Oh BS, go to OFA, Campaign for Better Healthcare, HCAN there's any number of progressive groups working on this and have been for months. With all due respect please get to work.

BTW Brian I just signed up for CPR's mailing list so I know what they're up to. Got a confirmation email saying thanks for signing up for Rick Scott's list. I think it's time to remind people of Scott's history and the fines he's paid.

while repugs have been running the show from top down for quite some time, as the good authoritarians they are with their love for strong daddies and all, they are absolutely rank amateurs at grass roots protest and this town hall "stand and shout" campaign reveals the sophomoric level of their bullying (even though it did work in shutting down the florida vote in 2000)

here's a funny video of a right-wing group that sprang up in the early 2000s to counter protest anti-war demos. in 2005, when they showed up at the anti-Cindy Sheehan camp in Crawford, TX with their sarcastic signs, the knuckle-draggers on their own side didn't get the joke and ran them off as if they were real left-wing activists: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/08/29/17631941.php

democrats will have to be in power a looong time before they get any better than being able to shout at town halls or make racist signs for teabag events

When you are at an event with your Congressman/woman or Senator, and if a group of people start rudely interrupting the speaker, refusing to let them speak, if you support health care reform (even if you disagree with parts of the bill) -- stand by your man/woman (the speaker).

Get up, walk slowly to the speakers side-- but stay silent. Give them your support by being nearby. The speaker should also clam up and stand still and wait till the people stop talking and yelling.

Meanwhile, have police nearby to remove disruptive persons from the events if they refuse to be civil.

The Republican Party is suppose to be the Party of Moral Values --- for the past 8 and half years, their values have seemingly gone down the tubes.

"Keep Govt out of ..." - So do they want to abolish Medicare?

ZERO republicans Voted to Abolish Medicare in that Amendment. So ask these teabag idiots - if they are willing RIGHT NOW to remove their Parents, Themselves, Any Relatives from MEDICARE - and pay for that health care themselves.

Put Up or Shut Up!

these people are nothing short of RETARDED.. has anybody asked them how they would feel if their insurance co. DROPPED them once they get sick? or ever refused to cover a treatment prescribed by their doctor? and what's their problem with a public option so folks who don't have health insurance can get it?? ONLY IN AMERICA, I SWEAR.. these people are simply PRIMITIVE.. IDIOTS.. truly non-thinkers... perfect example of what happens when stupid people listen to rabble-rousers and demagogues..

AND: just as someone else has also pointed out, if they don't want that eeeeeviiil govt "involved" in health care, are they willing to give up their medicare coverage?? (nooooooo, we don't want the govt "involved" -- except if it's my medicare.. don't touch my medicare.. but don't reform the system so other folks can also get health coverage..) oh man.. WHAT IMBECILES these people are.. they must be laughing their heads in other countries when they hear these neanderthals..

Here's my suggestion for how to deal with this:

I think the onus should be on the speaker. First and foremost, he or she should absolutely not allow the disrupters to frazzle or frustrate them. Remain calm. Say something along the lines of, "I appreciate the passion that each of you is showing in exercising your First Amendment rights. But, we must also remember the First Amendment rights of those 47 million Americans without health insurance. They also deserve a chance to have their voices heard. We can have have a civil discussion or you can continue to yell at me." At this point, the speaker should wait quietly. Let the audience decide how the event will play out. The protesters will likely continue to yell. If that's the case, it may prompt individuals in the audience with legitimate questions to push back against them and ask them to be quiet. If no one in the audience tries to silence the protestors, the speaker should not be afraid to say something along the lines of, "I have made a sincere attempt to hear the voices of constituents with many different viewpoints on this issue, but the VOICES OF THE STATUS QUO (label the opposition this term) will not allow the voices of suffering Americans to be heard in a civil discussion of this important issue. Therefore, I must immediately conclude this event. But, I will not cease to fight on behalf of the millions of Americans who's voices have been drowned out time and time again by the voices of the status quo" Immediately, the speaker should exit.

Democrats need to assertive in pushing back on this, or you will have a major problem. The media is already hinting that it will not be discerning in its coverage of these astroturf disruptions.

Please feel free to offer constructive criticism. This issue is too important for us to get steamrolled on it. Not again.

Here's something on the Daily Kos concerning how to conteract the teabaggers: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/4/761608/-Tea-Baggers-FAIL-to-disrupt-Health-Care-meeting,-lessons-shared. I like it because it deals with the problem without stooping to the level of the disrupters. I think the lesson here is to show up. If we believe in healthcare reform, we need to go to the meetings and let our representatives know.

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 !