Just like his campaign, it's all a trojan horse for muslim-crypto-fascist-terrorist-socialism to take over our country.

No, but here's my daughter's link to Joe Jonas dancing to "Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)" she posted for his 20th birthday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP-KFnYg6Hw

i know...i have had that same argument too. i tell them that the plan is not forcing you out of private insurance...and they're like... no they want to "socialize" american healthcare.

the details and truth make zero difference. propaganda wars are an art in this country.

it seems people would rather continue on purposely avoiding the truth that they're already paying for the uninsured now.

i wish obama would emphasize the cost containment aspect of health care reform, because that may help to get through to the robots at these town halls.

if cost containment is not a major thrust of the proposal, i'm betting it goes down in flame.

it's just laughable that the war costs of the last 6 years have not prompted the same hysteria that we are seeing in this debate.

cost containment is not a major part of anything I've seen. cost containment means making some tough choices and that doesnt go over well with politicians.

should we bet now on likelihood of passage of anything?

Something will get passed. Whether or not it actually will reform anything looks debatable--we've already bent over for the pharm companies and the civil lawyers, I figure we'll let the insurance companies take their turn next.

At least we're lubed up already.

Ah, the smegma of social progress

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp ... 3#32422533

Well, they are all in love with O'Donnell on Daily Kos.. here's what I posted there:

Yeah, ok, we get to feel all hot and bothered in a tumescent gotcha way ... but LOD's questioning in this way would do little to actually make the point: single payer is similar to SS and Medicare and Republican's are not willing to admit this. The way he questioned the guy, and cut him off, and didn't response to his "oh, wow, you are interrupting me..." gave us progressives boners, but would do, will do nothing to convince anyone of the strength of his argument. Although the MSNBC audience is probably just looking for a boner the same way the Fox/Rush audience is.

I wish somebody, oh I don't know, the President? could make this argument, which is of substance and is powerful, in an effective way. I like LOD, but the salivating over this kind of questioning is silly.

O'Donnell is a condescending jackass; I know MSNBC is seriously trying to fit his square peg into the round hole of a hosts gig but IMHO he will never be more than a lefty Pat Buchanan, good for analysis, sound bites and context (though LOD is more of a hack than even Sir Pat)

Somebody pass the Astroglide.

Public Health Care: "Not the essential element"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 60511.html

You have to be willing to accept an incremental/half a loaf solution, or you will NEVER get what you want in regards to a public option.

I'm fine with some sort of a compromise solution, its just starting to seem like all of the compromises have been in favor of the corporations and lawyers rather than the public interest and public will. This bill has gone from the sausage factory to the head cheese factory.

Most Americans agree that there is a need for health care reform. I'm pretty sure that most believe that there is a need for some tort reform, pharm reform and insurance reform.

There are disagreements on public/co-op plans, I get that. But at this point, I'm not sure where the reform is going to come from. None of the goals put forward by the administration are active anymore.

At this point I'm not sure this health care reform plan has anything in it except for money for medical delivery efficiencies that should have been in place a long time ago.

First it was Health Care Reform, next Insurance Company Reform. What's it called now? Medical Delivery Sytem Reform?

BOHICA.

Jon Meacham (Newsweek Editor) had a good point that Americans are usually much more willing to accept programs foisted upon them out of whole cloth -- WPA, AAA, Medicare, Medicaid, etc than they are willing to accept the reforming of these programs, or the reforming of sections of the economy in general.

Interesting theory.

I totally buy this. And this is what the Clintons tried and failed to do. Obama has tried to "learn" from the Clinton failure... and not to any good impact so far. We will see. One thing about this is that the endgame is unknown... all the talking head pundits are, mercifully, irrelevant. This game will be played in back rooms in the Capitol in September.

But I really wish Obama would have been LBJ and used 60 (!!!) Senate seats to kick some butt and get an efficient, well designed single payer option done. This is the reason the "blue dogs" are the villain in the piece to some. Get on fucking board with a national agenda. I mean, the country just gave the Dems a huge majority in Congress in part because they ran on healthcare reform. The American political system, non parliamentary, has increasingly lent itself to a centrist grey area (often called gridlock) where the "powerful special interests" win consistently. Bush's Medicare drug benefit being a case in point...

I think that if he fails here it is problematic -- not because "America doesn't buy his radical left wing, crypto facsist, terrist-Moslem, socialist, anti whitey agenda" but because he failed to "Rahm" through a bill that he made a principle part of his agenda, and now they know they can thwart him whenever.

I think you said it above or on previous page - they can't afford to not fight this battle over election concerns - i.e. a legitimate healthcare package is worth 10 votes.

Were I "in the room" - I would turn the page, quickly, while having my team mark up a bill and then bring that bitch to a vote the second we had a quorum, declare victory and have ~ 15 months to "get past" the fallout as it were.

But what do I know, I wear madras pants.

The Dems also don't have an LBJ or even Gingrich-esque leader in Congress to say to the Blue Dogs "You want to waffle on the agenda, fine but, don't expect any good assignments or chairmanships. Ever"

Oh I also heard that the bill being hammered out in Senate Finance is THE bill FWIW.

As Madras Boy astutely points out this was supposed to be what Rahm was for

I don't see where this compromise moves anything towards a public option. This reeks of "saving face."

Anyone else read that long ass bit in The Atlantic?

more here. i heart protest-jamming

Just like the 1957 Civil Rights Bill was neither Civil, nor conferred any Rights - what it does was primed the pump to get the public at large ready for bigger changes.