We really need this reform - especially ending recission, denial for pre-existing conditions, and access for everyone that is affordable.

The MA plan has many defects. However, it does make insurance and care accessible to most people. My daughter will lose our employer coverage because she graduated college this year. If she lived in MA, under current options & her income (about 20,000 per year), she would be eligible for subsidized coverage for about $50 per month. Unfortunately she lives in NY state, and there is no simple exchange where she can buy coverage. We are frantically attempting to find her an option. Freelancers Union offers group insurance, but the costs even for minimal plan are much higher.

I am FURIOUS that the GOP is fighting the plan with outrageous lies like "death panels" and so forth.

From what I read, members of Congress have reached agreement on how this would be done. Maybe, they need to share this information with the rest of the population. Not in 30 second sound bites like "Cut waste and fraud" but in real detailed understandable information.

One of the cuts that was discussed here on TL was that they would reduce compensation to medical providers to promote efficiencies. If that is the case, I do not support this because I do not believe that it will not impact care.

Also, let's talk about "Jaw Dropping Stupid."

At the town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., Obama said, "We have the AARP onboard because they know this is a good deal for our seniors." He added, "AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare."

But Tom Nelson, AARP's chief operating officer, said, "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

Like Obama, AARP wants action this year to cover the uninsured and restrain health care costs, but the organization has refrained from endorsing legislation. Nelson said AARP would not endorse a bill that reduces Medicare benefits. Link-h/t jbindc

This type of thinking and  scare tactic is increasing the number of organized militias throughout the US.
Very scary thing.  

Since there never was a plan put forth....

it's difficult to explain, let alone defend, a bill not yet in existence.

it would seem the supposedly media savvy obama people have totally dropped the ball on this, as though they expected the limbaughs, hannitys and o'reillys to go into a state of stasis after the election.

i can think of two places, right off the top of my head, to get an extra 200-300 billion a year: afghanistan and iraq. add up the direct costs of deployment and replacement costs, and there's your extra medicare funds.

the "lockbox" analogy was dumb when gore first brought it up, he's clearly no financial wiz; what are you going to do, put it in a cash box in the closet? how about we just stick with the actual budget allocations instead?

There is a persuasive argument to be made for reform, and even if you do not support a single-payer plan, the information to be found at pnhp.org is extremely helpful in understanding the elements of reform, the comparative benefits of different proposals, the economics of reform, how the current "plan" will or won't address costs and care, etc.  

The problem is that there has been a significant lack of leadership on the shape, scope and size of the Democrats' version of reform.  Even if Obama wanted to avoid the mistakes the Clintons made with the reform effort, he still needed to lead on it, still needed to have a plan.  He never had a plan - he had ideas, talking points, applause lines - but he never had a plan.  He did, however, have lots of time for industry executives, time to make closed-door deals with PhRMA.  The transparency he promised? - Never happened.  He had no time for single-payer advocates, no time to consider expansion of Medicare - a single-payer plan that works.  No, he went to the people responsible for high premiums, low coverage, rescissions and exclusions, red tape, mind-boggling forms, layer upon layer of bureaucracy, who opposed the bargaining power of large risk pools, and asked their advice about how to solve the crisis in health care.  

I will pause for a moment while you consider that.

How reform tramples on the Constitution, or dismantles the country, I couldn't tell you.  Are the people saying this fearful of being required to have insurance coverage?  Do they not want the government to impose insurance on them?  Is this like seat belts, motorcycle helmets and guns, where people don't want their freedom to be killed or severely injured to be restricted?  Perhaps this is about "government bureaucrats" making decisions about health care.  Maybe they believe that the government is busy requisitioning ice floes for all.  In some ways, as stupid as that sounds, I almost cannot blame people for not understanding what, exactly, the plan is when almost no one involved in it can explain it, either.  Sure, some of these people are operating from pure partisanship, but there are a lot of people not showing up at townhalls who have no idea what's going on, or that the implementation of any reform that is passed is being deliberately delayed past the 2012 presidential election.

The single sentence of course makes no sense by itself, but I've unfortunately had to listen closely to any number of these town-hall events, and it's very clear when you hear the whole rant that this woman, and most of the others who get a chance to talk at any length, aren't reacting only to health care issues but a whole long raft of things, from taxes to bail-outs to "taking over" General Motors, gigantic deficits, rushing complex bills through Congress that nobody's actually read, etc.

Many of those who oppose health care reform are shouting resentfully that it will force them to help provide care for "the poor," "freeloaders," the "unproductive," etc. But health care reform isn't going to create a new entitlement for "the poor." The poor already have "government" health care -- Medicaid. Falling tax revenues are making it increasingly difficult for the poor to access these benefits, but that doesn't change the fact that, in theory at least, such benefits already exist.

