My response to a right-wing nutjob column in Ben Nelson's (NE) hometown newspaper. Help me please?

This is a bit lengthy, but I would really appreciate anyone who would like to assist me by proofreading my response, offering any criticisms, help, or suggestions.

First, the proudly ignorant, knuckle dragging columnist of the McCook Gazette. Notice how he thinks the Constitution grants him the right to the "pursuit of happiness."





Here is my response. I have not posted it to the Gazette yet. It is purposefully intoned in the language of the hyper-patriotic and hyper-religious demographic it targets.

I am going to use the response I put together as a kind of base for a stand-alone column and send it to every newspaper in Nebraska, so please, if you have anything constructive or helpful to offer I'd love, love, love to hear it. Thanks so much, in advance.

Edited to add - When I do write this for a general publication column, I plan to economize in both length and content. What do you think I should be sure to keep, or add, or leave out?



Mr. Trail, it is a discredit to your argument when you begin your grievance with the incorrect assertion that any of the viable current reforms in the house or senate call for "totally socialized medicine." This of course, is completely false. You also make a rather common, but distinctly important mistake about the United States Constitution. As I do not like to think ill of my fellow Nebraskans, I instead chose to believe you are merely misinformed and task myself with showing you the truth using evidence, logic, and the greatest book ever written, the Holy Bible.

Summaries as well as full versions of the healthcare reform bills are available online, just as they were with legislation during the Bush administration. A citizen who wishes to be truly informed has a duty to go and investigate these matters for themselves. It is lazy and irresponsible to rely upon Rush Limbaugh, FOX news, CNN or radio and television advertisements (from the left or the right) to inform one of the contents of any legislation that concerns them, as all of these entities have their own selfish interests in the matter which concern them far more than one's own.

Most people will be surprised to find out that this public option, so demonized by the insurance special interest groups and their friends on the far right, will not even be available to many of those working for Nebraska’s greatest employers who already offer affordable health insurance. The public option is available as an affordable option to the working poor, the self-employed, small business and their employees, and those who must pay more than 12.5% of their adjusted gross income for premiums. Being available to such a limited, but needy constituency, it thwarts reason then that the public option could in any way constitute “totally socialized medicine.” The best way to review this information for yourself is to do an internet search for “HR 3200 Library of Congress.” Your local Library (a socialized institution, by the way) will be happy to assist you if needed.

Mr. Trail, you, like all of us hopefully, will one day reach the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. When you do, you will undoubtedly be relieved, even delighted to know, that you are not obligated in any way to benefit from what you believe to be a politically objectionable ponzi scheme. It would seem to me that a person of such moral conviction would certainly refuse to do so, as it is statistically unlikely that you could have possibly contributed as much to the system as you are likely to draw out, given the cost of healthcare without reform in America today. To draw a benefit from such an objectionable scam would seem to make one a hypocrite, I would think. Thank goodness you don’t have to do that.

The even better news is, if President Barack Obama and our good representatives’ reform measures ARE successful, your children’s and your grandchildren’s and their children’s healthcare futures will be secure. I’m sure you realize that Social Security has been used as a political football by both sides of the aisle, and that Democrats and Republicans alike have employed fear tactics to paint the other side as a threat to the programs which have undeniably relieved the suffering of our most vulnerable elderly citizens - our mothers, neighbors, former pastors, grandparents and others.

I notice you seem to worry very much about what the letter of the constitution provides for. I’m willing to bet however you have often availed yourself of the not constitutionally provided for United States Postal Service which has been available to you from your days of the cradle and will remain unto your grave. The same may be said of the local and state police who keep our communities safe, the schools which take our children far beyond their abc’s and 123’s, and many other socialized institutions.

We do not limit access to the life and property saving services of the fire department based on ability to pay. We do not limit access to a basic education based on the ability to pay. We do not limit access to rescue service based on the ability to pay. We do not limit access to public libraries based on the ability to pay. We do not restrict access to public roadways based on the ability to pay. We do not limit 911 service based on the ability to pay. Our fighting men and women do not defend and protect only those Americans who are able to pay. They protect and defend ALL Americans and the Constitution of this great country.

In your column, Mr. Trail, you state that the constitution speaks of a right to the “pursuit of happiness.” It does not. The document you refer to is the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is a legal document, the Declaration of Independence, however, is not. The Declaration remains though a pivotal document that lends us great insight to the spirit that founded this nation. The Declaration speaks of a universal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In this, the richest country in the world, we deny 47 million – that’s 47 MILLION – of our fellow American citizens all of those rights. A poor working American who contracts, say, cervical cancer at the age of 25, has only the liberty to go home and plan the premature end of her life – for without very a very robust health insurance policy, her pursuit of happiness is over.

I leave my fellow Nebraskans and Americans with a few simple contemplations from the bible. We are charged to love our neighbor as ourselves. 47 million of our neighbors are in need. For the most part, they aren’t really asking for much. They want to take their daughter in to the doctor if her fever doesn’t break. They want to go to sleep knowing if they get hurt in an accident tomorrow, they won’t have to lose their home and their business. When they are sick, will you help them? When your time on this Earth is done, will you find yourself at the right hand of the Lord, or his left, asking, "'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you? Then he will answer them, Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.'" (Matt 25:44-45)

I doubt the person you're replying to will have the patience to read it or the wit to understand it.

