08/23/2009 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

"Let Them Eat Cake": As 22K Die Annually, Elites Ask "What's the Rush on Health Care?"

22,000 Americans die every year because they lack adequate health care coverage. That's a basic, verifiable fact. That's about 60 Americans every day, or six 9/11's every year. Broken down to a local Colorado estimate, that's about 365 Coloradoans every year, or one Coloradoan every day -- a rate of death that's double the Colorado murder rate. And yet, the Denver Post editorial board has the nerve to ask with a dead-straight face yesterday morning "What's the rush on health care?" I shit you not.

I'm guessing the writers of the editorial all have great health care coverage. And I'm also guessing that dot-com millionaire Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), who the Post touts for opposing Obama's health care bill, also has pretty good health care coverage. So, I guess it's not that hard to understand how both the Post editorialists and Polis might wonder "what the rush" is. Shit, there's no rush for them at all! Out of their individual sight, out of their minds, right?

For the Rest of Us, though, there's clearly a rush. In fact, the reason for a rush is so obvious that anyone asking the question ends up making themselves look like Marie Antoinette happily saying, "Let them eat cake."

But then, here's my question: Are we really "rushing?" It's a talking point we're hearing far and wide, from editorial boards to Republican senators like Olympia Snowe and Democratic senators like Ben Nelson. The forces of the status quo keep saying that President Obama is trying to "rush" health care reform.

And yet, health care has quite literally been debated and discussed as a matter of public policy since Harry Truman in 1945. You can look it up right here -- again, it's a matter of verifiable public record. That's right, we've been debating this for 64 fucking years, and it's not like any of the proposals currently being considered are brand new - they've been thrown around Washington for decades.

So my question again: How is debating something for more than six decades a "rush?"