“Damn, Freddie. You kick ass.”

Yes. Yes, he does.

What prompted this outpouring of affection from reader Dean? Well, first there was a typical cold, knee-jerk, and factually-challenged conservative reaction to a health care reform discussion from another reader:

Ryan said,

Freddie, not only are you trying to eliminate responsibility for health security on the part of insurers, but you are also trying to eliminate responsibility on the part of the insured.

I don’t understand why you liberals think that everyone deserves to have health care given to them. Anything worth having isn’t going to be free, or cheap, right? Why should health care be any different? It is your responsibility to find and afford care for your family, not mine. Let me handle my family, and you go buy the bottom of the barrel crap (public option) for your family that “means so much to you”… In the meantime, I hope you are explaining to your little kids why daddy can’t work for their healthcare, but he can go on a vacation, drive a new car, have every channel on cable (with his plasma tv), and be carrying around the newest blackberry on the market.

You want the best of everything, and you want the government to give it to us. Good luck with that.

To which Freddie issued the following smackdown:

Freddie said,

Ryan, your ability to be obtuse competes favorably with your ability to be insulting.

If you’ve followed any rational discussion about healthcare reform, the general position of those favoring health security is not to remove responsibility from individuals to ensure their own wellness but rather to ensure access to insurance in the event of a pre-existing condition, whether one that occurred at birth or one that is a result of an accident. These aren’t hypotheticals for actuaries or pundits to poke and prod at; they’re real scenarios affecting real Americans.

In an employer-based health insurance model, loss of a job typically means loss of access to affordable health insurance. If you’ve never faced COBRA premiums (which expire) or HIPAA premiums, try it. You won’t like it.

As someone who clearly favors the free market, I’m surprised by your willingness to trap a labor force that could be operating more efficiently in jobs just so that they can maintain access to healthcare.

A number of Americans interested in this debate want to work but can’t lest they earn so much income they no longer qualify for Medicaid. And if they have a severe enough pre-existing condition, they’re uninsurable in the eyes of private insurers or else, if they exercise their HIPAA rights, they’re charged premiums high enough that they’re pushed right back into poverty.

Imagine my surprise if you turn out to be anti-abortion-rights and also anti-health-security for those Americans with pre-existing conditions from birth.

It’s quite nice of you to put words in my mouth by falsely asserting what i want, but let me spell it out for you since you keep getting it wrong: I want access to affordable healthcare for all Americans. The only thing I want government to give me is the right to compete fairly with all Americans, regardless of how any of us were born or affected by unforeseen circumstances.

In order, I favor:

* Medicare for All
* Wyden/Bennett (the bipartisan Healthy Americans Act)
* a version of the current major proposals before Congress that includes a public option

You’re welcome to adopt a position that punishes the community of Americans who wind up with pre-existing conditions, and I’ll gladly continue to oppose your policy prescriptions.

And….scene.