Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Makes the Salient Remark on Health Care Reform

Thank you Supreme Court Justice Kennedy - comment on Health Care Reform (ACA 2010) argument played verbatim on the Ed Show.  Justice Kennedy observed how all Americans are in the health insurance risk pool- whether they pay for coverage or not; but those who have coverage are paying the actuarial costs of care for those who don't pay their own way.

Right now, in the absence of the ACA 2010, and facing the health risks associated with an aging population, the cost of caring for all in the risk pool, including those without coverage, will increase the overall cost of everyone else's care. It's called "cost shifting" and it's already been going on for decades.

As more people have health insurance, as per implementation of the ACA 2010, the percentage of cost shifting will decrease, as more people will be pay for their own coverage.  Thank you Justice Kennedy for asking the right salient question!  Please hold your thought on this issue - it's the right question.

When it comes to what's Constitutional ( my opinion):  it's not constitutional to expect all of us to  pay for a growing number of uninsured who eventually need catastrophic health care without being able to pay for it.

A mandate for all who can afford to pay for health care insurance is required to provide incentives for reducing otherwise rising costs.

American nurses pictured with "America's Doctor", Regina Benjamin, M.D. (pic left), with two nurses Juliana L'Heureux and LT. USPHS Christine Collins Special Assistant to Dr. Benjamin

Dr. Benjamin spoke about the "Power of Prevention"

LEWISTON Maine- It was an honor and privilege to meet the US Surgeon General Regina Benjamin, M.D., when she spoke and listened to a panel of health care consumers about the importance of wellness and prevention coverage in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), at Central Maine Medical Center in Lewiston.  Dr. Benjamin explained the four areas of personal health behaviors whereby prevention can have the most impact on reducing the cost of care for people with chronic illnesses and preventing them from occurring:  (1) Eliminate tobacco use (2) Increase exercise (3) Manage alcohol and eliminate substance abuse and (4) Improve nutrition. 

A consumer panel spoke about how prevention initiatives have saved lives.  A young woman told the story about how insurance coverage under her mother's health insurance plan after college allowed for her to receive treatment post an anomaly found in her regular PAP test, saving her from the complications of having cervical cancer.  Another lady spoke about how preventative mammography covered by health insurance prevented her from experiencing an invasive breast cancer tumor from spreading.  Without the mammography, the panelist said her tumor would have been detected too late for curative treatment to ensure significant impact.  

A Lewiston physician told the audience how he sees patients every day who have chronic illness that could have been better treated, less expensively, or even prevented altogether, if more prevention services were covered by health care insurance.

Dr. Benjamin spoke about how health care is not a place where people "go" to get care. Rather, health is a behavior where we practice wellness in our communities, in our workplaces, neighborhoods and where we worship.  "I believe in the power of prevention", she said.  "Prevention is part of who we are, it's where we live, work and pray," she said.

Lt. Christine Collins, RN, BSN, BS, MA, (pictured right) accompanied Dr. Benjamin on her listening visit to Maine. Lieutenant Collins is a highly decorated Afghan War veteran trauma nurse (note her impressive line of awards) and an officer in the United States Public Health Service.  

Health Care Reform and Interstate Commerce

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-roberts-court-could-save-health-care/2012/03/07/gIQALljXGS_story.html 

One provision conservatives are challenging when the Supreme Court hears the legality of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) is the concept of the law's apparent override of interstate commerce laws with regard to buying health care insurance. (Unfortunately, Maine's legislature defeated a provision today March 19, which would have included health insurance exchanges in our state - sadly undermining a provision of the Affordable Care Act....)

From my understanding, the Republican opposition is hypocritical because they are the party who came up with this idea in the first place. What it means is: states now have insurance laws restricting their ability to sell products across state lines. That's why, for example, a person in Maine is unable to buy practically any insurance in a state with cheaper rates.

When the ACA takes effect, consumers will be able to access competitively priced health insurance.  Insurance providers will be able to create competitive products that currently are not allowed because of restrictions on interstate commerce regarding insurance products.

This deregulating provision of the ACA is something Republicans have been in favor of, until somewhere along the political divide, it was decided to oppose it, for no reason. Common sense tells me Republicans should embrace the proposed deregulation of interstate commerce barriers as being in the best interest of a "free market".

