Here's a quick theory of what is going wrong with the health care debate. Standard Rhetorical Theory (SRT) no longer applies.

According to SRT - which I'm lifting from Aristotle's Rhetoric (book II, chapter I), what you do in presenting your case is

(1) try to make the argument of your speech demonstrative and worthy of belief;

(2) make your own character look right, (i.e. that you are someone of good sense, ability, and good will)

(3) put your hearers, who are to decide, into the right frame of mind (in this case, pissed off about corporate give-aways, fearful of losing their jobs and insurance, and pitying of the poor who already have).

I personally think all these three conditions have been met. The arguments are solid, voters trust democrats more than republicans, and are pissed, fearful and compassionate. Meanwhile the Republicans are lying bigger than ever.

Granted, some of their rhetorical tropes may still have some grip on people, and much easier to set up than debunk. There is no easy two-line retort to

"Free markets are more efficient than Government services, so government should stay out of health care".

Sure one could say, "These markets aren't really free, and they cannot be made efficient in the case of health care, because...", but you will lose half your audience at "Because". The same can be said for

"High corporate profits is a sign of a good company, therefore high profits in the health care industry mean the corporations are good at what they do",

and

"These are hard times, so the government must tighten its belt", etc.

But I don't think these tropes are half as convincing as they used to be, especially coming from the enablers of the greatest free-market failure since the Great Depression, and the greatest government bailout of private corporations in history.

The Republicans are mistrusted, their talking points getting stranger and stranger (forced abortion, euthanasia, dieting, nothing can be or should be done for the undeserving hopelessly poor, people need stability not change, this is all a socialist/nazi Kenyan conspiracy), and people are not in a frame of mind to hear them.

But here is a suggestion. They are effective, not despite the fact that they are crazy, but BECAUSE they are crazy. Look at the examples they themselves point to again and again when they argue that government is incompetent: FEMA. The agency that THEY hollowed out and destroyed. Look at their worries about cost-controls and runaway deficits; what comes to mind? The fiscal incompetence of Republicans, the absence of cost-control measures in Medicare Part D. Look at their arguments about government encroachment in people's personal lives; what comes to mind? Gay-bashing, abortion restrictions, religious organizations dictating social policy. Look at their arguments against the complexity of the health care proposal, with their flow-chart grandstanding: WE'RE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THIS!

What's going on? The Republicans have knocked points (1) and (2) off their Rhetorical checklist. They are no longer trusted, and don't care. And they don't care if you think they are stupid, ignorant, and ill-intentioned. They no longer care if their arguments make no sense. All that matters is putting the audience into a state of fear. And the crazier they seem, the more the audience will feel afraid; Of them. For, when you look at them, you may still believe the best of all possible outcomes may be a Democratic reformed health care service, overseen by Democrats. But the worst of all possible outcomes is a Democratic reformed health care service, overseen by these crazy corrupt idiots. In a nutshell, the Republicans' best argument against health care reform is themselves:

"Look at us, WE could one day be running this program!"

It's the offspring of the old Republican strategy: Run for office arguing that government is incompetent, and when elected prove you're right. Now they have, spectacularly, proven themselves right, and are running hard with that evidence.

So how do you counteract this strategy? Here's my rather Machiavellian suggestion: Argue that Republicans are competent and well-meaning. When arguing with Tommy Thompson, give as an example of well-run government health care his own stellar management of Medicare. When arguing about cost-controls, point to the brain-child of Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, where tweaks to this Republican universal health care plan are fixing the cost-problems that have cropped up.  Point to the amazing Republican creation and management of the VA, the finest government-run health-care system in the world. Praise to the high heavens the Republican-inspired IMAC in the current proposal - an ingenious way to do non-partisan cost-benefit analysis. Republicans can run government spectacularly well. Even the present bunch are brilliant, successful, honest public servants who love America.

I say this strategy is Machiavellian, because I have no idea whether any of these claims are true. AND I DON'T CARE. People will only feel comfortable with greater government involvement in health care if they feel more comfortable with the possibility of Republicans running it.