Joe Wilson's Dirty Health-Care Secret

 

 
All in the Family: Rep. Joe Wilson (left) and his son, Alan Wilson, who is running for attorney general in South Carolina. Both men, and three of Rep. Wilson’s other sons, get free military medical coverage.

By Adam Weinstein

Poor Joe Wilson. The conservative Republican representative from South Carolina stepped in it Wednesday night when he broke with centuries of decorum by screaming, "You lie!" at President Obama during his health-care speech to a joint session of Congress.

Cut the man some slack. He's passionate! I know this because he told me, in the sole message that blazes across his campaign Web site: JOE WILSON IS PASSIONATE ABOUT STOPPING GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE!

Except that he's not─at least not when it comes to his, and his family's, government-run health care. As a retired Army National Guard colonel, Wilson gets a lot of benefits (one of which, apparently, was not a full appreciation of the customs, traditions, and courtesies that mandate respect for one's commander in chief). And with four sons in the armed services, the entire Wilson brood has enjoyed multiple generations of free military medical coverage, known as TRICARE.

Yes, it's true. As politicos and town-hall criers debate the finer points of the public option, employer mandates, coverage for undocumented immigrants, and who's more Hitler-like, they seem to miss a larger point: the United States has single-payer health care. It covers 9.5 million active-duty servicemen and women, military retirees, and their dependents─including almost a 10th of all Californians and Floridians, and nearly a quarter of a million residents of Wilson's home state.

Military beneficiaries like Wilson─who, as a retiree, is eligible for lifetime coverage─never have to worry about an eye exam, a CT scan, a prolonged labor, or an open-heart surgery. They have access not only to the military's 133,500 uniformed health professionals, but cooperating private doctors as well─whose fees are paid by the Department of Defense. It's high-quality care, too: surveys from 2007 and 2008 list TRICARE among "the best health insurer(s) in the nation" by customer satisfaction. Yet Wilson insists government-run health care is a problem.

To be fair, Wilson has been consistent in his policymaking if not his personal life: according to his last congressional opponent, Wilson voted 11 times against health care for veterans in eight years, even as he voted "aye" for the Iraq War (during the debate on the war vote, he even called one Democrat "viscerally anti-American"─several times). He voted to cut veterans' benefits─not his own─to make room for President George W. Bush's tax cuts. He repeatedly voted for budgets that slashed funding to the Veterans Administration and TRICARE. And perhaps most bizarrely, he refused─repeatedly─to approve Democratic-led initiatives that would have extended TRICARE coverage to all reservists and National Guard members, even though a disproportionate number of them have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan─and many lost access to their civilian work benefits when they did so.

There's one other notable exception to Wilson's tough-on-government record: In July, when the health-insurance debate just started heating up, he offered an amendment that would exempt TRICARE from any system of employer mandates in a health-care bill. It's not clear whether this is necessary, since most such bills in Congress keep government benefits exempt from the rules as a matter of course. But Wilson took the opportunity to make his stand.

"As a 31-year Army Guard and Reserve veteran, I know the importance of TRICARE," he said in a press release. "The number of individuals who choose to enroll in TRICARE continues to rise because TRICARE is a low cost, comprehensive health plan that is portable and available in some form world-wide." He went on to call TRICARE "world class health care," concluding on a personal note. "I am grateful to have four sons now serving in the military, and I know that their families appreciate the availability of TRICARE," he said.

What does that mean? Nothing─except that Joe Wilson was against government-run health care before he was for it. And now he's against it again. Just not when it comes to his own flesh and blood.

 Adam Weinstein, an Iraq veteran, is a freelance journalist. He is uninsured.

Understand consequences of free speech

In the past couple of weeks there have been some cases of bloggers getting into trouble. One involved an anonymous blogger in New York who allegedly wrote false and defamatory comments about Liskula Cohen, a model. Cohen sued, and a judge ordered Google — who hosted the blogger — to release the blogger's identity to Cohen and her attorney. Turns out the blogger was a woman who turned up in some of the same social settings as Cohen.

No case is more bizarre than one originating out of New Jersey, which involves a blogger, Chicago judges and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Hal Turner is an Internet radio host and blogger who wrote that three federal appellate judges in Chicago should be killed because of their ruling against the National Rifle Association's attempt to overturn a couple of handgun bans. Turner followed up by posting pictures of the judges and a map of the courthouse. He also pointed out where the truck-bomb barriers were around the courthouse. Writing that people should be killed isn't libel but it is dangerous to incite such violence.

Not surprisingly, Turner got a visit from the FBI and is now in jail awaiting trial. Wired reported Wednesday that Turner claims he worked for the FBI between 2002 and 2007.

The aforementioned is an excerpt from an editorial I read in the LSJ ( entire editorial in link) but after reading it , I begun to  think if there  ramifcation and consequences of irresonsible speech?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009716909_ryan23.html?syndication=rss

I feel as if I  I am unarmed  due to the current violently hateful rhetoric coming from the right which distrubes me, and in the absence of any law enforcement counter measures to prevent legitimate dissent and free speech from spilling over into sedition, I think most other progressives are becoming apprehensive for the sfaty of the country.

Is  firearm neccessary, to protect myself from the people who are breathing fire against our government and our President? Should I trust the extremist people who disagree with political opposition by spreading lies, slander and inflammatory rumors?  To behave and act responsibly  within their bounds of their loyal opposition when dealing withour legitimately elected President? Isn’t most of this inciting rhetoric creating a  public fear and rebellion against those who do not please the right seditious?

This concerns me because I wonder if there a lax legal response to these veiled threats to elected  public officials and why  is there no accountability required for direct incitement to anger via lies that whip up the GOP base? Why is it cool  to hype  radical discontent,and preach blind partisanship at the expense of others?

Should the  government  exercise its legitimate authority to moderate and restrain extremism leading to unrest, which could lead to chaos that could  lead to civil war and tyranny as a result result?  I'm not talking about suppression of dissent or curtailment of constitutional rights. However, it’s important not to ingnore the real possibilties of dangers when things are not  done civilly and without threat to others. I think President Obama needs to stop being afraid of the right. If I were him, I would take a very long hard look at the proposed dangers.

Sedition was not tolerated when the Republicans held the highest offices in the land and the same rules ought now apply when the other party now holds those positions as a result of legitmate and verified elections that put the Democratic Party in charge of those offices.

Constitutional freedoms does not include standing by and letting sedition happen against the legitimate functioning of government officials.Public law and order and domestic civility  must be defended and maintained. Peoples' rights are limited to constitutional boundaries that imply the safety and good working order of our legimately elected democracy. I guess we won’t be statsifed until majority whom placed Obama in office is silenced by fear and intimidation by this consistent under minding of President Obama unil we get anoter Bush/Chenny.! Just a thought!

Glenn Beck goes after Color of Change co-founder Van Jones

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/08/glenn-beck-ignores-ad-boycott.html
Calls Jones a "rowdy black nationalist."

Beck doesn't even know what a black nationalist is.