Here's how Obama described how the public option will affect private insurers:

He said an audience member raised a "legitimate concern" about how a government-run health-care program might affect private insurers.

"My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time."

Then he invoked the Postal Service:

"I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems."

That comment provoked laughter from the audience.

Oh, so the public option will be like the United States Postal Service. It will be constantly undermined by elected officials who insist it compete with private companies as an "equal" even as they ensure that the private companies get all the really lucrative customers and the postal service gets stuck with all the thankless, unprofitable work that requires them to drive every back road in this country to deliver a letter for less than 50 cents while also giving deep discounts to help mail-based business, regardless of whether such deliveries or discounts make sense from a business perspective.* And the Postal Service is expected to do all of this while the Government insists it do things that none of its private competitors have to do (such as prepay future retiree health benefits). Then when the public option, like the Postal Service, cannot win its race against private companies blindfolded with its legs tied together, it will be mocked by the President of the United States.** That does sound like a good plan.

Over at White Coat Underground, PalMD has posted a very nice three-part series on the problems that need to be addressed by health care reform (and most definitely not "health" "care" "reform") as he sees them, including some useful analysis from the physician's point of view.

Part I
Part II
Part III

Here is his conclusion:

The one before the election:

The one now:

Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.

“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”

A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.

“The president encouraged this approach,” Mr. Messina wrote. “He wanted to bring all the parties to the table to discuss health insurance reform.”

Why won't the [Single Payer Advocates, Blue Dogs, Progressive Caucus, C-list bloggers, etc.,] get out of the way so Obama can reform healthcare!

You just think you do. But, of course, those Baseline Scenario guys are totally DFHs!

Via the Hartford Courant:

U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd has been diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer. Dodd is scheduled to undergo surgery during the Senate's August recess and said he expects to be back at work after a "brief recuperation" at home. "It's something that's very common among men my age,'' said Dodd, who is 65 and the father of two young daughters. "In fact, one in six men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer at some point during their life.'' Dodd, a Democrat who is up for re-election in November 2010, said he feels fine. "As you have probably noticed, I'm working some long and hard hours lately,'' he said. "And that will continue."

I am certain that everyone wishes him the best in his treatment and hopes for a speedy recovery. I only wish that every American could have a chance to receive the kind of treatment he will receive. Via tparty, An email from Sen. Dodd to supporters below the fold:

I think CMike might be onto something:

Time for the Republic itself is running out. Single payer advocates have to take over the Democratic Party fast. We should band together as a bloc of voters and commit to voting for all pro-single payer Democrats and against all Democrats who do not support single payer. That means we should publicly commit ourselves to vote for the corporatist Republican in any general election if the Democrat on the ballot is not a supporter of single payer. At this point Job #1 for center-ists and leftists is to wreck the careers of the office seekers in the Democratic Party who hire themselves out to the corporatists.

And the last thing rank-and-file Democrats, who would commit to this one small step to make America a better place to live, need to listen to is some Democratic ditto-head telling us the savvy political move is to rededicate ourselves to supporting our party's sold-out leadership. Political realism, my ass. "Where do they teach you [ditto-heads] to talk like this?...Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here."

And before I get the "they're better than Republicans" talking point, let me just say maybe, but they're not better enough to be willing to do anything to stop 22,000 Americans from dying every year. Or put it another way, if it's a choice between your life and the Health Insurance Industry's profits, you lose.

These are the people who deserve your vote? Why? Because they'll pretend to care about you as they let you die.

So here's my thought* why not simply organize in your community a petition drive aimed at all Democrats running for elective office. See how many people you can get to take the following pledge:

Mike Lux on the healthcare fight:

This is the biggest issue for Barack Obama, and his ability to get anything else significant done will die if health care dies.

Er, no. Obama already faced his biggest issue - is this country a democracy or an oligarchy?* And on that one, he already made his decision - trillions of dollars for Wall Street, a pittance for the rest of America. Why do you think the costs of healthcare are such an issue? Because dude already spent all of our money on Wall Street.

dday at the end of his blog about the President's phone call with bloggers:

There is a bright spot, however. Obama went pretty far [pretty far, huh? wow!] in support of a [incredibly shrinking] public option, a fairly tangible reform effort [if it were done as originally envisioned, which is no longer even being discussed], on the call. He doubted the evidence that a co-op plan like that pushed by Kent Conrad would work, citing past experience that showed them having trouble getting off the ground. And he then said that the House and Senate bills would not be identical, that a conference committee would certainly be required. And at that point, the White House would engage in serious negotiations [good for the White House to finally get serious after the basic shape of the legislation has already been hammered out, no sense getting serious before almost everything has already been decided], with the President's fundamental principles and benchmarks in place [whatever those are]. The House and Senate bills would not match up exactly, but that would not mean that the final bill wouldn't include certain elements, he essentially said. The President was basically saying: get it to conference, and we'll straighten it out. That probably doesn't mean that the President gets everything he wants, but it means that the big issues will be at his determination and discretion, almost certainly.

I think that's an important reminder. Past White Houses have used the conference committee very effectively to make sure bills matched preferences. Obama signaled his willingness to do that. Which means that, while we can have a role in getting this bill through each chamber, the White House will be able to make their presence felt to a degree at the finish line. In effect, he will take ownership of the policy and ensure it beats the status quo.

More specifically, he wants to know your likes and dislikes in the admittedly dysfunctional American Healthcare system:

I am thinking that this is another opportunity to drive home the message of support for Single Payer!

