For what it's worth, I think that the disruptive element is being counterproductive. There are any number of legitimate concerns about changing health care (none of which I personally agree with), but all that we're seeing from the opposition is crazy people.

I also think that this current bill does not go far enough. For example, while the "correct" answer to how private insurance can compete against government insurance is "the government insurance plan has to be self-sustaining", my preferred answer is "the private insurance industry has screwed the US populace for twenty-five years; it's time for them to be screwed." (Of course the "correct" answer also has the benefit of pointing out that a taxpayer-funded insurance company would not reduce healthcare cost burdens on the taxpayer, which is part of the heathcare reform plan, and one of the parts of the debate currently not being heard, but that doesn't invalidate my philosophical point.)

Less glibly, it also still doesn't guarantee coverage to the entire populace. One still has to independently purchase health insurance, even if it (might) provide group plans to people who currently have no access to one, and provide subsidies to the poor. It's still an additional cost in time and probably money for many of those people who currently can't afford it, and I think some people will still not get it.

Also, in case you haven't heard about these debates/yelling matches, the "Obama wants to kill my grandma" thing is based on two points. One is that there was a provision to provide consultation on end-of-life care for elderly and terminal patients, which was misinterpreted to mean that the government was going to encourage people to die. (The misinterpretation may have been intentional, but it was made by a Republican congresswoman, Michelle Bachman, who has that same sort of vacuous lunacy that Sarah Palin has, so who knows?)