The real imperative for reform isn't to create a new entitlement for the nation's poor and dependent, but rather to address the crisis in coverage for small businesses (100 employees or less -- businesses that contribute 45% of our GNP and still provide a majority of the jobs available in a stagnant economy that hasn't seen an increased in the number of jobs since 2000), their employees and the self-employed -- people who are being priced entirely out of the insurance market or forced into ever less adequate coverage. There is a moral imperative for doing so -- but, perhaps even more important at this juncture, there also is an important economic one. In an economy struggling to provide adequate employment for its citizens our current health care system is a drag on employment,a drag on business creation, and a drag on global competitiveness.

Reforming our health care system of course is only one tiny part of what needs to be done to get us back on track in terms of creating an economy that can provide a decent livelihood and opportunities for advancement for its citizens. But you can't talk sensibly about reform without seeing it in that larger economic context. A larger context that, frankly, too many wish to avert their eyes from.

My wife wanted to watch a gardening show and I wanted to watch a baseball game, so I told her she was trampling on the constitution.

Many of the protestors at Claire McCaskill's townhall asked questions about abortion and global warming (they are deniers.)  What we are seeing is the religious conservatives feeling threatened because they are out of power.  That the government no longer sides with them and no longer openly validates their conservative religious beliefs is an existential threat to them.    They have no effective voice in Congress (good thing, that) and so they are making their last stand.

Hence, the man at Specter's townhall telling Specter that he would stand before God in the last day, etc.--and everyone cheering.

I can't count the number of times I have heard in various places a religious right winger say that  we "should just get back to the constitution."  Almost word for word.  That is the verbatim code of religious wingnuts.  It means prayer in school.  Creationism.  Outlawing abortion.  No gay rights. No federal government ensuring equality.  And on and on.

What we are hearing is the existential death cry of religious nuts.  It happened somewhat under Clinton with the militia movement.  Some segment of conservatives will never accept a democratic result that pushes them out of power.  Bush Jr.  was the ultimate Evangelical dream come true.  They have lost that.

Because religious conservatives fear change and are authoritarians at heart, a change in the government so that they no longer control it is a very frightening thing for them.  To not have the government validate them makes them afraid.  

1. The Republicans

2. The "public option" advocates

3. the single payer advocates

But the Constitution actually says nothing at all about any economic system. It simply lays out life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the goals, presumably to be realized under any of a number of economic systems that will be determined by a free people.

But that's the noisy ones.  Many are just scared because, as others have pointed out here, they are not getting good answers from Congresspersons.

Mine took a good tack yesterday at her town hall.  The first hour was a health care expert (yes, a professor, for those who critique the Ivory Tower just because it's so easy to do) explaining the various bills.  Giving the answers, lots of them, before the Congressperson took questions for the second hour.

Yes, there also were cops and private security and volunteers walking around with "Listen or Leave" signs, and there were tensions -- but mainly outside, so it seems to have worked.  The Congressperson was going to take only pre-submitted questions, but it went well enough that questions from the audience were answered -- by her and by the guy from the Ivory Tower, too.

Straight forward the plan for Universal Health Care is the same as the plan offered to our Congress and Senate.  It has been said over and over but seems to get lost in the discussion. Ready made no need to fabricate something, but riles the right wing nuts and others.  

Many people just do want to accept a change, especially when it was not the GOP idea. Just this past hour CNN is talking about money lost in waste and corruption with medical stuff tallies to amounts that are close to a half trillion annually. O.k. project that out and think a huge huge savings will be introduced with a competitive plan like this. That will help pay for it self.

What exactly do you want back? What has so dramatically changed in this country, or more specifically, your life, to foment this anger and reasoning (or non-reasoning)?

Since the inauguration of Barack Obama,

1. Started a new job (in defense, no less).

2. Have all the guns I had when the year started.

3. The church on the corner still has services on Sunday morning. I know because I hear their church bell ringing while I'm watching George Stephanopoulas.

4. The federal income tax deducted from my check is down.

5. My school tax is up.

6. I still can only go the doctor's the insurance company says I can go to.

7. I pay less for gasoline this summer than last.

8. I still have to deal the TSA dopes when I fly.

9. I still have to worry about imprisonment when I take a toke at night before bed.

10. The sun still shines and it rains sometimes.

They listen the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Michele Malkin, Ann Coulter, et al. These people put out blatant lies and misinformation. They get people worked up over their opinion of what will happen. Nothing is based on reality or fact.