JP, it may be appropriate to call Code Pink "agitators", since they used street theatre and sometimes blocked traffic in ways not allowed by their permits. AFAIK the tea parties have simply been legal gatherings with speakers. BTW a handful of morons on TV thought it was funny to pretend that the group called itself "tea-baggers", since that word has an unusual sexual connotation. The group themselves didn't use that name.

Jinchi, ISTM that when Dems called health reform opponents "terrorists", "un-American", and "racists", they made a more scurrilous attack than the Reps did with their mythical "Death Panels."

I'm sure Brendan didn't mean to pre-judge that Health Care Reform would either improve efficiency and fairness, or, at worst, lead to no change. It's a quibble, but Brendan might have made the downside risks more clear by writing something like, "One can argue about whether reform will make the health care system more or less efficient and whether it will be more or less fair."

ISTM Health Reform is failing because framing was use on smaller points, but neglected on the overall bill. In a few words, what is the essence of Health Reform? During the campaign, I thought it was government-paid health coverage for all. But, single-payer was never part of the bill, and even a government option is negotiable, so apparently they're not central to the definition of Health Reform. I'm left with three guesses: 1. Health Reform is big change in the current system. The current system is so bad that virtually any change will be an improvement. This guess is supported by what the President has said. He has effectively critiqued the current system, but provided only vague descriptions of what he proposes. 2. Health Reform is a stepping stone to single-payer. Various opponents of Health Reform have made this argument, but the proponents deny it. 3. Health Reform is an excuse to pass a Democratic wish list of items. That's what the Stimulus Bill largely turned out to be.

There's not much that can be added to Rob's post, but here are a couple of other considerations: -- In the long run this provision will put an additional burden on small business going forward. Small businesspersons are right to be concerned, as are those who might hope to work for a small business, or to buy products or services from a small business, or sell products or services to one. -- Brendan has no guarantee that the current recession will be over by 2013. In fact, the Democratic health care proposal makes more likely that it will last that long. -- We can't necessarily count on an inception date of 2013. The bill could be changed during the legislative process. Or the new tax might be moved up after this bill is passed, particularly if the plan turns out to be under-funded (a safe bet). Also, over time the 8% assessment rate might be increased (another safe bet). Granted these are hypothetical possibilities. Nevertheless, if they are to be avoided, the bill has to be defeated now. Once Congress passes health care it will be too late to avoid all the new taxes that will eventually be needed to pay for it.