Let's Respect others and discussion, not violence.

'What's in it' ? or 'violence and disruption', which one is the reason of slow-down ?

Part 1.

The runaway premium similar to the peak fuel price last year and left so many folks in despair insists on staying the course with the attitude 'unchanged', clearly this trend could bankrupt individual, business, and government. Now the government subsequently is tasked with these two main assignments, first, to address premium inflation, second, to expand coverage to all in urgent need.

In order to cover all and not to add to the deficit, the public option can not set the same rates of private market, rather, it needs to have the function to keep it in check in terms of inflation, too. Unfortunately, this 'unavoidable' direction is aggressively being accused by the runaway premium, citing government 'take-over' .

Under the circumstances the energy bill to determine human future and the other major issues is presently piled up, who wants to waste time making enemies ?, which also does not benefit the forthcoming election.

On the other hand, to make things worse, critics say the savings from the proposed public option is not enough to meet the revenue goal. Furthermore, on another hand, some say 'hands off' . Where do these No tax, No saving and the like intend to force this reform to go ? The conclusion by 'just-say-no' is no doubt. Ironically, the Deficit-sensitive groups have a distinctive common ground, they all have a Deficit-driven background out of question.

Part 2.

Of all choices, the best thing would be savings through efficiency. Considering the wasteful structure, the highest premium in the world, and the most expensive part of medicare, with the prevention / wellness program in place, an American style innovation, an 'outcome'-based payment founded upon IT system may be enough to save more than 50 billions per year (500 / decade), both 'improving quality' and removing the unnecessary procedures (as pay is dependent on patient's outcome). Young folks and advocates need to explain the notion of a pay for outcome agreement to the elderly misled by the disinformation.

Part 3.

Unlike private market, this public option includes large-scale investments, these large investments still does not get the fair score, instead seem to become a source of acute conflict, even so, this common sense-based program needs to develop further as early detection goes beyond monetary value.

In short, with the heartbreaking tears in mind (Nearly 11 Million Cancer Patients Without Health Insurance), private market also needs change and should join together to complete this reform , as promised, if not, the runaway premium only has itself to blame. Job-based coverage (indirect payment), mandate code, and ample capital might be favorable to the private market. And It can be said that fair competition starts with fair market value.

Over time, supposedly, the public plan will concentrate more on basic, primary cares, and the private insurers will provide their clients with differentiated services.

Thank You !

They get health care on our dime and they don't want to let us have what they have.

Why is that acceptable to you Joan?

What about equality under the law?

We can afford war, but not health care? What is more important to you Joan? Killing Iraqis and Afghanis or health care?

How many people trust bureaucrats?

How many people like dealing with bureaucrats?

How many people trust the government?

Why do you think people say they are voting for the lesser of two evils?

You are mouthpiece for the government and Obama Joan, nothing more, and you trash people who do not trust the government or the president.

What color is your shirt Joan?

I don't mean physically - unless some of the people Limbaugh and Beck have riled up get exceptionally lucky, which I'm not putting past them. I mean politically. I don't think Obama has ever faced the kind of frenzied, unreasoning hatred the Republicans have summoned from the scum-sucking radio audience members.

This isn't the sort of thing you can mollify with a quick quip or a beer. Obama has not, to my understanding, expressed a solid, righteous anger on behalf of the causes he supports, whether medical care or jobs or bailouts. He's always played the sweet voice of liberal reason and compromise.

If he keeps that up, in the face of Elephantman's buddies, he won't change any minds and will give the Republicans a propaganda victory. If he blows up and starts cursing and throwing invective - which, frankly, I would have done months ago if I was Obama - he might impress people with his passion, or provide an even greater propaganda victory for his foes. That takes a careful balance to bring about a positive result, and he hasn't got any practice in effective anger.

Especially in the dog days of summer, when the media are looking for anything of interest - especially if it hurts Obama - this will be a very sweaty moment for President Obama.

Look, I think these people are cretins who have only the most rudimentary understanding of the issues at hand and have been somehow convinced to rally against their own interests.

But the truth is, 1) with the exception of the (very minor-sounding) scuffle described, these people are well within their constitutional rights to assemble and protest whatever they disagree with and 2) as obnoxious as they sound, they're better at it than the left was during the Bush administration.

It's sad but true. I went to multiple anti-war protests before the Iraq war and you know what? They were wholly ineffective. Yeah, yeah, the media downplayed them, but the truth is that they were poorly organized, they happened far too late to seem timely, they were far too nice and there was little clear message. Modern protests from the left always attract a fair number of wannabe Wavy-Gravy aging hippies who don't really know why they're there, anarchists, anti-GMO protesters, anti-WTO protestors, people who want to free Mumia Abu-Jamal and then an assortment of jugglers, clowns and people walking on stilts. Regardless of what the purpose of the protest is. The people who are there to express their disapproval of the issue at hand are drowned out by the other attentive-craving morons who cavort in front of the cameras and make a mockery of the whole thing, and so no one takes anyone there seriously.

The protests from the right are far more homogenous, they're on-message, they're more media savvy and they seem genuinely pissed off. Like I said, I don't agree with them one whit, but they're far better at conveying their message, swaying public opinion and making themselves known to those who are actually making the decisions.

The game has changed, and while how they operate may seem crass and vulgar, the right has grasped this change while the left is stuck doing it the same way they always have - which stopped working in the early 70s. Maybe this is because the right tends to operate from a "top-down" hierarchical organizational structure while the left tends to operate from a "bottom-up" grassroots type approach, I don't know. But until the left starts paying attention and seeing how effective protests is done now, our viewpoints will continue to be marginalized while the screeching minority on the right will have their opinions overrepresented in the media and in government.