It got a brief mention on some of the cable channels, but the only major TV network that carried live coverage of this healthcare reform rally in D.C. yesterday was Fox - and then, only to ridicule it:

The reason? AHIP, the health insurance lobbying organization, was meeting in (where else?) the Ritz-Carlton. A coalition of groups led by unions including SEIU, AFSCME, UFCW and Health Care for American Now declared the meeting site a "corporate crime scene" and attempted to make a citizens' arrest:

In a reverse twist on the old protestors' tactic of getting arrested to make a point, union leaders and other backers of President Obama's healthcare plan issued "citizen's arrest" warrants for health insurance executives Tuesday – accusing them of exploiting consumers.

The "warrants," delivered to police during a demonstration outside an insurance industry meeting at a Washington hotel, were an attempt to dramatize protestors' call for insurance reform – and to build public support for the Democrats' healthcare legislation.

The demonstration, which drew several thousand protestors from as far away as Illinois and California, was organized by groups that for more than a year have pushed Congress to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers as part of national healthcare overhaul.

While that policy objective, known as the public option, is not part of the healthcare legislation pending in Congress, the groups are nonetheless mounting a multi-million dollar campaign to promote the bill. The effort will continue in coming weeks, with more demonstrations, paid advertising and other events, including a hearing to take place Wednesday on Capitol Hill.

Boy, there was a time when you couldn't turn on the TV without seeing someone about Tea Party rallies. I guess the only way you can get on TV these days is to be on the side of the insurance companies.

I was out all day and missed most of the reaction to Obama's suggested health-care plan. (Although I did learn from the Washington Post that this reheated version of the Senate bill is the White House team's idea of "going big." Heaven help us, I'd hate to see what "going small" looks like.)

From jumping around the blogs tonight, here's a roundup of some of the more interesting stuff.

From Think Progress:

The Obama plan maintains key elements of the Senate proposal but also incorporates stronger anti-fraud provisions and allows the federal government to review insurance rate hikes. On a call with reporters Pfeiffer insisted that the administration has not determined “on which path to move forward with”, but the bill’s substance suggests that Obama is hoping to bypass a prolonged-Senate debate and use the reconciliation process to fix the Senate bill and convince reluctant House progressives to pass the Senate legislation. “The American people deserve up or down vote on health reform,”Pfeiffer said. “We can get an up or down vote if opposition decides to take extraordinary steps of filibustering health reforms.”

But it’s unclear if progressive House members will embrace the new compromise. While the bill addresses House members’ affordability concerns, increases the excise tax thresholds and completely closes the donut hole in Medicare Part D, the legislation does not include a public option, retains the Senate bill’s state-based exchanges and keeps the start date for most reforms at 2014. (Obama’s plan also retains the Senate’s abortion compromise and most other core provisions).

And I know you're dying to read the reaction from the National Right to Life committee, right?

In its statement, the National Right to Life committee said that the president’s proposal “limits rights of Americans of all ages to use their own money to save their own lives.”

Burke Balch, the director of the National Right to Life Committee’s Powell Center of Ethics, likened the president’s plan to imposing a limit on the cost of restaurant meals.

“It is as though a government, concerned about the high cost of restaurant food, imposed a price limit of $5 per meal, and then asserted that for those who like their restaurant food, nothing will force them to change their eating habits,” the statement said. “The reality, of course, is that restaurants would be unable to afford to offer meals at prices below the cost of their ingredients. Consequently, about all restaurant-goers would be able to get would be fast food.”

Yes, because unlike health care, it's not as if you couldn't buy food and cook it yourself. (Try not to think about it, it'll just make your head hurt.)

Lambert, as usual, cuts to the chase:

NOTE: And this part is truly weird. You know the 31 million number that keeps getting tossed around? I always that was due mostly to Medicaid expansion --- moving the opportunity to get medical care after losing all your assets, like your house, up the income ladder -- but no. Right in the first paragraph:

"The President's [cough] Option" -- sorry, "Proposal" -- makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps over 31 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more.

It's a tax cut!? Are Republican talking points truly the only ponies left in the stable?

I'm not even gonna try to gild that particular lily.

