The discussion of whether a public health care system would be a good thing for the USA should be discussed solely in economical terms with some tangential arguments also being warranted concerning government welfare responsibilities. Certainly if anyone feeling their rights or freedoms are being questioned should address that too. But addressing a concern is not saying "It questions my rights and my freedoms!". It is explaining why they feel it does. It's the difference between a tantrum and an argument.
The fact the demonstrations were organized and joined by political figures linked to the Republican party is no concern. That's democracy. What is a real concern is that these demonstrations are also linked to right-wing extremist groups. And in this scenario, with these participants, there's no debate going on. Only a ideological and political motivation having nothing to do with the health care system. And in fact, you could see slogans of all kinds, "anti-socialism", "anti-abortion", "anti-immigration"... just not very much really of health-care slogans.
So while economy shouldn't be the one and all catalyst for reformation (on that I agree on a few cases), I believe this is indeed where it should be best applied. The answer to the question "How to apply health care to the millions that currently don't benefit or can benefit from it?" should be discussed in economical terms. But the weak, almost negligible, demonstration that was completely blown out of proportions by the media had a completely different view: It should be discussed in terms of hate.
For an external observer like myself, which I then add to recent news giving note of a rise in the right-wing extremist groups in the USA, this serves to show at least to me that the same ghosts of the past still haunt a portion of the American society. More than a test to Obama, having a black president is a test to the American people. But don't tell SlyMaelstrom I ended up replying again on this thread. Shhh!