The Washington Post reports today (Sunday March 18):

"In six hours of oral argumentsover three days later this month — the most time the court has spent on a case in 45 years — the Obama administration will try to convince the justices that the Constitution grants Congress broad power to regulate interstate commerce and provide for the national interest. Broad enough to require that almost every American purchase health insurance or pay a penalty."

Although the "mandate" proposal in the ACA might be an issue some people oppose, the reality is that someone, somewhere, pays for all health care provided in the United States. Therefore, it make sense to require everybody to pay for their own health insurance, if they can afford it, rather than cost shift the expense for those who don't pay to those who are already over-paying.

In other words, if health care insurance were competitively priced, more people can buy it.

Deregulating the interstate commerce law for insurance will allow consumers to shop for competitive rates across state lines or through certain compacts or arrangements between carriers.

What could be more pro-free market or capitalist than that?

But, our US Supreme Court must rule based upon the law as it currently exists, or so I believe to be the case.

Therefore, Republicans are now supporting a law they wanted to do away with before they figured out how real middle class people might benefit from the deregulation.

Deregulation of the inter-state commerce for the purpose of consumers being able to purchase affordable health care insurance will not automatically pour revenues into the the insurance industries' financials. But it might help the middle class, many of them without health care insurance.

Legalize Marijauna? It's already a pill....check "Marinol"

http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html

A CNN bullet question asks if marijuana should be legalized?

It's already legal to take marijuana by prescription through oral medication, or when it's prescribed or dispensed at authorized, licensed clinics.

Check the Drug Enforcement Agency's (DEA) website link above to read how marijuana is available in an oral prescription, under the name Marinol.  In fact, marijuana doesn't need to be grown, rolled or smoked because it can already be taken orally in a pill form.

Therefore, the unregulated use of marijuana, or the criminality associated with growing, smoking or selling it, is totally unnecessary. People who claim to need the medicinal effects to ease nausea or other distressing symptoms, can get the benefit with legal prescriptions.

In CNN's unscientific bullet poll, about 70 percent agreed with the statement about making marijuana legal.  It's become too much of a legal burden to keep the recreational use under control. In other words, the cost of enforcement are outweighing the benefits of keeping innocent people safe from having sellers in their neighborhoods.  So, decriminalizing marijuana could, presumably, allow people to grow the plants in their flower gardens.

In the past, the argument against legalizing marijuana has been about the "slippery slope", i.e., recreational marijuana leads to the abuse of stronger drugs, especially addicting opiates. There's no evidence that marijuana leads to other drug abuse; but the culture among those who abuse drugs usually includes the use of marijuana, or so I'm told. So, use of one doesn't necessarily lead to abuse of the other, but marijuana and opiate abuse seems to go hand in hand.  Legalization will likely lead to other, lesser addicting drugs, taking its place in the hierarchy of illegal substance abuse toxins. It seems like street vendors are coming up with new toxins every month.

You must "live in a cave" not to know how courts, jails and prison cells are overloaded with abusers of marijuana.  Meanwhile, we have no idea how big the market share is for black market marijuana, the kind purchased legally but sold illegally.  Recreational use of marijuana is so pervasive, it's joked about openly on late night television, situation comedies and movies. Illegal marijuana seems to be a fantasy.

On the other hand, even the legal dispensing of marijuana in pill form, baked in brownies or smoked, is costly to government, because of the the "red tape" regulations promulgated to oversee and monitor its use.

Legal marijuana, if it happens, can be taxed at up to 100 percent of its value.  Obviously, taxing marijuana will serve to make the underground use even more pervasive.

How can people be forced to buy marijuana with a tax attached, when it can be grown in a window sill flower pot?

Our society doesn't have the capacity to fight marijuana legal wars anymore.  Yet, it seems too simple a solution to legalize it. I submit, the legalization will lead to more ethical dilemmas. How do communities keep legal marijuana out of our workplaces or neighborhoods?

Just because we're marijuana fatigued, it still doesn't make much sense, to the "nurse" in me, to legalize it, because it's already available by prescription to those who need it for medicinal purposes.

So, you must know by now, I'm one of the small minority of respondents who voted "no" on the CNN bullet poll.  Of course, being right and having $1.00 doesn't even buy a brownie bar anymore.

