Here's the question: Do we ignore the fact that because other countries don't have for-profit systems, they enjoy what is to Americans an almost unimaginable degree of medical security?

Or should we welcome this apparent change of heart and look at it in a vacuum, pretending the insurance industry doesn't have a long and ugly track record of egregious abuses and immoral behavior? Should we just call a mulligan and pretend they're now negotiating in good faith?

Because really, I'm not feeling it. I'm just not that trusting. I believe Howard Dean when he says, "If there's no public plan, it's not real reform":

WASHINGTON —The health insurance industry said Tuesday that it was willing to end the practice of charging higher premiums to sick people if Congress adopted a comprehensive plan that provided coverage to all Americans.

The industry’s flexible position on the issue came as a surprise to lawmakers, and could make it easier to reach an agreement in Congress because it narrows the issues on which insurers are ready to fight the Democrats who control Congress and the White House.

Insurers said they were still staunchly opposed to creation of a new government-run health insurance plan, which, under many Democratic proposals, would compete directly with private insurers.

In effect, insurers said they were willing to discard an element of their longstanding business model, under which insurance policies are priced, in part, on the basis of a person’s medical condition or history.

In the past, insurers have warned that if they could not consider a person’s health in setting premiums, the rates charged to young, healthy people would soar, making coverage unaffordable.

But Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a major trade group, told lawmakers on Tuesday that insurers were exploring ideas to prevent such increases by spreading the risks and costs across a larger population of both healthy and unhealthy people.

Insurers said that they could accept more aggressive regulation of not just their premiums but also their benefits, underwriting practices and other activities. Such strict regulation, they said, would make a new public program unnecessary.

The insurers set forth their position at a Senate hearing on Tuesday and in letters to the Democratic chairmen and senior Republican members of the two Senate committees primarily responsible for health care legislation.

The letters were signed by Ms. Ignagni and Scott P. Serota, president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, who presided over the hearing, welcomed the insurers’ position.

“It was a significant step for them to take,” Mr. Bingaman said in an interview. “That’s certainly not been their position in previous years. I hope it moves us closer to something that we could label a consensus.”

In other words, they'll accept just about anything that won't put these devoted lovers of the free market in competition with a government-run program like Medicare. And after all, we don't want to hurt their feelings!

The McCain campaign likes to tell us we're a "nation of whiners" complaining about a "mental recession," so it should come as no surprise that their solution to the health care crisis is to simply have the Census Bureau redefine the term uninsured. Seriously. Let John Goodman, McCain's point-man on health care issues, explain:

"I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.

"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

Voila! No more health care problems! All those "whiners"out there who are losing their homes due to unmanageable health care bills can sleep sound tonight. The health care crisis is solved! As Michigan Messenger says:

If you're uninsured, out of money - and not having a life-threatening emergency - you not only don't exist in John McCain's world, you're completely out of luck.

TP, dKos, West Viginia Blue, All Spin Zone all have more.

Uninsured Americans will spend $30 billion a year in out of pocket expenses and incur another $56 billion in government-subsidized expenses, says a new study for healthaffairs.org by Jack Hadley of George Mason University in Virginia and a team at the Urban Institute.

"The uninsured receive a lot less care than the insured, and they pay a greater percentage of it out of pocket. Contrary to popular myth, they are not all free riders," Hadley said.

Current estimates show that 47 million Americans lack any health insurance, and 28 million have gone without for some part of the year. The U.S. Census bureau is scheduled to release new estimates on Tuesday.

The study goes on to suggest that if the uninsured were covered, they would spend more on healthcare. An insured person spends about $100 dollars more a year, on average, out of their own pocket than does someone without insurance.

And in the meantime, Sen. Bernie Sanders has a sensible suggestion for a filler measure.

For a relatively small amount of money, we can provide primary health care to every American in need of it through an expansion of the successful Federally Qualified Health Center program. On a budget of only $2 billion a year, this program, which has enjoyed widespread bipartisan support, now provides primary health care, dental care, mental health counseling, and low-cost prescription drugs to 17 million people through 1,100 health center organizations in every region of the country for an average cost of $125 per patient per year. The doors of these centers are open to all, including patients with Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, or no insurance at all, with sliding-scale fees.

