This, despite the fact that one of the GOP’s main concerns about health care reform is the cost. This, despite the fact that there is little evidence to suggest that abstinence-only programs work at all. I think Jon Stewart speaks for a lot of us when he exclaims, “What the @#$%?”

Abstinence-only sex ed is one of those ideas that completely collapse after a moment’s thought. Whose brilliant idea was it to teach reproductively mature kids about sex, by telling them “don’t have sex?” The programs center around trying to scare kids into not having sex until some indeterminate time point when they are “ready” to do so.

Of course, when “graduates” of these programs inevitably go out and have sex, they are woefully unprepared to defend themselves against unwanted pregnancies and STDs – because they were never taught how. You can tell kids whatever you want about when you think they should have sex, but leaving them unprepared for when it happens it just stupid. The goal of sex education is to reduce unwanted pregnancies and STDs, and you can’t do that when your entire method is based around “don’t do it.”

How about throwing another $50 million toward abstinence-only Driver’s Ed? Teenagers will learn that the only way to prevent against car accidents and other life-threatening vehicular mishaps is to stay home. Sounds like winning plan to increase safe driving practices amongst teenagers. Clearly for Orrin Hatch and the rest of the Congressional Gang <em>ignorance is strength.</em>

Yet for some reason many opponents equate a government-provided option with anti-market maneuvering, even as the established insurance interests enjoy a noncompetitive marketplace. It is the government’s job to ensure that the market stays competitive, because competition is good for individuals, not to mention the cornerstone of a free market system. What we are seeing here is the insurance industry using its powerful lobby to protect its monopoly status. Regulations are great for corporations, because they can either find workarounds or lobby the right politician to create a special loophole or exception for them.

Contrast this with the idea of a public health care option. In this case, the government decides what the minimum requirements for a health insurance policy will be, and provides those benefits itself. Some of the benefits being discussed are things such as repealing the discrimination based on preexisting conditions. If this is something people value, and the established insurance companies refuse to offer it, the majority of people would switch to the public plan. Suddenly those insurance companies would begin losing money, which means they would have to provide additional benefits, dare I say compete, to get those customers back.

This is a good thing for the customers, and exactly why the insurance companies don’t want to see this happen. By having a public option, the government gains power over them. They can dictate the minimum benefits of all insurance policies simply by changing what the public option provides. In the end, though, the insurance companies aren’t going to lose much money at all. They’re going to have to make changes to remain competitive in this new free marketplace instead of their comfortable monopolies, but they will almost certainly end up with as many customers as before. They’re pretty much just whining because they have had it good at the expense of “we the people” under the current system, and making changes shifts some of that power back. This is by and large a good thing.

The end result is that people still get to keep their favorite private insurer, only now they get more or superior benefits for the same price. Every person who does this saves the government money, so it only has to subsidize the public option for the people who can least afford it. This is a good thing, because when these people have insurance, they will be able to get regular preventative care and outpatient medical attention, meaning that ERs (especially those in cities) will be free to deal with real emergencies instead of serving as a primary care provider for the uninsured. Having more people insured means hospitals will lose less money, driving the costs down for everybody. More people receiving preventative care means more people will stay healthy, be able to work more, and ultimately spend more.

Providing for the basic needs of people is better for everyone in the long-term, just like maintaining a competitive marketplace keeps quality high and prices reasonable for everybody. Why are we having such a hard time passing health care reform again?

Case in point: I left my iPod plugged in to my computer instead of transferring it to my backpack. This, after I invested several minutes in picking out the music I wanted to listen to at work today. As a result, I had to endure a bus ride and even brave the crimson emptiness of the darkroom with nary a note to lubricate the experiences. I keep seeing it there, lying useless atop my computer case, longing to deliver its sweet contents to my timpanic membranes.

On another note, this antagonistic “cold virus” is ever so slowly relinquishing its grip on my olfactory mucosa. I’m sure my coworkers will be as pleased as I when my ever-present tissue box is rendered unnecessary.