American Roman Catholic Bishops and Empty Pews

http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/03/13/catholic-church-in-danger-of-becoming-the-tea-party-at-prayer/

While USCatholic Bishops meet this week in Washington DC, their dioceses and parishes are experiencing declining revenues from lower church attendance. Churches are closing for lack of parishioners.

An EJ Dionne article (above link) reports how the Bishops are meeting in Washington DC this week but their agenda will not focus much on problems in their churches, but, rather, they will engage in a discussion about health care reform insurance coverage for contraception. This discussion will likely set up a conflict with the President Obama administration's initiative to cover contraception in health insurance plans, allowing women to access the benefit if they choose to pay for this coverage.  Bishops see this health care benefit for women as usurping the Church's position against use of artificial birth control.  Meanwhile, church teaching approves of family planning and I have written about this in a previous blog:

As a Roman Catholic woman, I fully understand the Church position on family planning but it seems to me the Bishops should focus on how to improve the spiritual initiatives in their dioceses rather than waste time on how the government should fund contraception.

US Bishops might ask their own  mothers how they practiced family planning before leaping into a debate about how health insurance pays for contraception.

Meanwhile, Chicago IL Cardinal Francis George reportedly wrote in a newsletter that government health care reform initiatives are just a first step to infringement of religious liberties, even putting the country on a slippery slope toward communism..  I don't suppose Cardinal George spends time reading the US Constitution or talking with US Supreme Court justices.  In summary, dear Cardinal, the US Constitution does not correlate contraception insurance coverage with religious liberty.

Moreover, US Supreme Court justices are Judeo-Christians and several are Roman Catholics. Vice-President Joe Biden is a practicing Roman Catholic.  These Judicial and Executive branches of government are hardly likely to even remotely challenge the separation of church and state. So, why are US Bishops even bothering with the health insurance-contraception issue?  I don't get their spiritual priorities.

How can Cardinal George write such rubbish, especially when health care reform initiatives are consistent with Roman Catholic social justice objectives of providing access to quality and affordable health care to everyone? It's totally inconsistent with social justice teaching to suggest a libertarian view of health care reform or to associate its benefits with communism.

Cardinal George's comments lead EJ Dionne to conclude that the Roman Catholic Bishops may become the Tea Party at prayer.

I don't know an active "Tea Party" advocate, as I believe the entire movement should be dunked before they steep the entire Grand Old Party into decline.  I don't believe Tea Party advocates have any particular religious affiliation.

Are US Bishops becoming Tea Party surrogates when the movement is largely non-religious?

Will the unlikely alignment between US Catholic Bishops and the Tea Party lead to a demise of both?

So, my point is this:  Roman Catholic Bishops must spend more time nurturing spirituality. Creating unpopular political alliances will only create more empty church pews.

Cash Cow Grows for Pharmaceutical Companies - More OTC: Less for Medicare D

http://oneturkeyrun.blogspot.com/2006/02/cash-cow-medicare-part-d-benefit-and.html (comment from reader Joe in Bangor ME at end sent via email*)

In February 2006, I posted a blog about how over the counter sales (OTC) of pharmaceuticals, for drugs that are now available only by prescription, will undermine the intention of the Medicare D benefit:  "Part D Medicare Prescription Drug Plan is a stand-alone drug plan that adds prescription drug coverage to Original Medicare, some Medicare Cost Plans...." posted on the Medicare.com website.


But, Medicare D does not pay for over the counter (OTC) pharmaceuticals.  Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical companies receive monthly reimbursement from Medicare for providing coverage, while a growing number of once prescription medications are going "OTC".  


Of course, consumers, especially Medicare beneficiaries, have come to rely on Medicare D, especially the Managed Care "Medicare Advantage" plans, that roll the "D" premiums into their beneficiaries' coverage.


Reuters News reports the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering deregulating some diabetes and cholesterol lowering drugs so they can be purchased OTC. Medicare D won't pay when the drugs are OTC.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/08/us-fda-drugs-otc-idUSBRE8270TG20120308

Of course, some consumers will benefit from more OTC pharmaceuticals. Nonetheless, Medicare beneficiaries who are diabetics may actually pay hidden costs, because their benefit won't cover some of their commonly taken medications, the ones now covered in their plans. In other words, pharmaceuticals could be accused of "double dipping", by receiving premiums for drug coverage while pushing more commonly covered medications off of the benefit.  Either way, or both ways, Big Pharmas get money.

So, my point is: When Republicans obsessively chant about Medicare fraud, they must turn to Big Pharma contributors to ask how much money each company receives from the Medicare D benefit and how much of it they actually pay for beneficiaries' drug coverage.

It's extraordinarily difficult, maybe impossible, to roll back the Medicare D benefit; but, tracking the program's revenues, and expenses makes  for sound fiscal and public policy sense.

*Joe from Bangor writes in response: 
A Cash Cow and how!!!

Time to turn off the milk machine Apparently politics and "milk" do mix! Otherwise this travesty would have been ended long ago!

Brilliant article! Bravo!!    Joe Jr.

"God" Speak: Romney and the Doomed Titanic

More than radio communications and GPS guiding systems are being disrupted by those solar explosions described by astronomers.

Solar flares might also be impacting the rational thinking of experts in the Mitt Romeny campaign to win the Republican nomination for US president.  

What else can explain the two horrible gaffs, just this past week, by Romney's campaign communications team? First off,  Romney didn't blast "Bim-baugh" - Rush Limbaugh, for his slanderous comments made on the radio against Ms. Fluke, a young law student who spoke at a US Congressional hearing in defense of contraception coverage for women's health.  

Worse than that, if there is such a thing, is the terrible correlation made between Romney's perceived inevitability towards his political party's nomination and invoking "God" as preordaining his selection.  

In other words, only God can interfere with Romney's nomination?  Really?  I think Romney might consider being more fearful of this later statement than anything "unsaid" about the disgusting comments he didn't make about Bim-baugh.

Invoking God in a campaign dragged down by the over use of expensive negative campaign ads, created to prove Romney is the conservative - the real conservative, is a tactic that doesn't sit well with God, I'm certain of it!

By invoking God, the Romney people unintentionally raised his religious issue, yet again, because, frankly, many people, including me, don't understand how his Mormon faith interacts with Christianity. Romney doesn't need suspicious people, like me, questioning his religious beliefs. In fact, Romney, and every American has the right and privilege to practice whatever religion we want.  I believe we should overlook Romney's religion and focus on his qualifications to do the job. Now, I'm wondering if he is really qualified, or just an overly zealous and ambitious politician.

Nevertheless, when God's name enters the debate, unwanted religious scrutiny follows. It's like solar flares and glitched radio waves, one phenomenon follows the other.

Rather than go on about these communications debacles, I simply say this:  It's time for Republicans to find another candidate and non-of the above will do - not Santorum (his stand on everything is too concrete), not Gingrich (his outrageous rhetoric is narcissistic) and not Paul (endearing as he is - his solutions to everything are too simplistic).

We need some healing solar flares to fix the Republican Party or the sun damage could become permanent.

Was it somebody at White Star Lines, in 1912, who made a claim that even God couldn't sink the doomed ship Titanic?

Obamacare-Romneycare-Hillarycare and Health Care Reform

Debating health care reform goes back for decades in American politics.

Republicans have selective amnesia whenever it's mentioned, but two of the proponents of health care reform were Republican Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, who advocated for universal health care in 1912, and Richard Nixon's 1973, Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Act.

Nevertheless,  since the 1990s, anti health care reform trolls funded by private insurance companies began what's become a trilogy of brand-names attached to efforts to bring about meaningful improvements to how people access quality and affordable health care.

Hillarycare became Romneycare and, now, the label has morphed to Obamacare.

I'm mystified by how people, led by the media, fall victim to labels when all our journalism training and English 101 composition classes teach us not to rely on buzz words. They're unimaginative, and, what's more, they're "plageristic".  In other words, people copycat these words without any idea what they mean.

"Health care reform", on the other hand, means people have a right to access quality and affordable health care without regard for their ability to pay -although, somebody does pay.

It seems like everybody buys into the premise of providing health care for all, because it's the right thing to do, but the concept of explaining health care reform doesn't get beyond sound bites.

In the absence of health care reform (President Obama's bill doesn't really "kick in" until 2014), the person who cannot afford to see a doctor winds up in high priced emergency rooms whenever they're too sick to function.  Sadly, some of these poor people even die before they access care because they can't get to a health care provider in time to save their lives.

