eGrumps has the complete and final solution to the problem of universal health care. Frankly, I’m surprised the Administration has not put forward this plan:

1. Anyone who doesn’t purchase the mandated health care insurance, will be guilty of a felony, and will be sent to jail – no right of appeal. (Those felons must be kept off of the street so they don’t infect the rest of the law abiding citizens of America with dangerous ideas.)

2. In jail they will receive free medical treatment.

3. Problem solved!

Democrats, Republicans, Independents – are you listening?

The question of buying the insurance or going to jail will be known as the “eGrumps option.”

The new Obamacare – Pelosicare – Reidcare (take your pick) is creating a massive dilemma for most Americans, including yours truly.

No, I am not talking about the fact that the length of the bill exceeds the guidelines posted by President Obama (see my comment of 10/30/09) in that it now has passed the 2,000 page mark. Frankly, it is just as hard to read a 2,200 page bill as a 1,900 page bill. The 2,000 page limit was a guideline, that’s all, and no one ever expected that arbitrary guideline to hold. It’s sort of like New Orleans and Katrina, once the levees broke, there was no holding back the water.

The real dilemma, of monumental proportions, is this. Most of America has a headache just contemplating the size, complexity and ultimate      effect of the new bill. It is, frankly, indecipherable, and just thinking about  it gives everyone a headache – some a severe one and some a mild one – but truly a mental headache of monumental proportions for America considering the number of headache sufferers (the “headachees”(?))

Because of the prevalence of headaches, everyone needs to see a doctor, immediately, because the doctor can either treat the headache or prevent its spread through cross pollinization between citizens (and non-citizens) sufferers.  But, without the bill becoming law, they cannot afford to see a doctor. So – if you get a headache thinking about the bill (because you do not like it), and if the bill passes you can afford to see a doctor and get the headache treated – but the thought of the passage of the bill gave you a headache in the first place – you’re caught on the horns of a very serious dilemma. Should America suffer the gross headaches opposing the bill, or not oppose the bill so that you can get your headaches treated, which you may not have had in the first place because you did not oppose the bill.

eGrumps was going to call for a governmental investigation, but Congress would be in the uncomfortable position of investigating something which is not applicable to them since they have a different health care system of coverage. and would not understand the problem in the first place. There would be no empathy, so to speak, for Americans by Congress. This result might be unheard of in American politics – no empathy from Congress.

The basic issue is whether some are not getting adequate health care, not who has medical insurance or not, and if they are not, what can be done about it.

I believe the overwhelming majority of people are getting adequate health care under our present system, although that is not based upon any statistical analysis – assuming you can define what is “adequate” health care in the first place. People are not dying in the streets – people are not getting thrown out of emergency rooms. People are getting medical treatment, even if they can’t afford it, and may have to go into debt to pay for it – but I believe it is, in the main, available.

If the question is framed that way – not whether or not they have, or can get,  health insurance – but whether they are, or not,  getting “adequate” treatment,  the solution is much easier to find without destroying America’s medical system. More clinics, anyone, for the less advantaged (to use a politically correct term). There are other things that can be done, but that’s far beyond the scope of this comment.

All I’m suggesting is that the debate should be refocused.

Wrong, wrong, wrong – the Census Bureau does not report who “cannot” get health insurance. It reports only on the number of people who do not have health insurance. It is a rather big leap to say that merely because one does not have health insurance, the lack of health insurance was based on the fact that it was unattainable.

The 30,000,000 figure may, or may not be, accurate – but it is certainly not supported by Census Bureau data. Perhaps it would not be amiss for the Washington Press Corps, to keep its somewhat tarmished integrity intact,  might ask the President’s Press Secretary where that figure came from.

One would think that passing such important legislation should be based on accurate figures, not misrepresented figures, whether such misrepresentation was intentional or not.