When I was first married and new to motherhood (mid-1990's), my husband's job required frequent overseas moves. I found myself constantly contacting doctors to transfer my records from one place to another, and in order to save time, I started requesting copies of all of my own records. This worked fine everywhere in the world EXCEPT the United States, where a simple written request was viewed with hostility and suspicion. Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles, for example, acted as though I'd requested to have my records (routine testing) sent to Mars. They didn't have a form for this type of request -- and wouldn't do a thing without a preprinted form in quadruplicate with a dozen legal indemnities -- so they made me fill out the same form they use to disclose records to insurers. In this, I had to promise to indemnify the hospital for any damages I suffer by allowing myself to see my own records, including damages I sustain by suing myself in court for ... getting sick? Violating my own privacy? Notwithstanding the idiocy of it all, I signed their form, indicated where I wanted my records sent. That was a good ten years ago, and I'm still waiting for my records.

I am a lawyer (and yes, I hate playing the "lawyer card" but do it all the time). In my work, any records I have belong not to me, but to my client. My client will receive a copy of every report, every title search, every letter, every pleading, every memo, and every e-mail sent or received on their behalf. If they want to bring the whole file into another law office for a second opinion, they're free to do so. They don't owe me an explanation -- in fact, there's no particular need for them to discuss it with me at all.

Why should medical records be treated any differently? We're not children, after all.

I have been looking around for anyone who has actually seen the original proposal, which I understand is only three pages. I'd like to be able to read that, and compare it to the bill being debated now. Can they be linked or posted? Everybody has an opinion, but practically nobody has actually read the thing.

Update to my earlier post -- the text is linked on HuffPo.

Wait a minute -- the last time I checked, the families of the candidates were off-limits. Have we flip-flopped on that position, too?

Let me see if I can understand McCain's plan, in plain English.

There are two identical houses on one street. They are both worth the exact same amount of money. The terms of their respective mortgages are identical, in terms of principal, interest, remaining term, remaining balance. The guy on the north side of the street is making his mortgage payments. The guy on the south side of the street is unable to make his payments.

(Side question -- does the issue of "blame" factor in here? Was Mr. Southside dishonest when he filled out his application? Did he blow his paycheck on a trip to Vegas? Did he read the fine print? You can run this hypothetical both ways, if you care to, but I actually don't care.)

Property values have declined, and now both houses are worth less than the remaining balance on the mortgage.

Our Federal tax dollars will buy Mr. Southside's mortgage from the lender, assuming the lender can be identified.

(For what price, by the way? Sixty cents on the dollar? Inquiring minds want to know. If the purchase price exceeds the foreclosure value of the house, we have just officially "bailed out" the lender, by sparing them the full consequence of their bad lending practices; the taxpayers are paying them more than they would have received had they foreclosed ... but I digress.)

As the new lender, we refinance Mr. Southside. Per President McCain's promise, we forgive a portion of the principal balance on the loan, so that the new balance is in line with the reduced property values. Let's say for the sake of argument we knock off 20% of the principal.

Mr. Northside is stuck paying the full amount of his principal. But, in retroactively reducing his neighbor's purchase price by 20%, our government has effectively re-set the market value of his house, too. Only he doesn't get his equity back.

(Remember when we were promised that the taxpayers could actually make money on this deal? Well, if we reduce Mr. Southside's principal to less than the amount we originally paid to buy the mortgages, we're likely to end up being undercompensated)

So the two neighbors continue to pay down their mortgages, and President McCain sleeps well at night. Gradually, the market climbs back up. Both neighbors reach retirement age, and decide it's time to sell. Both neighbors sell at the same price. Mr. Northside's profit is equal to what he receives for the house, minus what he originally paid. Mr. Southside's profit is equal to what he received for the house, minus what he actually paid in principal after his original purchase price was reduced by 20% by the generosity of the U.S. taxpayer. In other words, he gets to keep the extra 20% that was a gift of the U.S. taxpayer.

Okay. I'm pretty sure I understand McCain's bailout plan.