Meanwhile, access to primary care is perhaps the most cost effective way of providing people with the tools needed to stay reasonable healthy.  So, when sick people, who cannot afford health care, wind up hospitalized because of an exacerbation of a treatable illness, the costs to care for the indigent patient are passed on to those who can pay - it's a health care accounting tactic called "cost shifting".

Health care reform is  needed to reduce the costs for everyone, but especially for those who access primary care, to keep them out of expensive hospitals.  With health care reform, private insurance will pay their network providers a negotiated rate to cover the costs of their beneficiaries, so they won't have to absorb the cost of charity care as a result of cost shifting.  Hospitals, and other providers, can keep their costs under control when payment for needed services is guaranteed, so they won't have to resort to cost shifting to cover indigent or charity care, which is hardly ever paid for.

However you analyze it, health care reform is needed to help keep the spiraling cost of providing care to a growing number of charity care patients under control, by providing good primary care case management and by providers receiving timely payment for services to indigent clients.

Above is a simplistic explanation about how health care reform works, but it's rendered meaningless when experts and pundits alike use buzz words to enrage the public rather than explain the alternative to change.  In fact, the alternatives to health care reform are that insurance premiums will get higher as costs for caring for an aging population spiral out of control, while the beneficiaries' coverage will reimburse for less and less services when actuarial costs include projecting for 20 plus percent profit margins.

Moreover, when government becomes a large consumer of health care, they are in the best position to negotiate the lowest rates based on the high volume of services covered.

In reality, Hillarycare, Romneycare and Obamacare are health reform initiatives with noble objectives, ie, to improve access for everyone who should receive primary rather than urgent care and, at the same time, control costs.

Health Care Reform should be labeled "affordablecare" or "American-care" or even - taaa-daaa!: "Medicare"! After all, Medicare provides primary care to beneficiaries who pay modest premiums for coverage.  In my mind, it's unfair for Medicare to be an insurance benefit exclusive for those 65 years of age and older or disabled.  I believe anyone should be able to choose to buy Medicare coverage before 65 years of age, because it's not free and it's affordable.  Repeat !! - Medicare is not free; it's an efficient health care reimbursement alternative already in place, working and providing quality programs to beneficiaries.

So, my point is, rather than belittle health care reform with irrelevant labels, why not, instead, take pride in First Lady Mrs. Hillary Clinton, for braving political turmoil to get the issue into the public domain?  Let's credit Governor Romney for daring to create a health care reform initiative in Massachusetts, because people who live there really like the coverage. And, certainly, let's applaud President Barack Obama for bringing health care reform to reality, despite the political consequences he's faced ever since the bill passed, with no Republican votes.

Moreover, let's get off this buzz word mentality, words that would get writers and reporters an "F" in English class. It's time we  educate the public about what health care reform means to them and their families.

Maine's Dirigo Senator Snowe: Tributes and Opportunities

Maine is like one big small town, with about 1.3 million people spread out over an entire state, larger in size than all the other New England states put together.

That's why most Maine people are lucky enough to get to know our leaders, like Senator Olympia Snowe and others who are lined up to take her vote in the US Senate, now that she's decided to, sadly, step aside.

Maine's state motto, for those who are reading "from away" is the Latin for "I Lead". Senator Snowe was a leader for Maine, but her leaving the Senate also leads a list of capable others who want to take her place.

It's been my honor and privileged to know Senator Olympia Snowe, even before she was a US Senator.
In fact, my mother and Senator Snowe were pen pals for awhile during the 1980s. Senator Snowe graciously answered the letters my mother sent to her about issues relating to the elderly, Social Security and Medicare. During my work in public policy, my nursing colleagues and I could always count on Senator Snowe to meet with us personally, to listen attentively to our concerns about how she could help improve the quality of life for all Americans, especially for her constituents, the Maine citizens.

But now our Dirigo Senator made a decision to step aside because, she explains, the polarizing political climate in Washington DC does not go away after the campaign to win elections subsides.  She told a supportive audience in South Portland a few days ago that she has become discouraged because campaigning does not stop after the elections are over.  Working as a Senator for an 6 additional years, during another term,  was not how she wanted to  lead. To paraphrase those who know her, at the end of the day, she's a political giant who believes compromise is good for our nation.

