VERSE / Larry Piltz : In the Opt-Out States of America

Big digeridoo. Photo from

I pledge new legions to The Hague
and fresh new lesions to The Plague
for medicines to moan and beg
as Corporatocracy humps my leg
in the Opt-Out States of America
Re the Public Option’s widget plans
for bleeding gums and swollen glands
with doctors singing oh yes we can
accompanied by Big Insurance plans
but not in the Opt-Out States of America

yet one new option that arises
fills with joy and great surprises
finally the notion’s granted
militarism’s been supplanted
if war’s not what my state’s about
my state can simply opt right out
in the Opt-Out States of America
with Quakers singing oh yes we do
accompanied by a big didgeridoo
yes in the Opt-Out States of America

In the Opt-Out States of America

Larry Piltz / The Rag Blog

Indian Cove
Austin, Texas
October 26, 2009
2:45 p.m. CST

The Rag Blog

This entry was posted in Rag Bloggers and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to VERSE / Larry Piltz : In the Opt-Out States of America

  1. Anonymous says:

    Here’s hoping healthcare reform will actually occur and that, if it must include a state opt-out provision that Texas doesn’t do so. Yes Virginia, hope really does spring eternal. Great poem & photo.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Bravo – this has got to be one of your best, Larry. rj

  3. Anonymous says:

    Thanks, RJ! Great to hear from ya!

  4. Richard says:

    Excellent, made my day.
    But why by state, why can’t we opt out individually. Insurance is a sucker bet.

  5. I love the opt out idea. Lets get this applied to Social Security contributions, cap and trade, card check(unions are basically opted out of texas already, thankfully), increases in federal tax rates, and any comprehensive immigration reform plan that manages to pass.

  6. Anonymous says:

    I opt out of DHS’s ignorant ideologic fantasy world.

  7. OK .. that was pretty funny. The verse was pretty nice as well. Wrong but nice.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Yes, DHS troll, because War is always kneejerk RIGHT in DHS world.

  9. Pollyanna says:

    I like better what Richard said — why does any State or state get to make health-related and/or financial decisions for individuals?

    And I’m willing to say that DHS extremist (although misguided) is at least getting the idea. I’m perfectly willing to let you opt out of Social Security payments, for example, as long as you opt out of all benefits; hey, those of us who work or worked in the social services field have been doing that unwillingly for years! (Because social services wages are so pathetically low, social security isn’t — or wasn’t; it may have changed since I left that work — deducted from one’s tiny paycheck. Years later, you learn that your expected retirement benefits are zilch — who knew?)

    Same with Medicare and even, DHS, you don’t wanna pay, fine, but don’t come around to my emergency room, please, when you are 86 and having that heart attack; don’t call my ambulance or firetruck or my policeman or drive on my roads — maybe you are a toll roads kind of guy?

    We need to be able to define public and private spheres of action and responsibility more clearly, it seems. If you want EVERYTHING from private enterprise and NOTHING from government, I think there’s a part of Colombia that’s like that…

  10. Polyanna raises a great question. One that is perhaps central to the tea party groups and constitutional groups i lead and those I am a member of.

    The role of governments have been turned upside down in the last 75 years, until it seems like a mash of contradictory approaches. That is because it is contradictory.

    We need to be able to define public and private spheres of action and responsibility more clearly, In the US, the document that does just that is the US constitution. Here is a link.

  11. Anonymous says:

    We can all relax now that we’ve been taught there’s a Con-sti-too-shon we can read up on. Wonder how that slipped by all us poor illiterate know-nothings all these years of readin’ the newzpapers and study and activism, especially most of them Supreem Court justices who obviously weren’t privy to the same book-learnin’ that our modern-day Patriaddicts are.

    If anyone wonders why no one should take the tea party people very seriously (besides their taking themselves so hilariously overseriously), it’s because of the arrogant presumptuousness of the movement and its adherents, especially self-described leaders, and especially the presumption that they know more and better than and are wiser than nearly everyone who has come before them. It’s their “special insights and knowledge” that set them apart – the further apart the better.

    Their rookie-type mistake is claiming to know better than anyone else, the sure sign of a cult and brainwashing, self-made or otherwise, and which also identifies the overcompensation of someone trying to disguise how little they actually know.

    Otherwise, kudos for brashness, though it’s just not fresh any longer and is bleeding credibility beyond reinflation.

  12. Pollyanna says:

    Hey, now, let’s take this one step at a time, OK? The role of government has been turned upside down in the last 75 years? Please, DHS, can you give two examples of SPECIFIC government “roles” that you see as opposite what they were 75 years ago? Pick the most extreme and obvious ones you have, please, as these will be most fruitful to examine.

    I will pick two government roles that I see as unchanged since at least the years shortly after the US Revolution of 1776 and adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, both of which, indeed, I have heard of.

    This will enable both a discussion of history and a clarification of values.

    I already have my two.

  13. Wow. I didn’t realize that pointing out the Constitution is the basis for defining the roles of government was brash. I guess I also missed that part where I claimed special insights and knowledge that set me apart.

    Pollyanna, I am leaving in just a few hours for some fishing but I will reply to your post when I return. I appreciate your offer and look forward to the discussion. I also appreciate that you don’t use the “Anonymous” tag as cover to mock and name call like a petulant child as some on here seem fond of.

  14. Pollyanna says:

    DHS — sure, and tell me what you catch, too!

    I don't get, I guess, a lot of the vitriol that can get hidden, as you say, behind the mask of anonymity — altho I use it sometimes when I'm in a hurry and have a simple comment. But seems to me the reason we have a Comments section is to accomodate discussion, and discussion that consists of unbroken accolades (unless, of course,

  15. Richard says:

    DHS seems to have an affinity for the constitution in these comments, but just previously I read his comments about Journalist Al'Hajj, where DHS seems to have missed some parts like the 4th, 5th 8th and 14th ammendments and since Al' is a journalist toss in the 1st. Maybe he missed the tea party where that was discussed or he was too busy leading to pay attention.
    Pollyanna, I

  16. Pollyanna says:

    Richard — o, I don't think DHS will have too much trouble coming up with examples of where the gov't is overstepping its Constitutional bounds — and we may well agree with him! But will he agree with my examples of how gov't is doing EXACTLY what it was intended to do?

    Vamos a ver…

    I love engaging with rabid right-wingers, have always had more in commom w/

  17. All, Its been the end of the quarter and I have been quite busy. Sorry for the delay. I did find some hybrid striped bass and a few largemouth bass this weekend. I always do catch and release so hopefully I will catch them again in a year.

    I have posted the first of my two issues. its rather lenghty so I have linked you to my Reply

  18. Richard says:

    DHS, I couldn't open it enough to read, but I did read the part where you say you are sane. That's news.

  19. Pollyanna says:

    DHS, I wrote a lengthy reply yesterday here but apparently it did not post; probably too long and I was too tired to notice; anyway I lost it!

    I did read your blog post; very interesting and closely reasoned; I have heard much the same arguments advanced re the Commerce clause as the engine by which states' rights have been run over.

    If I am understanding correctly, you

  20. Richard says:

    I opted out of private property 41 years ago, gave up my ownership of my paltry wealth for a part of everything. You just gotta get your head around property is theft and decide not to be the thief. Since then I have enjoyed mansions, yachts, best restaurants and world travel on my share of the bounty. JJR knows what I mean. It's that easy just say it is not yours any more than anyone

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *