Let’s just hope that the quick thinking individual who registered the URL “deemandpass.com” has already sold the rights to that domain, because it looks like one of the biggest news buzz phrases of last week has, well…come to pass.

When we look back on 2010, we wonder if future generations will consider this as anything other than “The year everyone said crazy stuff about health care.” Like these analogies are just getting a tad ridiculous. Texas congressman Louie Gohmert may have made some good points about the Democrats reform bill, but all we heard was “I’ll vote for it when you eat it.”

The bill is 2,700 pages long, by the way. So unless Harry Reid has a serious case of Pica, it’s doubtful any House member individually could swallow the challenge. Maybe if they divided it up?

With that in mind, Time’s Michael Scherer takes a look at some expensive anti-health care ad currently blanketing parts of the country and basically concludes it may be time to fasten your seat belts.

Across the country, groups on all sides of the health care reform debate have been targeting swing members of Congress with costly ad campaigns. Over the coming week, as the House gears up to take a final, deciding vote on reform, issue-ad spending by corporations, trade groups, unions and advocacy organizations may top $24 million, adding to the estimated $200 million that has already been spent on health care advocacy ads. “We are going to be at parity with the other guys in spending for the week,” said one pro-reform organizer, who had been monitoring the antireform ad purchases. “I think our side will spend $12 million for the week.”

Also, behold your Supreme Court at work:

Most of these advertisements come with little or no disclosure about what specific companies, unions or individuals are providing the funds. Thanks to the recent controversial Supreme Court campaign-finance decision in the Citizens United case, the ads also offer premonitions of what many of these same members of Congress may face in the fall, when unions and corporations will be able to spend money anonymously to advocate for candidates’ election or defeat in the weeks before the polls.

Below, an anti-health care ad. Below that, the Dems push back with a anti-anti ad.

Continuing with the metaphor of MTV’s popular show, Broun said:

This is “The Situation,” Mr. President: the American people do not want unconstitutional mandates and job-killing tax increases.

Which is really pushing it. It’s a good thing this was all written down and not said during a press conference, or Broun would have had to make those little bunny air-quotes in order for us to realize he was still making a Jersey Shore reference.

Jake Tapper took this opportunity to remind people where they could find Snooki on Twitter. And possibly ask how she feels about the comparison? Because if there’s one thing we’re dying to know it’s the politics of Snooki and The Sitch.

Last month, our own Glynnis MacNicol wondered “Um, Who Is Running Sarah Palin’s Social Media Dept.?” noting that the feisty polician may very well deserve the “Internet crown” — “That is if her new media staff can get their act together!” But it’s clear the potential was there, and that’s why we’ve kept our eyes peeled, bracing for her triumphant return.

And it seems that the release of her memoir Going Rogue is just what she needed to catalyze her itchy blogging fingers. It’s sort of like when your boyfriend broke up with you and you realized “I should really be using my Tumblr more!” It’s purposeful and it’s therapeutic.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Palin’s publicity team has been making deliberate gains in the online arena:

Among the features of this new strategy: buying Internet advertising based on Google searches of her name, and using Facebook as a key means of communicating with voters. Her team also has considered filing libel suits against bloggers who spread rumors about her family.

Bloggers beware! But as Gawker’s Foster Kamer noted Saturday, sometimes the keyboard-reliant fight back, as with the Atlantic‘s Andrew Sullivan, who the Journal piece singles out as a sworn enemy of Ex-Gov. “Ms. Palin considered pursuing a libel suit against at least one blogger,” the Journal states, only to have Sullivan shoot back:

Sources with access to Palin have indeed told to me that the Wasilla whack-job was an obsessive reader of this blog as it dared to ask factual questions about her past that could be easily answered.

Gawker’s take? “[H]e basically goes for the jugular while victory dancing on her face.”

Palin is, of course, also using that old hat “traditional media” to push her tome — Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters and all, or so we’ve heard. But when it comes to the world wide web — that’s where Palin deserves a newspaper feature aimed at old people!

A page on Facebook, the social-networking Web site, became Ms. Palin’s main sounding board. Nearly one million people have “friended” her. The page is accessible to people who aren’t Facebook members.

Wait until the Sarah Palin 2012 “iPhone” app.

I am not suggesting that the biggest policy debate in recent history should have been set to song and presented by talking puppets, but — the media’s contribution to the health care discussion would have been much more useful if it emphasized effective and memorable explanation over political histrionics and diatribe. 

The problem? One year into the discussion, few Americans can speak to the basic core issues in the current health care bill, despite the fact that these details have been available for months and months. And much of the fault lies with the news shows on which we rely.

Stewart, Beck, Olbermann, O’Reilly, Maddow — they have all been great at stoking the political fire, but have any of them taken up the torch of explaining what is actually in the health care reform bill? 

I speak to many people on a daily basis about health care reform, and I cannot remember a single person telling me about a TV news show that explained the basic of the health care bill to them.  Instead, most people simply shrug their shoulders and say, “I don’t even know what’s in the bill.”  

Seriously?  One would think the health care reform bill was more complicated than Einstein’s Theory of Relativity based on our collective inability to grasp it’s core concepts.  But, in fact, it is not complicated.  The media has just walked away from the responsibility of explaining health care policy to the American public, and as a result, we could all use a little help — and maybe a catchy song or two.

The basic premise of Sesame Street was that the television could be a unique tool for childhood learning by combining entertainment and explanation.  It was a brilliant success, but can it help us now?

Here are three Sesame Street inspired explanations of the three core concepts that make up the current health care reform bill.  If you can remember these three, you should be good to go:

1. It’s Not Easy Being Sick (Insurance Regulations)

It’s not that easy bein’ sick
Denied insurance ’cause my illness pre-exists.
I think it could be nicer to be well
Or to be healthy like everyone else —
But then again we all someday get sick.

The biggest problem facing the American health care system is the widespread discrimination against sick people by the health insurance industry.   Once you get sick, the health insurance industry starts to treat you differently, resulting in widespread denial of coverage, cancellation of coverage, and denial of reimbursement.  Since everybody eventually gets sick, everybody in America (e.g., 100%) is at risk to this kind of discrimination, and to the physical and financial dangers that result from it (e.g., death and bankruptcy). The current health care bill will make it illegal for health insurers to deny coverage on the basis of so-called pre-existing conditions, to cancel policies as a result of people getting sick, or to refuse reimbursement on the basis of past or current illnesses. 

2. The Exchange, Sweepin’ the Clouds Away (The New Health Insurance Exchange)

The Exchange, helpin’ the uninsured,
On my way, to buy a plan that’s right.
Can you tell me how to get, how to get to the Exchange.

The single largest innovation of the health care reform bill will the creation of a new Health Insurance Exchange.  The Exchange, scheduled to open in 2013, would enable people who do not have health insurance to select from a range of policies.  Beyond the normal health insurance market place, the Exchange would offer consumer protections and affordability credits — subsidies for those who could not afford to pay full price for a policy.  Initially, only those with no other option would be eligible for the Exchange, but moving forward the Exchange would be opened up to a substantial percentage of the population, including private businesses.  Thus, over a relatively short period of time, the Exchange would effectively end the problem of being uninsured by offering access and affordability to those otherwise excluded from the insurance market, Medicaid, and Medicare.

3. Public Option, You’re The One (The Public Insurance Plan)

Public option, you’re the one.
You lower costs by the ton.
Public option, I’m awfully fond of you.
Public option, my joy of joys.
When I pick you, my wellness soars.
You’re not required, you’re just a choice.
Public option, you’re my very best friend, it’s true!

One of the choices available to those eligible for the new Health Insurance Exchange would be a “Public Option” — a non-profit insurance plan created by the government to compete with the private insurance industry.   The “Public Option” would be created by seed money from the Federal Government, but would become self-sustaining within a relatively short period of time.  The purpose of the Public Option is to give people an affordable choice for health insurance coverage if they are not satisfied with the private insurance offerings in the exchange.  Because other government run insurance programs have been shown to deliver the most health care per dollar, it is believed that the public option would deliver equal coverage for lower premiums and co-pays, thereby forcing private insurers to lower their prices. Over time, if the number of people enrolled in the public option reached a high enough level, it would effectively lower the overall cost of health care in America.

These are the three most important points in the health care reform bill that passed the House of Representatives last week: Pre-existing condition reform, the Health Insurance Exchange, and the Public Option.  If you can explain these three things, you can lead a discussion on the topic.  

It is not clear why the media abandoned for the most part its public obligation to explain details to viewers. But it is clear that the U.S. voter, today, needs a show to explain the basic facts of policy debates, much like American children needed a show to help them learn the basics of reading, math, and social skills.

Elmo might not be the best fit for a gig of this sort, but I am sure there are plenty of unemployed Muppets out there who could use the work.

TAPPER: Here’s a question a lot of Senate Democrats want to know. You said, when you gave your joint address to Congress, that under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. This amendment passed Saturday night which not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public option, but also prohibits women who receive subsidies from taking out plans that — that provide abortion coverage. Does that meet the promise that you set out or does it over reach, does it go too far?

OBAMA: You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it’s not going to change. So, you know, this is going to be a complex set of negotiations. I’m confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it’s being betrayed. But it’s going to take some time.

I think that the, the, the big, the big issue obviously is that the House got it done, in the big — in the broadest possible terms. I do think that going ahead, looking toward the Senate, there is a bit of a poison pill in there for progressives and liberals, especially if they’re counting on there being a big electoral boon to Democrats…from having passed this. And that’s that abortion provision, the Stupak amendment, is going to be really…

It’s, it’s the biggest restriction on abortion funding since the Hyde Amendment. It’s the biggest restriction on abortion access in this country in, in, in a generation. And if, if it took a Democratic president, 60 percent majorities in the House and Senate of Democrats in order to get that, I think you can expect Democratic women to sit on their hands at least if not revolt if that doesn’t get taken out in conference.

Of course, there is a strong chance the Stupak amendment was actually included with the silent presumption on the Dem’s part that it will never make it through the Senate, a theory Sarah Palin also noted in less than thrilled terms in her recent Facebook post: “Now we can only hope that Rep. Stupak’s amendment will hold in the final bill, though the Democratic leadership has already refused to promise that it won’t be scrapped later.”

Perhaps Obama and Pelosi merely crossed their fingers that the blow would be cushioned by news that the bill was passed at all. The more likely result, however, is that the administration has just lengthened their list of opponents to include a lot of women’s groups who were initially slow to come to come over to Obama in the first place and arguably still feeling the sting of Hillary’s loss. Get ready, it’s going to be a long slog to Christmas.

** Side note: NBC deserves some sort of award for not only making their clips available as quickly as they do, and making them embeddable (AHEM, ABCNews!), but for creating a system which allows the viewer to clip what they want, based on the transcript even, and then provides the embed code. This is how it is done!

In many ways, therefore, I’m a regular voter. Most people, even accounting for inflation, weren’t involved in protests over health care, and didn’t make calls for Obama. Most people didn’t watch C-SPAN all day yesterday. Most people don’t pay attention, but get their information tangentially. With the exception of the C-SPAN thing, that’s me.

And, as a regular voter, not a Capitol Hill wonk, it’s hard for me to see the House vote on health care as anything but a massive victory for President Obama.

Universal health care (and particularly single payer) has been progressive Xanadu for decades. It’s a plank in the platform of every Democrat running for office in an even moderately progressive district, from Congress to City Hall. It’s been on the radar of every Democratic President since FDR – and was famously attempted most recently by a just-elected Bill Clinton.

Clinton struggled for two years, but, despite polling showing over 70% of Americans supported reform in late 1994, the effort failed. Of course, Obama has more Democrats in the House than did Clinton. One more, to be precise.

What Obama did right has gotten lost in the artificial smoke of Republican opposition. Among many lessons he learned from Clinton’s effort, he allowed Congress to control the process, creating a strong sense of ownership among Democratic leaders. Nancy Pelosi, who deserves enormous credit, fought as hard as she did because this was her bill, too. Obama needed warriors on his side that were as fervent as his opponents – especially as those opponents were dragged into the murky mire of the extreme right.

Let’s not forget: the bill has a public option. Four months ago, the public option was as welcome in Washington as a pre-existing condition. People wondered, after the town hall fury, if anything would pass, much less that. But here we are.

It didn’t come cheap. The Catholic Church and other anti-abortion leaders pressured moderate Democrats to strip funding for the procedure before passing a final bill. It was a low point in a fascinating day, and it demonstrates exactly why, even if they had nine ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justices, Republicans would never want abortion to be banned – it’s their best wedge.

220-215. One Republican — the most recently elected — crossed party lines. Dozens of Democrats did, too. When and if a bill comes out of conference, there will be another fight on the floor, just as there will be fights on the other side of the Capitol.

There’s only one reason, though, that health care was on the Congress’ agenda this year: President Obama put it there. He put it there in the face of staggering odds. He did work visibly and behind the scenes to assure that it was viable. And, yesterday, a crucial, unprecedented battle toward implementing his vision was won.

In the eyes of this detached observer, that win belongs to Obama. And it’s a big one.

That is if her new media staff (should they exist in plural) can get their act together! Palin has reportedly just signed up for a LinkedIn account — the social media-ish website for your work life — and has posted her resume there. The hitch? Her LinkedIn profile is registered under ‘governorsarahpalin.’ As most people in the Western World are aware, Palin quit being governor in July. So what’s the deal? Seems Palin and her staff weren’t quick enough off the draw: as Gawker points out SarahPalin has already been nabbed by someone who is using the account to make fun of the former Gov. It’s unclear whether LinkedIn has a similar rule to Twitter which forbids fake accounts (hence the creation of the “verifed” label), but even so, shouldn’t someone have thought ahead?

This is not the first time Palin has run into the sort of problem with her name domain. As we noted back in July when we tried to discern where Palin would next land in the Twitterverse, many of her options had already been scooped up by others. Perhaps this was the motivation to encouraged her turn to Facebook. Anyway, while she’s in the branching out mood perhaps Palin might consider staking claim on a SarahPalin YouTube channel and then, you know, perhaps begin the infiltration of her own Gawker hash tag.

“Make no mistake. Change isn’t easy. It won’t happen overnight. There will be setbacks and false starts.”

Did you read that and immediately hear the president’s voice in your head? Anticipate some soaring, soothing rhetoric? Prepare for a station break? Understandably so. You’ve probably heard them a lot this last year or so. Sort of like the presidential equivalent to rattling the dog food bowl. However, let me be clear, that’s not all. The President is apparently intensely concerned that people understand him. Behold the list put together by the AP.

Let me be clear,” he said in describing his surprise at winning the Nobel Peace Prize. “I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.”

“Let me be clear,” he said in one of his dozens of pitches for a health insurance overhaul. “If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them.”

Terrorists? “Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates.”

Student testing? “Let me be clear: Success should be judged by results, and data is a powerful tool to determine results.”

Iran? “Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies.”

Auto bailouts? “Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in running GM.”

In Moscow: “Let me be clear: America wants a strong, peaceful, and prosperous Russia.”

In Ghana: “Let me be clear: Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at perpetual war.”

In Italy, bemoaning poor U.S. leadership on climate change: “Let me be clear: Those days are over.”

In Trinidad, announcing new aid: “Let me be clear: This is not charity.”

The president doth protest his clarity too much? That all depends…can you explain the health care bill?

Heckling the President during a joint session of Congress will get you a lot of cable flack, a long conversation with Rahm Emanuel (oh to be a fly on the wall for that chat), raise your Democratic opponent’s election funds by about 1000%, AND turn you into an Internet meme.

Some genius has already launched the website www.joewilsonisyourpreexistingcondition.com. It is merely a series of other very bad things Joe Wilson has done, and it will keep you occupied during the slow hours of your office afternoon. The Internet never fails to boil things down to their most essential parts.

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

Had Rep. Joe Wilson not grabbed the “lie” meme so forcefully (he’s now the top trending topic on Twitter) one imagines we’d be hearing a lot more this morning about whether the President of the United States was accusing the media of being liars in front of a joint session of Congress. Or whether his promise (threat?) that “I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than to improve it” was a shot across the bows to a certain Glenn Beck, among others.

After the speech George Stephanopolous noted that, in addition to Wilson’s hecking, “I also can’t ever remember a President using the word ‘lie’ in a Joint Session or State of the Union speech.” It is strong language indeed — it is one thing for the President to complain about the press, it is another indeed for him to accuse them of reporting lies, in such a formal setting, no less. Considering the beating the Obama administration took this summer courtesy of much of the Town Hall coverage, and again this past week with the resignation of Van Jones at the hands of Beck, one wonders whether President Obama was also signaling to the cable newsers that he will no longer take this lying down.

Tweetfinder: The Live Blog Edition

Beyond the ability to manipulate the national message from her extremely popular Facebook page Sarah Palin has yet to prove she is credible enough to speak on this issue, in what is presumed to be one of the more credible forums out there. Does this mean the Wall St. Journal agrees that it’s factually accurate to suggest President Obama’s health care bill includes a death panel provision?

Then again, times are tough in newspaper land…maybe the Journal is not above succumbing to the siren call of clicks (or Rupe’s influence?). Actually, I suspect that’s exactly what happened. And this will get a lot of clicks. And it’s pretty clear that, despite Marc Ambinder‘s call to the MSM that they don’t allow Palin to become today’s voice of the GOP, considering the following “death panel” passage, that is exactly what is going to happen.

In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context.

The New York Times does not want you to text and drive. Does not! The paper has been running a series all summer called “Driven to Distraction” about the dangers of texting while at the wheel, and I swear it feels like every time I click on the homepage there is a new story about it. I live in New York so texting while driving is less of a concern for me safety-wise than, say, texting while walking across the intersection of Canal and Broadway every morning. Yet, no doubt it’s a serious problem nation-wide and should absolutely be highlighted. But my goodness, this certainly feels like someone over there is taking it to an extreme. Health Care bill series anyone?