Maya and 2012: Don't mark your calendar

THROUGHOUT THE trash-talking and threats of Armageddon during the long health care reform debate, there were moments when Nibiru crept into my thoughts. Doomsday forecasters will immediately recognize Nibiru as a renegade planet that has been heading our way since long before Noah's ark. Blame the Sumerians for that scare tactic which, fortunately for our peace of mind, occurred before Glenn Beck got hold of it. Anyway, the apocalyptic end of humanity was supposed to occur in 2003, but in the absence of even a tiny meteor or two, the arrival of the crash was advanced to 2012. The latter date is the end of the ancient Mayan calendar as well as the date that Republicans promise will send President Obama back into the old neighborhood to find work.

It was surprising that in John Boehner's scary imitation of Tom Paine the night of the vote - which invoked liberty but not quite death - the minority leader didn't bring up Nibiru. Most people wouldn't have picked up on the name, but that was true of a lot things that were lost during the insufferable response to Obamacare.

Books have been written about the Mayan calendar and some became fairly popular during the fear-mongering of Y2K a decade ago that the millennial transition would at the very least wipe out all of the computers if not the humanoids who designed them. Well, it didn't happen, and for that escape, the Facebook and Twitter folks are thankful.

I should mention however, that anyone still stuck on the Mayan calendar might find some relief in the repeated denials by NASA that whatever else might destroy us, it won't be Nibiru. The agency has many outstanding scientists who insist that the world won't end in 2012, despite what the paranormal crowd has to say about it. And in those moments when Nibiru seemed to be edging closer as they counted the votes, I tried to keep NASA's assurances in mind.

After all, are you going to believe the state-of-the-art scientists at NASA, or Boehner's Sumerians?

Aesop's well-paid fables on Capitol Hill

AS ONE WHO SURFS on to TV sports coverage on occasion, I've become aware of the growing number of moving parts that now have sponsors. "Please rise," the booth announcer implores, "for the seventh inning stretch, brought to you today by Knee World, Inc., the company that is a world leader in leg bends." More: "The kickoff is sponsored by Joy Masters, where you can get you own kicks with a simple 15-minute workout on our exclusive Fleet Feet walking machine."

On and on, from commercials for the National Anthem entrepreneurs to slam -dunk companies that want to remind you that they are unchallenged creators of doughnut holes that can be dunked with miniature spears, even in the morning or midnight darkness.

Wouldn't it be a boon to democracy, such as it is, if the same enterprising spirit could be attached to operatives on Capitol Hill who insist on throttling, say, the health care advances that the country, if not the said operatives, desperately need? Something like this might help our understanding of how the system is not working today:

Today's filibuster by Sen. Aesop is made possible by his sponsor, United Wealth Care, a leader in contributory control of those errant bouts of conscience that might keep you up at night. During these harsh days of the Obama presidency, it is urgent that we all have a good night's sleep. So remember Aesop and UWC in your next trip to the emergency room. What better way to repay your congressman as your friend?

Fabulous, if I have to say so myself.

The tough GOP brand is under the bed

NOTE TO Reps. John Boehner and his sidekick Eric Cantor: You can come out from under the bed now. President Obama swears he won't hit you. Honest. He's simply asked you to do what you've said you've wanted to do for a year: Have a sitdown with him on the health care reform bill. He doesn't care whether you come with your cues scribbled on your palms. He just wants to hear you out on one of the most urgent issues facing Americans today, health care. Even mob rivals have sitdowns to resolve their differences. Instead of agreeing, you've sent him a number of questions to be answered before you accept the invitation. I especially liked the ones in which you wanted know what color necktie he would be wearing and whether you would have to sit through some film clips of Sarah Palin. You boys are supposed to represent the muscular Republican brand in the House of Representatives and here you are, cowering under the bed and hoping that he will go away. I mean, he wants both sides to put their cards on the table in a publicly televised session. This would be your chance to tell the public exactly what you are proposing instead of being the nasty party of NO. You may also want to explain why some of your House members are now proposing to dump Medicare and privatize Social Security. We've been buried in one snowstorm after another and could all use some laughs. You must be terribly worried that Obama, as he has demonstrated before, is more mentally agile than you are. Here's your chance to prove him wrong before the maid comes to change the sheets on your bed. Carpe diem!

GOP's field announcer "in good hands"

NEW YEAR'S NOTE: Are those 40 Republican "No" senators now relieved that

Rush Limbaugh's Cadillac health care coverage provided him the best possible chance for full recovery? As Limbaugh's back-up, Walter Williams , told his audience: Rush is resting comfortably and "in good hands".

Bachmann: Is her non-pro really anti?

ON MY WAY to the dump this morning, I happened to pick this item:

Rep. Michele Bachmann, who continues to upstage Sarah Palin with her loopy comments on

Fox , assailed former GOP Senate majority leaders Bob Dole and Bill Frist for asking their party to be a bit more civil in the attacks on a health-care bill. Bachmann accused them of being, eh...

