As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the "cost benefit analysis and triage" problem should have been expected, and concern over it is quite relevant with no nefarious intent.  

People asking questions about these issues and demanding answers and even making pointed commentary about them are actually participating in a democratic and political process.  So good on them, and we actually need to thank them, because as any lawyer should presumably know, we need many eyes, we need conflicting views, we even need a hegelian dialogue.

"To his credit, Rep. Perlmutter actually sat down and listened to folks discuss health care."

This is NOT to his credit.  It is in fact:
a) his job to speak with constituents
b) good politics to speak with constituents who disagree and listen to them, and have a dialogue with him.

As the health reform fight shifts this month from a vacationing Washington to congressional districts and local airwaves around the country, much more of the battle than most people realize is already over. The likely victors are insurance giants such as UnitedHealth Group (UNH), Aetna (AET), and WellPoint (WLP). The carriers have succeeded in redefining the terms of the reform debate to such a degree that no matter what specifics emerge in the voluminous bill Congress may send to President Obama this fall, the insurance industry will emerge more profitable. Health reform could come with a $1 trillion price tag over the next decade, and it may complicate matters for some large employers. But insurance CEOs ought to be smiling.  

As a companion to Susie's post, here's BAR's Bruce Dixon on (Bruce goes into more detail in each item):

Top Ten Ways To Tell Your President & His Party Aren't Fighting For Health Care For Everybody:

Barack Obama and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate were swept into office on a promise they would deliver affordable and accessible health care for all Americans. But the corporate media journalism limits the national health care conversation to what insurance companies, drug companies, for-profit health care professionals, their executives, lobbyists and politicians of both parties and other hirelings have to say. So it isn't as easy as it ought to be to tell what the politicians are doing about accomplishing health care for everybody. Hence we offer these ten points. This is how you can tell whether your president and his party are fighting for the health care you deserve.

1. Their plan doesn't cover the uninsured till at least 2013.

2. Their "public option" isn't Medicare, won't bring costs down and will only cover about 10 million people.

3. The president and his party have already caved in to the drug companies on reimporting Canadian drugs, on negotiating drug prices downward and on generics.

4. The president and his party have received more money from private insurers and the for-profit health care industry than even Republicans, with the president alone taking $19 million in the 2008 election cycle alone, more than all his Repubican, Democratic and independent rivals combined.

5. The president's plan, and those of Republicans and Democratic blue dogs too, will require families to purchase health insurance policies from private insurers.

6. The president's plan, and those of Republicans and Democratic blue dogs too, could force you to buy junk insurance.

7. The president's plan, as well as those of Democratic "blue dogs" and Republicans, are to be funded in part with cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.

8. The president, with the cooperation of corporate media and the Republicans is trying to make the argument about himself instead of a discussion on the merits of his policy.

9. The president and his party, and the corporate media have spent more time and energy silencing and excluded the advocates of single payer health care, mostly the president's own supporters, than they have fighting blue dogs and Republicans.

But no matter how diligently the spokespeople for single payer are excluded from media coverage and invitations to Obama's policy forums and round tables, no matter how many times the White House cuts their questions from transcripts and video of public events, the calls, emails and letters keep pouring into Congress and the White House demanding the creation of a publicly funded, everybody-in-nobody-out system, a Medicare-for-All kind of single payer health care plan.

10. Despite the president's own admission that only a single payer health care system will deliver what Americans want, he and the leaders of his party insist that Medicare For All, HR 676, us utterly off the table.

The sad thing is that while the protesters are being classified as right-wing astro-turfing loons, their actions may be having the effect of getting millions of people to ignore the very serious problems with what is being offered to the American people.

I think particularly regarding your last couple of points, there is some level of criticism of that on the left and on this site, you just have to look for it. Although I do believe Blackwater and their leaders are undergoing two separate federal investigations at the moment, since the Obama Administration has taken over.

Why was I so naive?  I actually thought that this time, for once, we would find the strength to move into the community of civilized nations and establish a health care delivery system that would serve everyone.

what we have here is a junior version(s) of the infamous bier hall putsch, to be followed by a new kristalnacht against the "others". i suppose at some point, we can expect a right-wing night of the long knives as well.

i realize this sounds a tad over-the-top, but just look at the actions of the german fascists, as they took control of the country (a purported democracy), and the parallels are rather disconcerting.

protesting a health care plan you disagree with: bad

I guess what matters here is whose ox is being gored.  

2001 - 2009: Dissent was patriotism

now: Dissent is "crawling out from under a rock"

1. Reigning in costs will not result in a reduction of health care benefits to seniors.

2. It will not result in the Government deciding what diagnostic tests or treatment procedures a person can have. It will not prevent someone from getting a second or third opinion.

The also have Rangel's comment that $400 billion will come out of Medicare.

I think the truth is that they will have to do the above or else raise taxes across the board. This would become a "watch my lips no new taxes" moment for Obama and the Democrats in general and most likely cause huge losses in 2010 and 2012.

I think I might go to some churches in the area and see if some are preaching politics instead of religion...

New commenters, i.e, those registered for 30 days or less, may not post more than 10 comments in a 24 hour period.

UnitedHealth's relationship with Democratic Senator Mark R. Warner of Virginia illustrates the industry's subtle role. Elected last fall, Warner, a former governor of his state and a wealthy ex-businessman, received a choice assignment as the Senate Democrats' liaison to business.
...
UnitedHealth has periodically served as a valuable extension of Warner's office, providing research and analysis to support his initiatives. Corporations and trade groups play this role in all kinds of contexts, but few do it with the effectiveness of the insurers. In June, Warner introduced legislation expanding government-backed Medicare and Medicaid coverage for hospice stays for the terminally ill and other treatment in life's final stages. The issue isn't a top UnitedHealth priority. But the corporation wanted to help Warner with his argument that in the long run, better hospice coverage would save money. UnitedHealth prepared a report for lawmakers finding that 27% of Medicare's budget is now spent during the last year of older patients' lives, often on questionable hospital tests and procedures. Expanded hospice coverage and other services could save $18 billion over 10 years, UnitedHealth asserted.
Business Week

If this is true, why isn't it being more widely reported, and isn't this something that will just solidify the protestors's arguments - that Obama and the Dems can't be trusted because they will send out their "goons" and beat down any dissent?