Via Raw Story, some news that really isn't such a big deal. Third-party administrators are already a cash cow for the insurance industry, but my guess is that this contract will have a lot of built-in cost controls:

A little-noticed tidbit in Saturday's Washington Post is sure to raise eyebrows among liberal supporters of a gorvernment-run healthcare plan: the plan is likely to be administered by a private insurance company, the very companies that progressive activists are trying to unseat.

The public-option debate is frustrating some Democrats, who have come to believe that a government-run plan is neither as radical as its conservative critics have portrayed, nor as important as its liberal supporters contend. Any public plan is likely to have a relatively narrow scope, as it would be offered only to people who don't have access to coverage through an employer.

The public option would effectively be just another insurance plan offered on the open market. It would likely be administered by a private insurance provider, charging premiums and copayments like any other policy. In an early estimate of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that fewer than 12 million people would buy insurance through the government plan.

The problem with insurance companies isn't the third-party administrators - they simply administer claims decisions on the basis of what the client pays for. (Although their administration fees are so often heavily padded, and the feds will have to watch them closely.) This is commonly done with so-called "self-insured" plans.

This is one of the reasons why it won't happen overnight. Someone's going to have to come up with the oversight structure.

DOWNLOADS: (1162)

PLAYS: (3332)

Embed

All this talk about socialized healthcare! Michael Steele says it's socialism, although he admits he doesn't know a thing about the actual policy.

And as Rachel Maddow points out, have you ever noticed that the more beautiful a politican's hair, the more likely he is to be completely full of crap? Case in point: Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Maddow really lets him have it because Perry is talking about "seceding" from any national healthcare plan, reminding him (and us) that he's been governor for nine years. As she points out, one in four Texans lack health insurance, giving Texas the title for highest number of uninsured citizens in the entire country.

As Washington Spectator editor and political author Lou Dubose pointed out to Maddow, the Texas governorship is "a ribbon-cutting position." Good thing, because he's not too bright, is he?

(Here's some info on the ads by OFA)

Those poor poor Democrats in Congress who want to block the public option. They can't face the heat so they are whining to Harry Reid. And Reid then scolds the DNC for "wasting their money" on ads that target them.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) slammed the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Thursday for running ads designed to pressure centrist Democrats into supporting the president’s healthcare plan, calling the effort a “waste of money.”

Reid’s comments sent his staff into damage control mode, as they sought to clarify his remarks, but also reflect a growing frustration among those centrists who have been reluctant to back a government-run health insurance plan at the center of President Obama’s healthcare proposal. Liberals have been urging centrists to support such a plan for months, using various television and radio campaigns to try to force their hand. This week a wing of the DNC announced it would run television ads in states represented by centrist senators.

Reid slammed the DNC for targeting Democrats instead of Republicans or special interest groups that traditionally oppose Democratic policies.

“I think it’s a waste of money,” Reid said when asked about the ads. “Democrats running ads against Democrats?”

First of all they are not centrist. That's a bogus word to try and muddle the issue. Dems like Blue America's target Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and all the rest are Conservative Dems. Health care is not a right/left issue, but an American issue. Standing in the way of real reform makes one a republican obstructionist at this time and not a centrist. And Harry Reid should be careful who he backs in this fight. These ads came with a blessing from the White House so is he going against the President now? You're supposed to be the majority leader so if they come whining to you again just tell them to act like Democrats.

You can still donate to Blue America's Campaign For Health Care Choice. We're working on our next action and will need your help.

Some last minute reactions to the Preznit's speech. Interesting the Decider didn't mention he's locked up only the "Bad Arabs" for over five years without a trial. So then Bush goes off to "sell" his plan...at Fort Benning?!?

Eric Reeves: "2007 gives all signs of being the most destructive year to date in the Darfur genocide." (h/t Daily Darfur).

On-topic, why does the Governor of New Mexico have more diplomatic competence than the Secretary of State? Nevermind.

Ave Cassandra : response to Ahnold's healthcare plan.

Off the Beaten Path: "Straight but not narrow" edition: The Lesbian Blog Award nominations are open. There are some great, and I mean great, writers over there.

P.S. I'm glad someone misses Fafblog as much as I do...

Guest round-up by Blue Gal