never be any real impact.

More on that in a moment. First, let's take a look at a few of the main GOP grouses, recent and present: end-of-life counseling and "death panels", coverage for non-citizens, coverage of abortions, and the assertion that our health care system is okay as-is.

I read the Baucus bill. There are NO death panels. At all. In any form. There you go, Senator Grassley. Sorry, Mrs. Palin.

I read the Baucus bill. Non-citizens  -- "illegal immigrants" -- are NOT covered. They're specifically excluded both at the Federal level and in proposed state co-op/insurance exchanges. In fact, there are several paragraphs in the bill explaining how identity and US citizenship would be verified for qualification. On that point, the bill is unambiguous. [14] Sorry, Representative Wilson.

I read the Baucus bill. Abortions are NOT covered by the federal funding except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's life. The government won't dictate to private insurers whether or not they may cover abortions in future, just as they don't currently. [15] Sorry, Mr. Beck, Mr. Limbaugh, and esteemed colleagues.

So why -- now that the Baucus bill is public record -- are a parade of GOP legislators and pundits still repeating absurd claims about how immigrants will get a free ride and how Mr. Obama wants free late-term abortions for all? One reason is that the GOP has discovered an unfortunate reality about humans and media: if you repeat a lie often enough and with enough conviction, it will gain traction. Especially if you can appeal to people's fear and ignorance.

The GOP is not working to save the hides of the great American unwashed. They are, instead, actively preying upon our ignorance, working with groups like the dubious cprights.org, run by a self-described "health care entrepreneur" [16] who have fashioned a series of deceptive TV spots designed to confuse us and blur the issue.

Look at the angry, terrified people standing up in the health care town halls [17], grabbing the microphone to ferociously defend Grandma's right not to be killed just because she's old and 'not useful to society.' The way these constituents have been lied to and had the Bejesus scared out of them is shameful.

I personally know a handful of GOP legislators and pundits, and am friends with plenty of regular folks who happen to vote Republican. They (you?) are my family, neighbors, and co-workers. Not a one of them (you) is a monster. You/they decent people, and apart from ideology are indistinguishable from left-leaning friends and colleagues.

So again I ask -- why, GOP, perpetrate this massive mind-screw?

The number-one reason I can think of? Because money talks and bulls**t walks. Big pharma and big insurance have a near stranglehold on the conversation, as they have each time in the past century we as a nation have tried for health care reform and their coffers have been threatened. Oh, how I wish I had the figures handy to illustrate this! (It makes me want to gather a roomful of interns and set them to the task of tallying.) Meanwhile, I would LOVE it if CNN or another of the major news organizations would add a line to their lower-third captions when they show a legislator from either party speaking on the subject of health care. Imagine if, while a given lawmaker talks, the TV screen told us how much in campaign contributions they'd taken from the mega-firms who might be hurt by sweeping health care reform. If we exposed the money trail, one of the principal sources of bias would be laid plain and become almost impossible to ignore.

To review:  Big pharma and big insurers pay big money to block health care reforms that might be a blow to corporate profits. Our lawmakers take that money, tuck it away to make sure they are re-elected, and largely do as the insurance companies ask. With one breath, or legislators assure us they are acting in OUR best interest, and with the next, many use fear tactics to keep America near last place among developed nations as far as how we take care of our ailing and aged. (According to the World Health Organization, the United States ranks just behind Costa Rica and only slightly ahead of rather miserable care available in Cuba.) [18]

Friends,

My eyes are closed.

The Michael Jackson memorial plays on the television in the other room. It echoes in to where I sit on the living room sofa. Connie, my housekeeper, has put the kitchen TV on. She mutters from time to time. I am not sure if she’s gossiping with someone on her cell phone or if she’s talking back at the television mourners. Whichever it is, she seems a little bemused.

I should mention that Connie gave up on God a number of years ago.

I must also confess that I haven’t been able to muster much enthusiasm for the MJ hoopla. Maybe it’s because his music doesn’t serve as an emotional touchstone for me in the way it seems to for so many people.  For reasons easily explained by a study of brain anatomy, our catalog of smells is a powerful emotional and memory trigger when we re-encounter those smells. So then why does music also take us back so powerfully, wrapping the past in an nostalgic haze?

I breathe in. I breathe out.

It’s early summer 1986, a hot cloudless afternoon.

I am at the Mississippi river docks beside the University of Minnesota with my friend Patricia. We’ve both found the loophole in a new public education law that allows us to legally ditch high school, take a couple of classes at the University, and spend the rest of our time smoking, drinking coffee, and longing for things we can’t exactly define.

We descend a long flight of wooden steps that zig-zag down the riverbank from the University buildings to the docks. I have a stereo cassette player – not a Walkman by brand, as I don’t have the spending cash for name brand – and Patricia and I wear pairs of foam headphones joined by a Y-splitter plug so we can listen to music together. As we bounce down the stairs, the tape player shakes and makes Jody Watley warble like Katherine Hepburn through Looking for a New Love.

I can’t remember if it’s Patricia or I who points this out, but we both laugh. A lot. When we reach the docks, Patricia lights a cigarette and we lay on our backs on the wide planks, not concerned that the sap, softened by sun, might blacken our clothes in spots. It does. I rewind the tape and we listen to Looking for a New Love again, this time shaking the tape player on purpose. After Jody Watley, we subject Janet Jackson to the Kate Hepburn treatment. Nasty isn’t nearly as imperative when Janet flutters through it like an old-timer. (Her command, “Gimme a beat!” comes off like a labored last request.)

We know we are young, Patricia and I. We are full of angst, but also expectation. She is going to be an opera singer at the Met and I am going to be a leading media figure like Ted Turner … or Ted Koppel. There’s no question about it in either of our cases.

I cough and shift on the sofa. I am forty years old.

My meditation has drifted, once again, from focus on my breath. A singer at the Michael Jackson memorial hits a high note. My housekeeper Connie laughs loudly, a little explosion she hurries to stifle. It trails into Salvadoran invective.

She must be on the phone. With or without God to please, just out of common decency she wouldn’t be laughing like that at somebody singing for a dead man.

I realize that Janet Jackson must me at the memorial. Of course—it’s her brother.

I smile.