And of course NPR reported this story this morning as a typical he said - she said story.

This is the Democrats' reward for caving on things like death panels and illegal immigrant prohibitions. If you change the bill when they take something that's nowhere in the bill and demagogue it because it isn't explicitly prohibited, you shouldn't be surprised when they repeat the successful play.

Never show weakness to a bully. Sure, if you refuse to cave in to their demands to add language to specifically prohibit their latest fantasy scenario, they're going to fearmonger about it. But you know what? If you insist that it's not in the bill and simultaneously change the bill to prohibit it, they'll fearmonger, claim victory, and have a story that you can't be trusted on any similar fantasy claim because you said it wasn't in the bill but you agreed to take it out anyway.

Why is it that amateur bloggers could (and did) see this coming a mile away but supposedly experienced political players couldn't?

I think the next line is going to be that health care reform will force everyone to enter a gay marriage.

Monomania

Benen: It's funny how the culture-war issues manage to sneak their way into everything.

Fundamentally that is what makes a jihadist a jihadist.
We can thank Limbaugh and Murdoch for an ungovernable country on a bridge to nowhere...

"nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius from decreeing that 'no guns' is somehow healthier."

Moreover, nothing in the Senate Health Reform Bill would prevent the government FROM EATING YOUR BABIES! I've read every word in the bill, and there's nothing, nothing in there that would forbid this!!!

Luckily, the old "diversion" trick has worked! The provision taking away all privately-owned guns is in the executive order for 34,000 new troops to Afghanistan, tucked into a clause relating to ensuring adequate firepower for our troops. Gun collection is set to begin as soon as Hannity's show comes on, to ensure all gun owners are at home, sitting down and quivering with rage at the parade of faux liberal outrages like deranged couch potatoes.

Why don't we all just recognize that the NRA and the Gun Owners Association WANT even the craziest people to own and use assault rifles, WANT criminals to be fully-armed when they pursue their career objectives, WANT people with restraining orders against them to be able to get that concealed weapon when they "get close," WANT cop-killer bullets available to be used against the IRS/FEMA/FBI/Secret Service people when they come knocking on their doors?

I'm sick and tired of the argument that ANY type of regulation or information-gathering leads directly to everyone being rounded up and thrown in the gulags.

Guess what? We already report gunshot wounds and stabbings to the police, and have for years. This has been mandated by state law in every state I have practiced in.

I find it ironic that the Gun Owners Assoc. is worried that having a gun in the home would be reported as a health risk. Their fear acknowledges that of course, having a gun in the home is a health risk, and therefore, um, guns shouldn't be in the home.

Thank goodness our government, in its wisdom, is not mandating any sort of tracking of patients with mental health issues who may be making gun purchases. Otherwise, Major Hasan would have been unable to exercise his Constitutional right to purchase a gun.

Gun data? That's just crazy.

What about the provision requiring us to submit DNA to be made into human skins for alien lizard creatures to wear as disguises??!! I saw it on TV! Why isn't there more outrage about this!?

including information on mental-health issues detected in patients, which could jeopardize their ability to obtain a firearms license.

Yeah, cuz that kind of restriction would be just awful.

Actually, we should thank the Gun Nut Club of America for pointing this out -- this really should be in the bill; now that we know, we can add it.

We already report gunshot wounds and stabbings to the police, and have for years.

I saw an old Barbara Stanwyck movie from the early 1930s called Night Nurse where she skirts mandatory reporting for a cute gangster who comes into the emergency room late one night with a minor gunshot wound. So, yes, NRA, let's kick up a big fuss about a "brand-new" law that's been in effect for 80 years!

Oh, and can we bring up the Virginia Tech massacre where a guy who'd been ordered to get mental health treatment by a judge was able to buy perfectly legal firearms and kill 33 people, or will that just take us back to the new favorite NRA talking point, "If they let those students carry guns, they could have shot back."

I know it doesn't play well politically in the red states, but the gun lobby may have brought up a good issue. If there is a correlation between gun ownership and health care costs, why not have a gun surcharge in the same way that smokers pay extra for life insurance?

I'm not aware of such a correlation, but if it does in fact exist, I'm all for capturing the actual insurance costs. Gun ownership is a voluntary lifestyle choice and the free market libertarians should have no problem with having gun owners pay for their lifestyle choices, right?

"nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius from decreeing that 'no guns' is somehow healthier"

Listen: either the second amendment (which this bill does nothing to repeal, right?) protects the government from inhibiting you from owning a gun or it doesn't.

On the other hand, nothing in the second amendment forces your insurance company from penalizing you for owning a gun, and how many health plans currently add on risk-based adjustments for you and your kids based on your gun ownership?

If anything, putting out a public option constrains such "abuses" rather than allows them. So, I take it the NRA will now put its full lobbying force behind government-run (not just funded) healthcare, right?

"I'm not aware of such a correlation, but if it does in fact exist, I'm all for capturing the actual insurance costs."

Not sure if such a correlation would flow that way in any case. I mean, people with guns in the home do more often get shot, and violent acts in such homes tend to skew more violent. However, the healthcare costs for someone who had their head shot off are significantly less than for someone beat into a near-coma who hangs on life support in the ICU for weeks.

So, maybe there's a discount for people who prefer their run-ins with criminals be all-or-nothing to-the-death duels?

Drunk drivers kill people, so HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius plans to take away my whiskey.

Cars driven by sober citizens also kill people, so HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius plans to take away my car.

I can't drink, I can drive; I think I'll just go shoot myself. Oh, wait. . .

Stop this Gay Marriage Health Care Reform!

These nutty fringe elements make the rest of us gun owners look bad.

So according to the right, it's fine to charge women more money for health insurance just because they're women, but it's crazy to suggest that having a gun in the house might be a health risk. Good to know.

"...the White House's Dan Pfeiffer published a fact-check item yesterday, setting the record straight..."

Yes, but where was it published? Will Gun Owners of America members ever see it?

Is it listed in the "Tea Baggers Journal of Misinformation" ( you know, that 1 million page publication with Beck's picture on the front...that's Glenn Beck, one of the accusers of Christ descendants).

It's amazing. You can tell how good a bill is by the amount of desperate powerful interests opposed to it.

Still the public option is one that will allow them to benefit in ways they don't realize. The results and proven track record is clear in Ohio. http://cli.gs/z3AtaY/