Your article basically said nothing. What are the Blue Dog's doing to be the "obstacle" you mention in the title? Why is this an issue? Joan's story was closer though since she actually asked - what is the plan? But even there it's just a bunch of text that really doesn't say anything.

The health care debate is much more complex than I think anyone really realizes and I think taking some time, working though different ideas, and having a debate are all good things. Arguing about the GOP, the Blue Dogs, whatever is missing the point that we need to have a good solution. Right now the CBO report seems to suggest that we do not. So while the news media might love the infighting/outfighting or whatever...we still don't have a bill we can actually look at or scrutinize with any depth.

I hope to see some better articles here that actually look into the issues in this debate more thoroughly instead of just commentary. I can go to cable news for that. I come here for something a bit more educated.

I'm very happy to see this response.

Just my gut feeling is to say no to this, which is something I absolutely hate and I hope to remedy soon. However, I see no convincing reason why we should or should not allow this change from the discussion here or through this article.

I think my first glance at this idea is that we shouldn't change the system because of changes in the wind where people want an Arnold or whomever. It's the same thing that drives me nuts when NYC changes it's term limit rules so they can let a popular mayor run again. That type of thinking leads to larger issues, one which I think we'll all witness in Venezuela as well.

It is a good question though and I'd like to see some more serious replies to answering it.

because I have no idea what they are coming up with. Every time they do, the CBO says it won't cut costs and it's pointless.

What are they actually doing and why should I support it. People can tell me why it's good in theory, but what does the bill say and why should I call my reps to support it?

I feel a bit in the dark with this "overhaul" which is looking more like it'll be a watered down version of nothing, which the Dem's will take credit for and the GOP will rail against for doing nothing.

Anyone else feel like they are in the dark on this?

Is it because it's so easy to refute? Politico, CNN, MSNBC, and others don't even really mention this if at all. I'm sure Olberman has (I can't watch him anymore due to no cable) but I'm sure you are spending far too much time on this story.

They have nothing to go on and until Obama releases his original birth certificate, they won't shut up. So why give them free publicity? I think it's safe to say that the majority of us on Salon already know everything you typed up. Why are you going on and on about this?

You don't negotiate to "win" or to come out with the best possible outcome for your side. You do it when the best possible outcome for your side is to make certain concessions.

I think this is a major misunderstanding by a large majority of people in the country. When we go into negotiations it doesn't mean we are going to get everything we want and if we don't, it doesn't mean we failed.

Nothing else to summarize from Politico?

I would love for that to be true but the problem is that people are listening to her.

I've had to correct several people on the "death panel" assertion and it doesn't seem to matter. I even had one person say, even though you have a point, I think she's correct.

Add to this and now Newt is using his "slippery slope" phrase to basically back up the point while not actually stating it outright.

I'm starting to wonder if the problem isn't that people aren't listening, it's that they only choose to listen to what they want to. How do you remedy that? Putting out more and more information won't have any effect. Should Dems infiltrate Fox News as Conservatives?

I liked your analysis.

The only thing I'd point out, which you somewhat alluded to, was that Bill Clinton won in 1992 because of Ross Perot. If he wasn't running, I doubt "read my lips" would have mattered. My parents were a perfect example of this. No way would they vote for that liberal Clinton (called him slick willy all the time) and Bush was the same ol lying politician. So after 20 years of voting straight republican while not being a party member, they both voted for Perot.

I doubt Obama would have to worry about a dem doing anything like Perot, but I think many people give Clinton too much credit for his first win. The second wasn't really much of a challenge either.