Redacted

I've rarely been as furious as I was the other day, which might have been deduced by - well, anyone - from the tenor of what I wrote about the nature and motives of those who are objecting to the public option in health care. I removed it, but even now, I'm a little surprised by it. I get mad, but I rarely get that mad. What was it that triggered such vitriol?

I think it was that I see it as my country slipping into a morass - the sort of morass of blindness and stupidity that resulted in Bush being elected twice, and Palin regarded as the future of Republicanism. The reasonability of the public option seems so clear to me that to learn that that there are people who oppose it is like finding out that there are people who object to drinking gasoline. I know that, in actuality, the question isn't that black and white, but it feels that way to me. It's not the best answer in the world, but its a good one.

I exchanged Twitter comments once with a person who told me that he did not trust the bill, and so I made a determined effort to read it -- which was not fun -- only to discover that one phrase which I'd gone right past was the source of his discontent. It was Title One, Section 102, subsection a(2) -- the Title is PROTECTIONS AND STANDARDS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS, the Section is PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE, and the subsection is GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED - LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS, which reads:

Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

I read that as saying that one of the criteria for an insurance policy to be defined as 'grandfathered' is that the terms of the policy have to remain the same. Any changes, and it's no longer the same policy, so no longer considered 'grandfathered'. This seemed perfectly reasonable and fair to me, but to the man I spoke with, it implied that he could not change the amount of deductible on his policy if he wanted to do so as a mechanism for changing (and presumably reducing) its premium. Well, I had to admit, that could be read in there. I think it's unreasonable, but without knowing what we like to call, referring to the Constitution, the 'intent of the Founders' -- I didn't know. And that leaves aside what a bright lawyer could interpret that phrase to mean. So, I saw his concern. Even with that, though, I thought it a minor point. Not for him. For him, it was a reason to reject the whole damn bill.

I don't think that kind of attitude is compatible with a society of compromise and adjustment, and I fear that we're becoming a society of My Way Or Nothing. I fear what that means. If I were more alarmist, I'd wonder if it could lead to dissolution of the Union, or at least a militant States Rights movement, with National Guard people erecting checkpoints at the border of interstate highways. I feel silly, even saying that -- but others would not. And that scares me.

So - stupidity, or dissolution? Gee, I think I feel the rage coming back!