Glen Beck's commentary at CNN today is excellent in many regards, but one issue in particular deserves to be looked at more closely: health care, and the 47 million people currently without health insurance in the United States. That sounds like a lot, because it is. But let's examine the numbers more closely, using the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau's report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States.

About 38% of them – over 17 million – live in households making $50,000 or more per year.

About 20% of them – almost 10 million – aren't citizens of this nation.

About 33% of them – roughly 16 million – are eligible for govt insurance but aren't enrolled yet.

So, 43 million of that 47 million – or about 91% -- either can afford insurance, aren't even citizens of our country, or are already able to GET health care assistance but haven't.

So more than 33 million of the 47 million uninsured – or almost 79% -- either could afford insurance and just don't get it, or are eligible for health care assistance but haven't bothered to sign up.

Only 9% -- about 4 million people – are U.S. citizens who cannot afford insurance and are not eligible for government insurance. That is barely more than 1% of the population. Of course it is sad that anyone goes without health care insurance, and we should find ways to fix even that low number; but it does not signal an actual crisis, and is certainly something entirely manageable within the existing health care structure of this nation. And by the way, the 47 million number? That's one million LESS than it was before, which is more than a 2% reduction. That's a drop equivalent to 25% of the total number of people – 4 million – who currently lack insurance and cannot afford it but who aren't eligible for government insurance. If all of those one million people were among that group, then there was a 20% decline in the rate of uninsured people from that group.

And we might also consider that many of those (nearly 9 million) without insurance are children – a point Democrats love to make but ignore the implication that the overall number of households and families without insurance is actually very low, and as already noted the majority of them in fact either can afford insurance but choose to do without it or they are eligible for government insurance but choose not to enroll.

So what, exactly, have the Democrats – and their nominee, Senator Obama – done about the supposed health care "crisis"? Nothing. Obama, in fact, skipped nine of the 15 Senate votes on health related measures during his tenure. NINE. He missed 60% of the votes. At least Hillary Clinton can claim to have actually done a lot of work to create a gigantic monstrosity of a health care proposal once in her life.

No, there is no health care crisis in America. It is merely another Democratic party scare-tactic based on a myth.

If Obama wants to make the "elitist" label stick, he is doing a marvelous job. Consider his remarks about McCain's and Clinton's suggestions that the gas tax be suspended during summer months. Obama says it wouldn't be worth it, because it would only save an average of $30 per family and is simply a short-term solution.

Let's try some simple math. Summer is about three months long. Divide $30 by three, and you get $10 per month.

For people who actually work for a living, unlike Senator Obama (and I don't just mean that as a slight against Democratic politicians, I mean it even more literally, in light of Obama's tendency to skip work), $10 a month can in fact make a difference.  You can buy a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a carton of eggs, and a five-pound bag of sugar with that $10. That's an extra week's worth of staple grocery items at a time when prices for such goods are on the increase, and if you are a parent with mouths to feed, an extra week's worth of those groceries every month is very helpful.

Or that $10 could be seen as a little government subsidy for the energy bill each month, during summer months when energy bills run higher. A ten percent subsidy on the first $100 of your electric or gas bill can be a big help for a working-class or poor family.

How about using the $10 for an extra three or four gallons of gas, to get to work or pick up the kids from school or take your family to the park? I don't know anybody who would turn down $10 per month in free gasoline, do you? Look at it that way, and it doesn't seem so worthless after all, does it?

An extra week's worth of groceries each month, a subsidy for your energy bills, or three free gallons of gas every month -- that's what the gas tax suspension equates to for working and poor families in this country, and that is why this simple proposal can be a helpful little short-term friend for a lot of households. When people are already struggling to support their families on just a little bit, every extra little bit helps.

Obama and others like him dismiss the importance of such things, precisely because of their contempt for the average family. Already displayed through things like his dismissal of gun ownership and church attendance as things embraced only by bitter rednecks, Obama's elitist attitudes and utter failure to relate to working Americans is further clarified by his new opposition to helping those same Americans buy more food, more gas, and pay their bills. Maybe someone needs to point out to him that he can use his own $10 a month in savings as a government subsidy for pricey arugula.

One of Obama's criticisms of the gas tax suspension is that it would in fact increase demand and thus not help bring down prices. Well, the first rather obvious problem with this snotty attitude is that it pretty much debunks Obama's own suggestions, like the plan to stop buying oil for the strategic reserve. If there is more oil on the market, the price would go down, right? Oops, wrong, since increased demand would drive the price higher again, remember? Anything that brings down the price inherently would raise demand, and increased demand is at the heart of Obama's claim that prices won't drop.

Obama also keeps repeating the empty rhetorical line that gas tax suspension is just a short-term solution when what we need are long-term solutions. So, it appears that Obama doesn't think that sometimes short-term relief is necessary while bratty elitists work out their long-term solutions. When did Senator McCain (or Senator Clinton) state that the gas tax suspension is the only plan? Why does Obama falsely pretend it's an "either-or" situation? Because he's disingenuous, he can't relate to the day-to-day problems working people face, and he pretty much looks down his nose at and resents any idea that isn't his own, that's why.

(And apparently, Obama must've forgot that in fact, gas tax suspension was his idea previously. Yeah, that's right -- he voted for a gas tax holiday THREE TIMES.)

People are hurting right now. They will be hurting more this summer, as gas prices and energy bills and food prices rise even more. Yes, obviously we need long-term solutions, but in the meantime something should be done to help people get by while the grand schemes for the future are debated and studied endlessly. The gas tax suspension is a simple idea that admittedly brings short-term, moderate relief, but that is something a lot of families would benefit from in the here and now. The here and now, however, is someplace that Obama doesn't seem to live in. He resides on some alternate plain of existence where he transcends the problems and shortcomings of us mere mortals, where change, the future, the inadequacies of those he seeks to rule, and the just massive size of his own great big brainy brain are the only concepts he has time to contemplate.

Me? I'll take the $10 a month, thank you. I work for a living, and I've got bills to pay.