Still, it's a wonderful letter.

1) This response will be posted online and there is no length limit. Yay!

2) When I do a rewrite for general publication it will be more economical in length and content.

Thanks for your generous compliment and your help. What do you think is most important or lends the most impact (given the target audience) for a published column?

"I notice you seem to worry very much about what the letter of the constitution provides for. I’m willing to bet however you have often availed yourself of the not constitutionally provided for United States Postal Service which has been available to you from your days of the cradle and will remain unto your grave. The same may be said of the local and state police who keep our communities safe, the schools which take our children far beyond their abc’s and 123’s, and many other socialized institutions.

"We do not limit access to the life and property saving services of the fire department based on ability to pay. We do not limit access to a basic education based on the ability to pay. We do not limit access to rescue service based on the ability to pay. We do not limit access to public libraries based on the ability to pay. We do not restrict access to public roadways based on the ability to pay. We do not limit 911 service based on the ability to pay. Our fighting men and women do not defend and protect only those Americans who are able to pay. They protect and defend ALL Americans and the Constitution of this great country."

Please don't do a thing to either of them. They're beautiful.

If I were you I would email to CNBC and CNN. Fox's bunch are fake Christians. I'll do it if you like

I wouldn't change much other then the below:

"Summaries as well as full versions of the healthcare reform bills are available online, just as they were with legislation during the Bush administration. A citizen who wishes to be truly informed has a duty to go and investigate these matters for themselves. It is lazy and irresponsible to rely upon Rush Limbaugh, FOX news, CNN or radio and television advertisements (from the left or the right) to inform you of the contents of any legislation that concerns you, as all of these entities have their own selfish interests in the matter which concern them far more than your own."

Modify it to this:

Summaries as well as full versions of the healthcare reform bills are available online, just as they were with legislation during the Bush administration. A citizen who wishes to be truly informed has a duty to go and investigate these matters for themselves. It is lazy and irresponsible to rely upon Rush Limbaugh, FOX news, CNN or radio and television advertisements (from the left or the right) to inform one of the contents of any legislation that concerns them, as all of these entities have their own selfish interests in the matter which concern them far more than one's own.

It's no longer a direct attack (inferring that Mr. Trail is lazy and irresponsible) as it's been changed to third person.

If you are trying to sell your message to conservatives, using facts will not work. That isn't meant as an insult, but according to people like Lakoff people are not swayed as much by policy as they are by emotional arguments and framings.

Conservatives tend to believe in individualism, fear of change/radicalism, competition, individual freedom. So frame the issue to portray opponents of the public option as anti-competition, anti-freedom, anti-individualism.


Bring up this fact or something like it.


A public option, because it would have lower administration costs and stronger negotiation powers, would be 20-30% cheaper than private plans that provided the same quality of care. This means a family that needs to spend $12,000 a year on private health insurance could get the same health insurance through a public plan for $9500. Conservatives and health insurance executives know this fact and fear they will not be able to compete with a well run public plan that Americans are free to buy into. As a result, they do not want the public to be allowed to have the freedom to choose a public plan for fear too many people would want to get high quality health care for their families and pocket the other $2500 a year and spend it on food, gas or rent instead of on bloated private health insurance bureaucracy and profits. This is the true motivation behind the resistance to the public plan. This is comparable to a politician telling the American people who are in the automobile market 'if you are allowed to buy a Honda, you may find it cheaper and more reliable than a Ford. Because of that we are going to outlaw Hondas'. If the public option is a bad insurance program, people will choose not to use it. However depriving people of the right to choose their own health care plan is undemocratic and unamerican. Depriving them of the right to choose their own plan in an effort to protect private insurance profits is even worse.

What people like Mr. Trail are doing is trying to deny Americans the right to choose their own health care plan for fear they will use that freedom of choice to pick a plan he does not ideologically agree with. We should let the American people choose who covers their health care costs, not Mr. Trail and not the insurance companies who want to protect their profit margins. This decision to choose a which health care plan will cover them should be up to Americans, it should not be up to Senator Nelson, Mr. Trail or American insurance companies.






Of course, he will probably rebut with something about medicare and social security being mandatory programs too. No idea how to respond to that.

why is it that I never hear anyone bringing up this point? Providing access of basic health care to ALL Americans serves the public good by protecting the rest of the population from the spread of contagious disease. Recently, there was an outbreak of plague in China. If an outbreak of a similar illness occurred in the United States among a number of the 47 million with the fear of seeing a physician, how many others could be infected before someone with the MEANS to see a doctor can be diagnosed and the rest of the public warned? When we create a system that makes a great number of Americans live in fear of seeking any medical treatment, we also risk the potential spread of illness among the rest of the population, thus costing this nation much more in dollars, lost work hours, and potential death.

to bring that point home as well.

Thanks for the input!