... for a total of $8.3 billion a year, we could have 4,800 centers caring for 56 million people in every medically-underserved region of the country.

This upfront investment – which constitutes less than 0.5 percent of overall U.S. spending on health care – would more than pay for itself. The centers are among the most cost efficient federal programs in existence today. On average, medical expenses at health centers are 41 percent lower than in other health care settings.

Most importantly, from a financial point of view, by treating people when they should be treated, we can save billions by keeping patients away from emergency rooms and expensive hospitalizations.

What's not to like?

"You don't know insurance company rules? Oh, they're so sweet..."

Disclaimer: "Insurance company rules not compatible with Health Care for America Now. Which side are you on?"

h/t Jax

UPDATE: John Amato: Progressives fire back at insurers

Health Care for America Now announced Friday that it plans a news conference and a rally next week to counter the insurance industry's Campaign for an American Solution, which launches in Columbus, Ohio, on Tuesday with a roundtable discussion among uninsured locals.

"They're pretending that the health industry represents the American public, and we need to make it really clear to them and the public that all they represent are their own profits," said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for.

On Tuesday, the group plans to rally about 300 supporters outside the Columbus YWCA, where America's Health Insurance Plans will hold its roundtable.

The $40 million it plans to spend by year's end will put 100 organizers in 45 states to hold town hall meetings, go door to door, staff phone banks and take action outside insurance offices. Already, the group has aired television spots in an extensive adverting campaign.

So I guess the Official Republican Talking Points™ now include proclaiming that Barack Obama is a socialist who's more liberal than Bernie Sanders. It looks like those Bush/Cheney guys McCain hired are starting to earn their money.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

CNN.com

BLITZER: But Bernie Sanders says he's a socialist.

JEFFREY: Well, I think Barack Obama is a socialist, and let me defend that remark.

First of all, I would say Barack Obama is the most left-wing candidate that's ever been nominated by a major party for president of the United States. But is he a socialist? This is a man who's campaigning with Hillary Clinton, arguing for who had a better nationalized health care program. A nationalized health care program, Wolf, is socialism. Another thing that Barack Obama...

BLITZER: Just because it's government sponsored doesn't mean it's socialist. [...] Do you believe Medicare or Medicaid is socialist?

JEFFREY: Well, yes. Actually, I would say that Medicare and Social Security are flat-out socialism.

What. A. Clown. If support for universal health care is a litmus test for determining whether someone is a socialist, I got bad news for Terry: 66% of Americans are socialists:

Why do they let these idiots on television? And I'm not even talking about Jeffrey. Look at how Wolf ended the segment:

"All right, guys. We've got to leave it right there, but a good, serious discussion. Thanks for coming in. "

Geez.

(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)

Today, thousands of health insurance executives are gathering in San Francisco for their major industry convention. We thought that we would welcome them to town with a TV ad to go along with a greeting committee of hundreds of protesters.

The ad is called "Insurance Jive" and it features a nurse (actor Beth Broderick of "Lost", see her HuffPo piece on the ad) who – reminiscent of the Barbara Billingsley character in the 1980 movie "Airplane" – translates insurance jargon for a hospital patient and her husband.

"Insurance Jive" is based on the true story of Patsy Bates. Health Net canceled – or "rescinded" – Patsy's health insurance policy after this 52-year-old grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer, forcing Patsy to halt chemotherapy for several months while piling up $129,000 in medical bills.

A judge recently ordered Health Net to pay Patsy a whopping $9 million in mostly punitive damages.

Continue reading »

Obama accepts a gift from a 95 yr old supporter, Charles Edwards, and uses it to put Congress on notice not to get in the way of his healthcare plan. Roanoke's WSLS News caught the video of this lighthearted moment yesterday in front of a packed gym in Bristol VA:

Download | play Download | play

Political Radar:

During the Question and Answer session, Obama met a 95-year-old African American man, whose daughter told Obama that he had waited his whole life for this moment.

