Who's winning the Health Care debate?

There is no way one could even charitably call what is going on in this country as a "debate." Fortunately, I agree with Elrod over at TMV that right now, Obama is winning the battle, despite all the effort and noise on the right. The bottom line--and I know this as a Medicaid Administrator--is that we will have no effective, economic health care in the United States until there is a public option, or better yet, single payer.

But I think there is a larger issue at work here. The Limbaugh-sycophants and the Palin-wannabe's who show at Democratic Legislator town halls, etc., to disrupt and prevent any rational discussion, may be doing more to reduce their precious liberties--solely by these tactics--than they could ever accomplish, even should they succeed in preventing "socialized medicine." [Ironically at one event--the exact one escapes me now--the protesters were shouting something to the effect of "no government-run health care for the US," but when queried, over half of these yokels were on Medicare. Okay . . . and of course the point to bring up is that a large percentage of the Medicare-eligible population likes Medicare: it is certainly preferable (for them) than the alternative, which in most cases would equal no healthcare coverage at all.]

It has always been a thesis of mine that rights and liberties continue to exist only so long as a vast majority of the population supports civility in their application. For example, what percentage of the population would continue to support the whole gamut of Miranda-types of rights, if 40% of the population were criminals? It's the same thing with free speech and the freedom of religion: when very large numbers abuse these fundamental liberties, then the very existence of those liberties becomes threatened.

Mobs that shout and intimidate will destroy free speech just as surely as a despotic government.