CNN & Huffington Post Politicize Death of Army Spc. Gregory James Missman

Army Spc. Gregory James Missman died in Bagram Afghanistan on July 8, 2009 after being inured by an improvised explosive device. The Gazette report dated July 10 notes Missman re-enlisted in the military after losing his job as a computer consultant:

Missman had served in the Army in the early 1990s but had been a civilian for 11 years, his father, Jim Missman, told WCPO in Cincinnati. He recently re-enlisted after a divorce to provide health insurance for his son, his father said.

Nearly two months later, CNN reports on his death highlighting Missman's reason for re-enlistment, specifically his lack of health insurance.

The Huffington Post picked up the story in what seems to be an effort to politicize Missman's death. The HuffPo headline reads: "Soldier Who Re-Enlisted For Health Care, Killed In Afghanistan." In their brief recap of the CNN report, HuffPo writes:

According to Missman's father, health care is what pushed his son back into service. After losing his job, Missman's young family, a wife and son were no longer insured.

There are a few facts missing in this interpretation of Missman's motivation for re-enlisting. According to a report issued by WCPO News at the time of Missman's death:

"He'd gone through a separation, a divorce. Greg has a four-year-old son and was obligated to provide him health insurance monthly support and he was unemployed so I believe that was probably the stimulus that he was going to fulfill his obligation," continued Greg's father.

Let me say first, my heart goes out to Missman's family. Losing a child is a tragedy and his father's grief must be immense. I certainly understand Mr. Missman's desire to make sense of his son's death, this is a normal part of the grieving process.

I do, however, question the timing of CNN and Huffington Post's reporting on Missman's reasons for re-enlistment at this time. Under current law, Missman's son would have been eligible for health insurance due Missman's lost employment provided of course, his ex-wife did not have insurance on her own. Regardless, of the terms of their divorce, Missman could not have been expected to provide insurance when he was unemployed. Perhaps I am mistaken but I don't see how Missman's re-enlistment would provide insurance for his ex-wife who is portrayed as a wife in Huffington Post's misleading report.

There is a logical flaw in this politicized review of the death of Specialist Missman. The argument is presented in such terms that his lack of insurance resulted in his death. No one disagrees that insurance should be more affordable and clearly insurance tied to employment creates a host of problems for those who lose their jobs. Missman's son would have been covered under current law as previously mentioned, as he surely would be after some nebulous reform. I could equally assert the failure of the stimulus to save or create a job for Missman resulted in his death, if I chose to make a fallacious politicized argument. Missman's service and sacrifice deserves better than that however, and certainly greater respect than is shown by either CNN or Huffington Post.

Rough Night For Huff Po & KOS

Scalp Dance Anyone?

Certainly Not with the KOS Kids who declare it a .....

Wait for it ......


Anyone who thinks this was about race rather than the man's own words coming back to hurt him is delusional. We are talking KOS here though, so delusional is the order of the day, I suppose. The bigger issue was who vetted him, or didn't rather? Beck asked questions about white and black persons in positions of power with communist backgrouds. Lynching? Perhaps it was lynching looking into Bill Ayers' background or his wife Bernadine "Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in pig Tate's belly. Wild!" Dohrn? But they're not in the administration, like the 32 others Beck asked about. Since the KOS kids didn't even know who Jones was, I doubt they know the race or gender of the others with a radical communist past either.

Nevertheless, the KOS headline, if it does nothing else, it certainly proves The Other McCain to be prophetic:

Welcome to the Obama Nation, where all criticism is subject to the accusation of raaaaacism. If Obama throws Jones under the bus, the Leader's minions will depict it as a sop to right-wing hatemongers, and Jones will walk away with a platinum Victimhood Card, immediately redeemable for a six-figure book contract.

I would guess a high tech lynching qualifies for a platinum Victimhood Card.

What's Hot at HuffPo

Senator Dick Durbin's appearance on CNN's "State of the Nation" is creating a mini melt-down among the faithful at HuffPo. Durbin signaled he would be open to alternatives to a government run public option hoping to stave off the filibustered failure any bill with a public option would almost certainly create.

Durbin's statement bears a striking resemblance to statements from the White House indicating an openness to Health Cooperatives over the more contentious public option. Health Co-ops came at the suggestion of Kent Conrad according to Time just prior to the August recess. Conrad's plan calls for:

"the creation of 50 separate cooperatives, one for each state. Each cooperative would be nonprofit, run by a board of directors elected from within the ranks of co-op members. They would essentially act as self-insurers, meaning premiums paid in by members would cover the cost of claims. The theory is that co-ops would be able to offer health insurance at lower costs for individuals and small businesses — who now must pay some of the highest rates for commercial insurance — because they would create larger risk pools. States with smaller populations could join with nearby ones to form regional alliances with larger pools of members.

Conrad's original suggestion of a single national co-op was essentially the equivalent of the public option and would have been far more a "Freddie Med" than his current proposal. While it is widely believed anything remotely resembling a government run public plan or Freddie Med would fail in the senate requiring 60 votes, Senator Schumer and former DNC Chair Howard Dean have suggested a bill with a public option or something like it could be passed through Budget Reconciliation though he admits in the following clip reconciliation won't be that easy:



I've been following discussions on the feasibility of using reconciliation at Keith Hennessey's blog. Over a series of posts on the topic, Keith is more convinced than ever that reconciliation would result in a "Swiss Cheese" bill that would be virtually meaningless. In the same interview shown in the clip above, Kent Conrad used the same words "Swiss Cheese" to describe the resulting bill as well. Reconciliation is looking more and more like a non-option for Democrats who can't cobble 60 votes for a public option in the Senate.

It is significant that a Progressive like Durbin is at least signaling an openness to a Health Care Co-op and perhaps more so that the White House seems to be making similar statements. Without reconciliation any legislation will have to bring Progressives aboard a more moderate program, which co-ops have the potential to be. This will not be an easy sell particularly in the House. Comments at HuffPo give an idea of how such a compromise will be received by the constituents of Progressive members of the House. Hmmm, I wonder if protests of health care reform by Progressives will be characterized as "manufactured."

It's tough to read the tea leaves here but it is looking more and more as though progressives could be the more serious threat to health care legislation as long as cooperatives are not Mini Freddie Meds in disguise. Will progressives move closer to the center in order to keep their President from failing? That is a tough one to predict. Meanwhile the Democrats are busy antagonizing large blocks of citizens further to the right of the political spectrum, for their opposition to a public option not likely to see legislative light of day. What will they claim when they suddenly come out in full support of a plan that looks notably different than the one causing all the ruckus? My prediction will be something along the lines "we've heard your concerns (after we called you Nazi "teabaggers") but nevermind all that now. . . Stay tuned folks, it's going to be an interesting fall.

NOTE: A major reason anything with the grotesque public option we see in HR3200 is looking far less likely to make it's ugly way into law, is the public outrage over more government in health care rather than less. Legislators know the difference between a rent-a-mob protest and real grassroots protests. Despite what some of them say, they all know this is real. Therefore, there can be no backing down until the public option and Freddie Med is safely dead.