Questions and comments based on the plan proposed are not hysterical.

OK, but here's the rest of the context:

People should be drawing a line in the sand and telling their representatives that they'll be out on their nellies if they can't show a move towards the sorts of efficiency seen in the best systems elsewhere in the First World. How they do it is up to them. If they want to emulate and improve on other successful systems, fine. If they want to experiment with a new concoction of their own, fine- but they better get it right. Demonizing one of the alternatives is a counter-intellectual behavior IMHO and makes it more difficult to hold politicians accountable if their options are being constrained by public hysteria.

I am of course referring to claims that simply don't stack up about socialized care such as claims it will be more expensive or lower quality or whatever. Querying such claims does not equate to 100% support of any plan that may include a public option- and perhaps you will agree that if socialized care is demonized it makes it *more* likely that extensions to the existing system are the only option.

The plan contains wording which makes it impossible to switch to private insurance down the road if you don't have it on the day the plan is implemented. That takes away choice and also threatens to put private insurance companies out of business.

Sounds terrible... but politicians are past masters at starting with dismaying elements whose subsequent removal causes relief and acceptance of the residual. ;-) IMHO the kerfuffle about socialized care makes it *more* likely that such ideas will survive, FWIW.

It is important that people notify their congressman that a plan containing those conditions is unacceptable before it is voted on and becomes law. It is better that they go back to the table and come up with a good reasonable plan and not just pass anything to get it out there fast.

Fair enough. What do you suppose the better plan should be?