The man wobbled slowly to the stage and presented Obama with a maple wood walking stick as a gift.

The presumptive democratic nominee, clearly feeling his oats, took the stick and said, "If members of Congress don't pass my health care bill - I'll whoop 'em, I'll whoop 'em. That's right, you better not mess with me, and I'll have that stick."

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Well, it wasn't the speech that many had hoped for after this exhausting primary season. It certainly wasn't a concession speech on the eve where Barack Obama clinched the number needed to be the Democratic presidential candidate. I'm sure that many will be angry that it wasn't. What it was, however, was a thank you to all her supporters for standing by her and working so hard on what has been a historic campaign, and moreover, a call to respect her supporters and their values. But, for all her detractors online, we must acknowledge that it has been historic. More than seventeen million Americans voted for the first serious female presidential contender in U.S. history (no offense intended to Shirley Chisholm). As a woman and as the mother of girls for whom I hope will find no glass ceilings to impede them, this has been an extremely hard fought race that will open doors for future generations. Christy at FDL:

Given how narrow the margins are between the Obama and Clinton camps, can we honestly say that potentially throwing out close to half the Democratic party's votes to salve individual needs for revenge or punishment or saying "suck it up and deal" is a winning strategy for November? Is it the human thing to do -- something that felt right when the GOP spat it at you after the 2000 race was decided by SCOTUS? Is that who we want to be as a party, who Obama supporters want to be as a whole? Clinton folks? I don't think so, not based on most conversations I've had with staunch supporters on either side.

I certainly hope folks aren't willing to cut off their votes to spite their nation, anyway, and that supporters of one candidate aren't quick to be dismissive to those on the other side of the fray.

It's time we all stood up and became the leaders we wish to see. That means putting the nation and it's desperately needed policy changes ahead of our own egos and grudges and snippy, poo-flinging urges. That means finding compassion somewhere inside the ire, and forgiveness inside the scars from a very closely fought race -- because we must, or we will lose. All of us will lose.

Transcript below the fold

Continue reading »

For the past several weeks, John McCain and his campaign have been enraged by the emphasis on his willingness to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for up to 100 years, and the audacity of Democrats to tell voters about his views on the issue. To hear them tell it, misrepresenting a rival’s stated policy position — which Dems really aren’t doing — is completely beyond the pale.

Which is odd, given McCain’s habit of wildly misrepresenting the Dems on healthcare policy.

Senator John McCain has been repeatedly suggesting that his Democratic rivals are proposing a single-payer, or even a nationalized health care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain.

The suggestion is incorrect. While both Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York are calling for universal health care and an expanded role for government, they stop well short of calling for a single-payer plan.

Mr. McCain has made the assertion several times in recent days, even as he and the Republicans have made repeated calls for accuracy on the campaign trail…. Yet on repeated occasions, Mr. McCain, of Arizona, has inaccurately described the Democrats’ health care proposals, using language that evokes the specter of socialized medicine.

On a campaign stop on Thursday, for example, McCain said Clinton and Obama “want a massive government takeover of the health care system in America.” A few months ago, McCain said the Dems offer a “single-payer big government solution.” A few months before that, he insisted that the Dems are offering a “government-run, single-payer system like they have in Canada and like they have in England.”

Continue reading »

Hillary Clinton doesn't bite when BillO tries to bully her into admitting that her health care plan would "bankrupt the country." In fact, she quickly shuts down his straw man argument and schools him on why providing quality health care to all Americans is a moral issue while explaining clearly how she intends to pay for it.

Download | play Download | play

"If we don't [pass universal health care], we'll meet here again in five or ten years, we'll have more uninsured people, the prices will have continued to go up because we will not have put into place the safeguards and the accountability that our health care system needs."

John Amato: BillO tries to use the age old "socialism" conservative talking point when describing any form of universal health care, but that doesn't hold up to the realities of everyday life in our country because people are struggling just to fill up their gas tanks let alone trying to carry incredibly high health care insurance costs for their families. And the idiotic tax break proposed by John McCain will have zero impact on the problem.