Thank you Senator Snowe for your candor, your wonderful public service and dedication to the principals of excellent political leadership.

Of course, this wistful announcement creates opportunities for a line up of capable political leaders who aspire to fill Senator Snowe's role and her pivotal vote in the US Senate.  Republicans had come to depend on Senator Snowe for their head count votes, but now, she will almost certainly be replaced by a more moderate or even a Democratic party leader.

Although I'm certainly not a political fortune teller, knowing the candidates helps when thinking ahead to who might fill Senator Snowe's amazing legacy.  A focus on the line up includes but is certainly not limited to Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, a Democrat; former Governor John Baldacci a Democrat; gubernatorial candidate and Independent Eliot Cutler and former Maine Governor and Independent Angus King.

Although there are other names, my prediction is that the person elected to be the next and newest US Senator from Maine will be one of the above.

And the good news is this - any one of the capable leaders in my names list will serve Maine people well. Moreover, each one has already been thoroughly vetted through close and personal Maine elections.

We know our candidates!

But, the bad news, Senator Snowe's retirement notwithstanding, is that a grueling primary between these potential candidates could inflict completely unnecessary damage to these leaders, causing a political situation something like the muckraking going on with the US Republican presidential primaries.

Let's practice what we preach in Maine.  "Dirigo" means the candidates must put their personal egos aside and defer to the one among them who is best able to fulfill the state's motto.

Whoever political person is chosen - especially if it's one from my list, I wish them God speed and they will have my support.  This Senate election could be an example to America about how Maine pragmatically gets things done.

Rush Limbaugh and X-Rated Slander- A Federal Communications Commission Rebuke Is In Order

I've never paid attention to right wing conservative radio-blabber mouth Rush Limbaugh, but he has effectively used his right to free speech on the air waves to make lots of people feel either furious or self righteous.  In the past, he's primarily directed his muckraking to politicians, especially liberals who he unilaterally disagrees with regardless of the issues at stake.

Limbaugh has now stooped into a deeper level of dark emotion by personally attacking a Georgetown University student, a young woman, for exercising her personal right to free speech, calling her slanderous names on the radio, using rhetoric fired up with sexual imagery.

Using vomit worthy venom, Limbaugh verbally attacked this young woman because she defended her position on a women's access to contraception, speaking to a public hearing before the US Congress. 

Disgusting rhetoric from a low life like Limbaugh shouldn't be a surprise, but to throw his verbal mud at a young intelligent woman because, as a radio bully, "he can", is an immoral act, slanderous in my mind, and one that should get the attention of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

President Obama made a gracious call to Ms. Fluke of Georgetown to affirm her right to speak on behalf of her beliefs.  Our president realized how horrible this young woman must feel, to be the brunt of hateful labels the likes of which an X-rated video might use offensively.  Thank you Mr. President for raising Ms.Fluke up, especially because she was brave enough to defend her beliefs.  "President Obama called Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke on Friday to offer her words of encouragement amid a controversy involving Rush Limbaugh's words toward her."http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/02/10562831-president-obama-calls-georgetown-student-fluke

My point is this:  If Rush Limbaugh has the right to free speech, even for slanderous purposes, then he has absolutely no cause whatsoever, for any reason, to denigrate any another person who shares the same Constitutional right. 

In other words, Rat-Limbaugh, you don't really believe in the right of free speech at all, unless it's used for your own profane purposes.

Whereby, right wing extremists like Bim-baugh continue showing their rat tails- their overt hypocrisy, pointing fingers at others while not holding themselves to the standards they decree as being absolute.

I believe what Bim-baugh said was a violation of FCC license regulations, because he used slanderous and sexual profanity for defamation purposes, rather than presenting facts about the issue that Ms. Fluke was defending.

Regardless of women's political preferences, I sincerely believe what Bim-baugh did was an attack on all of us! We must collectively call for his removal from the public airways.

Please, to news anchors, pundits and media moguls, don't give Bim-baugh any more air time. Let's just cancel his radio show because he's an untrustworthy "has been" and broadcast bully.

Like the scum-bag he is, Bim-baugh's time has finally circled the drain and it's time to flush him away.