"non-pro-freedom." Non-pro? Is that like anti? Does it mean that if somebody disagrees with her, the person is therefore pro-non-pro freedom? In response, it would leave her no choice but to charge that her disagreement with that person could be described as non-pro-non-pro freedom, redundant though it might be. It does get confusing, doesn't it, even for a politician?

As the people from her home state of Minnesota have been heard to comment...You betcha!

As we have been saying....

Here's a quote sent by a Grumpy Abe reader from a piece by Steven Pearlstein of the WashPost re: healthcare.

"During the first two days of committee action on his bill, Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, beat back repeated attempts by most of the committee's Republicans to gut provisions that would slow runaway growth in Medicare spending. Republicans want us to believe that they care deeply about the federal deficit and about keeping Medicare from going broke, while at the same time demanding that there should be no cuts in benefits, no cuts in payments to insurers or providers, and no reduction in the utilization of medical services. It was the most craven, cynical, hypocritical performance by a group of elected officials that I can remember, and a good measure of the political, intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Republican leadership in Congress."

Auto fatalities vs. life expectancy in U.S.?

WE NOW KNOW why the U.S. lags so many other countries in life expectancy. It has nothing to do with the comparative quality of our health care. Rather, we lower our longevity rate because we have more homicides and auto fatalities. At least that's an argument by conservative columnist Steve Chapman on today's Beacon Journal Op-Ed page. Right.

In a half-page spread that reads like an emancipation proclamation for our entire health-care industry, Chapman cites a study by two conservative academics in a book that came out in 2006 titled The Business of Health. The authors are Robert L. Ohsfeldt, a professor in the Texas A&M School of Rural Health who once worked for Eli Lilly; and John E. Schneider, an assistant professor at the University of Iowa.

Although I haven't seen anybody argue that our health care is shabby - it's not! - quality is one of the defense arguments for those who oppose health care reforms - as does Chapman when he cites homicides and auto accidents. The issues are cost containment for all and coverage for the uninsured, whose health care cost is now passed on to hospitals and those of us lucky enough to have Medicare, an idea once disdained by Republicans who are now out to minimize or defeat reforms. In Chapman's long argument to the jury, I noticed that he carefully avoided the cost issue for all of us as a burden that is driving some workers to give up their insurance coverage altogether because they can't afford monthly company co-pay of $600-$7oo.

All of this recalls the time when a lunch partner defended some horrendous big U.S. casualties in Iraq by citing the number of Americans killed on their highways at home.

Oh, well. The national media (read: television and op-ed columnists) are having a yummy time focusing on a Mr. or Mrs. "X" at Town Hall meeting suggesting that Obama ought to leave the country or that free medical coverage is not covered in the Constitution. Oh? Nor is Medicare and Social Security. Socialistic? You bet. Everybody who wants to give them up, raise your hand.

Wamp vs. Brown: No contest

AS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S  health-care initiative gets banged around in Congress , as you know it will, it was good  to hear Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown's put-down of Rep. Zack Wamp, the Tennessee Republican who got all tangled up in his own words on whether health care was a right or a privilege.

The blog Think Progress picked up  this exchange from MSNBC:

  

WAMP:  Listen, health care a privilege...

MSNBC: Well, it's a privilege? Health Care? I mean if you have cancer right now, do you see it as a privilege to get treatment?

WAMP: I was just about to say, for some people it's a right.  But for everyone, frankly it's not necessarily a right. .    

Wamp went on to claim that many Americans are uninsured by choice because they "rejected" the insurance plan offered by their employers.  Asked to respond to Wamp, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Oh) remarked "Well, my reaction is that it was said by somebody who has a really good health insurance plan as a member of the House of Representatives.  More importantly than that,  [health care] is a right in this country." 

A couple of problems here, the guy Tennessee should know:  The millions of people who have lost their jobs do not have the option to reject a health insurance plan from a non-existent employer.

And to those senators and congressmen who will be in the trenches to oppose a sweeping health care reform, Brown  again touched a nerve by referring to the relatively inexpensive benefits that congressmen enjoy  to keep them healthy  so that they, like Wamp, can fight another day.

Just a few  (rights or privileges? ):

They are covered by the Federal Employes Health Benefits Program.   I'll let you decide how the plan  made it through an always vigilant Congress:

THERE are no preconditions for senators or representatives  for immediate health insurance coverage.  Indeed, you can sign up for it  just before the death rattle.

The government will pay for up to 75 pct. of your premiums! 

You will have your own pharmacy on Capitol Hill, with your own doctors and other medical services.   

Etc.etc. etc.

I think of this when guys like Wamp and his brethren make  fools of themselves in broad daylight.  It's healthy that Sherrod Brown provided us with a second opinion.