Have at it right over here:

Senator Dodd asks: Is your health care working? What changes would you like to see? Add your ideas at YouTube's Senate Hub at http://youtube.com/senatehub

Democratic Senators are writing a major health reform bill. Rising costs are hitting families and businesses and now 46 million Americans live without health coverage. We need reform. Respond now with your ideas as the Senate writes health care legislation. You can help.

What are you still doing here?

MoveOn.org has a form designed to make you praise Obama's corporatist, Massachusetts-style health-care plan (such as it is).

Why not use this form to urge support for HR 676?

How about "abortion reduction"?

First of all, if you were truly concerned about abortion reduction, you shouldn't have sacrificed women's healthcare, on the altar of bipartisanship!

Dear Dr Gawande:

“Getting There From Here” is a wonderfully written piece full of good analyses of how broken our healthcare “system” is and how we got into this mess.
Your central hypothesis is that we can use the idea of “path dependence” to understand how other countries achieved universal or national health insurance, and thus chart a route forward here in the US. Of course, path dependence is much better at explaining why things happened than it is at predicting what will be, or, as you put it, “With path-dependent processes, the outcome is unpredictable at the start.”

 Read more…

Obama Wants Journalist Gupta for Surgeon General

By Howard Kurtz
President-elect Barack Obama has offered the job of surgeon general to Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the neurosurgeon and correspondent for CNN and CBS, according to two sources with knowledge of the situation.

Gupta has told administration officials that he wants the job, and the final vetting process is under way. He has asked for a few days to figure out the financial and logistical details of moving his family from Atlanta to Washington but is expected to accept the offer.

The Worcester Telegram & Gazette has an article about Kennedy's effort to form a "concensus" on health care, filled with fluffy quotes from special interest lobbyists.

Special attention is given to the role of John McDonough, who is described as a former law maker and head of Health Care For All. Sounds like a nice guy huh?

Let's review who McDonough really is:

Comments on improving health care collected in Portsmouth

Day was among many at the forum who said the insurance system seems fueled by "greed" rather than the desire to keep people healthy.

"It's a disaster in this country ... we need a complete overhaul," Day said.

Many attending the forum said they support a more centralized "single payer" system that would have the government offering guaranteed coverage, like in Canada or many European nations.

Gene Fenderson writes for the Great Falls Tribune

We don't really have a "system." What we have is a confused maze of coverage types and providers — Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, SCHIP, military, veterans administration, Indian Health Service, federal employee coverage, health savings accounts, community health centers, private insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, medical coverage in auto insurance and more.

 Read more…

Monroe/Seattle Healthcare House Party
The Raw Story

We promptly start later than anticipated because one participant wanted cocoa.

The Participant noted: “This really is like a Tupperware party. It seems like it’s a party because there are little wieners with toothpicks in them, but really, it’s about selling you Tupperware.”

The Host went through the goals as stated in the Moderator’s packet:

We'll be picking up the discussion

Today, Saturday, Dec. 27 at 8EST

Lambert will be rolling out the survey so we can spread the word.

Amberglow linked to an excellent article on why single payer opponents fear the single payer option. Basically, peons like us would like public insurance so much, we would choose it instead of more expensive private health insurance plans.

Hope all of you are enjoying your holidays.

Some business...

We'll be picking up the discussion

Saturday, Dec. 27 at 8EST

after the fab GF and I have our house party, which comprises me, her, and the cats. We have two feet of snow and no one in their right mind she drive up here.

Also, we may lose power, so if I disappear, that may be why. Or I spilled my cocktail, which happens, you know.

Moving on...

Continuing from the last virtual house party on healthcare, lambert asked me separately if anyone else wanted to discuss why healthcare is an issue for them.

Our Festivus healthcare discussion rollicked along at a good pace.

Before jumping in, thanks to all for participating. And may everyone find the joy of the season.

And join us

Friday, Dec. 26, 8pm EST for more ideas and agitating

Please add as you see fit.

In response to the question, “Why is healthcare an issue for you?”, the answers ranged from rage (that would be me, lambert, and gqmartinez), not being a bully (vastleft), personal experience with the system as patient or provider (DCBlogger, hipparchia, and oceansandmountains) creating equitable healthcare system as a foundation on which to build a more just society (lambert), the basic need for healthcare, and so on.

Hello and welcome. First a little business...

Thanks, lambert for the place and the constant support.

Thanks DCB and hipparchia for yeo-woman work on the issue of single payer. You are why I got involved. Well, that and I got really pissed off.

Next virtual house parties:

All 8pm EST
Friday, Dec. 26
Saturday, Dec. 27 (fab Gf and ohio report)
Tuesday, Dec. 30 (Paul L's report)
Possibly a wrap-up on the 31st.

Spread the word.

Here's the list of questions we gathered.

1. Have you or anyone in your family ever failed to seek medical attention because you couldn’t afford it? (h/t a little night…)

2. Have you or anyone in your family ever failed to seek medical attention because you couldn’t afford treatment though you had health insurance? (h/t a little night…)

An Unofficial Perspective on the Fiscal Crisis at Cambridge Health Alliance

[We're having the first virtual House Party tonight at 8PM -- Because it's festivus!]

Suggestions for virtual house party healthcare topics? We can take some of the questions from the list we developed---see below.

Lambert, do you have times that work best for people all over the country? And even some of our foreign friends (hiya, Mandos) to join in? Also, is there anyway to let people who aren't registered to take that survey you created? Or do you want it limited to registrants?

Reps. Waxman, Dingell in power-sharing deal

Incoming House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and the old bull he ousted from the post, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) have reached an unusual power-sharing arrangement.

Waxman will cede to Dingell the lead role in drafting health reform legislation, a major priority for congressional Democrats and the incoming Obama administration, the two lawmakers announced late Thursday afternoon.