Um, what?

I agree with most of it {though I'm not sure Blue Dogs oppose health care reform because they get contributions [it's probably the other way around (using the method of concentric brackets used in math - how nerdy!)]).

However, skip to 1:18.

See the problem?

He could've pointed out that the insurance companies already put in bureaucrat. Bureaucrats that decide whether you're worth treating. The public option, if it can even be said to be adding bureaucrats at all, is at least adding ones accountable to the people and not merely corporate bourgeois greed.

Sadly, he doesn't take this route. Instead he basically says "So, you're opposed to a panel of people appointed by a democratically elected government deciding whether to provide care based on cost and social utility? Well, then you must support a more dire life-or-death decision being made by a single person on nothing more than a whim, or, at most personal convenience."

Also, I would be remiss in point out that, in addition to a non sequitur, this is an ad hominem tu quoque.