The Dems really need to expose this astroturf campaign by insurance lobbyists and others who want to keep the status quo because it makes them filthy rich. I think this could end up back-firing now that it's been exposed as a lobbying effort by anti-reform special interests. I think folks who go to these meetings looking for answers will be pissed off at the tactics and antics. I hope Reps and Senators will be emboldened by the tactic to vote on reform as soon as they get back from recess and to work hard to make sure the lobbyists don't win.

At all future meetings, Reps need to some how let folks know about such tactics. Let folks in the room know that insurance lobbyists are behind the outbursts and shouting at the meetings in order to disrupt an honest discussion on healthcare because they know that an honest discussion leads to more folks comfortable and supportive of healthcare reform.

Paint the lobby effort as desperate - Why are they afraid of an open discussion? Why do they feel the need to disrupt these discussions with phony planted outrage?

TPM keeps mentioning "industry backed".

Can we get some actual names of health cos and corps that are actually backing this?

Do you think they had a meeting where someone said, "So how can we be as effective, convincing and universally beloved as Code Pink?".

Stepping back for a moment, the fact that someone is organizing it will make no difference to many folks . remember the attacks on Move on and, was it Sauros..my memory fails me here.. but , i remember i was so thrilled with move on, it really didn't matter
who m ight fund it I felt it was a grassroots orgaization and nothing really could have dissuaded me from that notion, even if i found out it had been backed by the Romulans.
I am still on the fence about paying too much attention to this.
note it yes, expose it yes, but the focus is the issue, not these tools.

Would it be too much to get people to sign a form acknowledging that it is a Town Hall discussion, pledging to keep the discussion civil, allowing for opposing views, not raising voices and not talking out of turn and include some basic background information to ensure that they are not representing someone other than themselves. They should also show IDs and wear name tags.

Obviously, I don't know what would be a proper form for people to fill out and sign, but something of this order should be done.

A wif of accountability for their actions should be enough to chill these folks. If that doesn't work they should be subject to violations of the peace. I would also consider penalties addressing intent. If they received a 'memo' for obstructing discussion and debate, and/or are acting with intent to do the same, then they are not at the town hall arguing in good faith.

In my mind they are thwarting democracy and the democratic process by trying to prevent constructive discussion and debate, and as such, are committing acts of treason and should be hanged by their genitals in the 'town square' where all could hear what they have to say about public health care.

Someone said:

I will not let healthcare reform be swift-boated.

We should keep repeating this phrase. Words are powerful.

Where are the counter anti-teabagging groups? How do I find out about these townhall meetings? Why am I not invited? Has the left become so complacent that it can't mount its own healthcare campaign? If this is really so important, why are people not doing anything about getting this passed? The apathy is disheartening.

Can you identify the loony-looking guy in the portrait at the head of this piece? Did I miss it somewhere?

It's official.
Your brown shirts are in the mail.

The 'innovative' idea of a 'pay for value / outcome' pack came after the CBO had previously pointed out this health care reform wouldn't work without 'fundamental' change in the out of date system. It is said that as much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients, and this 700 billion dollars a year can cover a lot of uninsured people.

The expected Benefits of this 'innovative idea' are as follows ;

1. Meet the objective of revenue-neutral.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and 'improve'
care, that means more than $1trillian over next decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the
wealthiest. Supposedly even the 'conservative' number of such savings might be able to meet the objective of
revenue-neutral.

2. Quality and affordability.
If you are a physician, and your pay is dependant upon your patient's outcome, you will most likely strive to
prescribe the best medicine earlier in the process, let alone skipping the wasteful, unnecessary treatments.

3. No intervention in decision-making.
The innovative idea of 'a pay for outcome' will more likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic.
Under the 'pay for outcome' pack, for good reason, best practices as 'recommendations' would simply help them
make a better decision, and the government won't still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making
process as a non-expert.

4. Speed up the introduction of IT SYSTEM.
The pay for 'Outcome' pack is most likely to expedite the introduction of Health Care IT SYSTEM.
The synergy effect of the combined Health Care IT & a pay for 'outcome' system may allow the clinicians to
'correctly' diagnose and effectively treat a patient earlier in the process so that it can measurably scale back the
crushing lawsuits and deter the excuse for unnecessary cares to make fortunes.

5. Accelerate the progress in medical science, in return, it saves more cash.

6. Settle the regional disparity.

7. Reduce the emergency room visits & save immense costs.
Public health insurance plans such as Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than 40 percent of U.S. emergency
room visits in 2006, according to government figures released recently. Many experts say reducing these hospital
visits would be an important way to lower the enormous, and growing, expense of U.S. health care.

I share the opinion that unlike the insurer-friendly senate plan by 'some' members, only a strong public option will be capable of getting the premium inflation under control and saving the U.S in turbulence.
To my knowledge, a dual system tends to deliver better results than a pure single payer system. Supposedly, to be or not to be might be up to the innovations like a pay for value program, otherwise, the forthcoming start-ups may fill the void with competitive deals. The competition based on 'fair' market value would be a beauty of true capitalism, not monopoly, an objective for anti-trust.

Thank You !