That said, the reason I was harsh is because she operated from the premise that no one has been discussing the cost of insurance with considering the health care reform proposals.

That is truly absurd. Lambert, for example, has been lambasting a lot of us because he (as do Kucinich and Massa) believes that the public option will NOT be an effective vehicle for cost containment, even over time. He believe single payer is the only way.

Let me assure you that Evan Bayh and Doug Holtz-Eakin do not give 2 craps about cost containment in any sense.

The Colorado parents who reported their 6-year-old son floated away in a helium balloon in what authorities say was a hoax to drum up publicity for a TV show will both plead guilty to charges in the case, the attorney for the boy's father said Thursday.

Richard Heene, 48, will plead guilty to attempting to influence a public servant, a felony, his attorney David Lane said. Mayumi Heene, 45, will plead guilty to false reporting to authorities, a misdemeanor.

Prosecutors have agreed to allow both to serve probation sentences

And the prisoners turn it in! wtf?  Their fellow prisoners coulda used 25 lbs. of euphoria to pass around I'm sure...and think of all the Cup O' Noodles they coulda got in trade.  Bad form fellas, bad form...Red would not approve.

But they were dashed. This isn't a struggle between two ideologically opposing, equally balanced sides. This is one between what the voting majority of citizens want and what the private-interests-paying-off-Congress want. A solid no nonsense Single Payer bill could have easily been drafted and voted through Congress if we had people representatives but it ain't gonna happen with this bunch. The only question for the Democratic Leadership is what kind of bill can they fob off to their increasingly enraged constituency to pretend that tried to do their jobs and still keep the money flowing from the affected industries and trade groups.

Don't for a second, think Obama wants what is best for U.S. He is flying the U.S. Plane right into the ground at full speed. Let's Roll.

State Sen. David Schultheis

Threat to the POTUS or simple stupidity?  

More from the good Senator...

Schultheis voted in February against a bill requiring pregnant women to be tested for AIDS to prevent spreading the disease to the children. He said then that infected children would set examples for women against sexual promiscuity.

The senator railed in January against public service announcements in Spanish encouraging people to fasten seat belts.

But.  Regardless of whether their concern in real or as fake as fake can be, they are not wrong that neither Average Joe and Jane, nor Uncle Sam, are going to be saving any money.

What bothers me is that Politico can dump that stuff in their article, and never ever push back and call anyone's bluff, along the lines of, "When asked why, if his concern is _____, the Senator has not been advocating for a Medicare for All plan, or insisting that the Senate include and listen to single payer advocates, he said...."

Politico is taking dictation, as are a lot of other outlets: just dutifully write down what people say, and never ask the hard questions, or push for answers, lest you never, ever get to be in the presence of such eminence again, or ever get invited to another cocktail reception.  Oh, there's a little mild criticism of Obama in there, but nothing Obama cannot brush off like dirt from his shoulders.

It's a terrible plan that is going to get worse before it ever - EVER - gets better, and is not worthy of the reconciliation process, because by the time it gets there, it will have been further whittled and watered down and compromised away - changes that will not be withdrawn before a reconciliation vote.  

The patient that is the health care system came into the Congressional emergency room ten months ago, in need of courageous and principled treatment, and instead of emerging in better shape and on the road to recovery, has, thanks to the "efforts" of those treating it, flat-lined more than once, been given the wrong medications, been subjected to unnecessary surgery, had its most obvious symptoms ignored and dismissed as unimportant, had its chart mixed up with someone else's, and occasionally been lost in the bowels of the hospital while its doctors argue about the best way to treat the problems.

Barack Obama ran for president on a promise of saving the typical family $2,500 a year in lower health care premiums.

But that was then.

No one in the White House is making such a pledge now.

It's one of the most basic, kitchen-table questions of the entire reform debate: Would the sweeping $900 billion overhaul actually lower spiraling insurance premiums for everyone?

No one really knows.

And in fact, for all the ink spilled on the effects of health care reform, no independent group has taken a comprehensive look at how the legislation would impact premiums for the 170 million Americans who receive insurance through their employers - a population that would receive little direct financial assistance under the various congressional proposals.

For small businesses and individuals who purchase their own plans, economists remain sharply divided over the impact on premiums.

"This town continues to miss what is going to be the real issue," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said. "The real lodestar, the thing people are focusing on at home, is all premiums, premiums, premiums. All you have right now is what the insurance industry has said."

At a recent Senate health committee hearing, two health care rivals - Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economic adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, and Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor whose work is cited often by the White House - agreed comprehensive, objective evidence wasn't available for small and large businesses.

"It's insane," Holtz-Eakin said.

The lack of data prompted Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) to request a broad analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on premiums, which he said was "a basic, bottom-line question that we have to have answered before we can decide if this is an intelligent thing to do."

Aides expect to see the report ahead the Senate floor debate on health care, which is causing anxiety among Democrats because of the uncertainty of what the famously cost-conservative CBO will produce. The possibility that congressional scorekeepers will conclude that premiums won't flatten out or decrease would make centrists even more leery of reform, forcing adjustments to the bill just as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is already scrambling to meet a Christmas deadline.

Obama was the one who raised expectations of lower premiums. From one city to the next, and during the presidential debates, Obama made the pledge almost as often as he vowed to remove troops from Iraq: "We estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year."

He has barely uttered it since taking office. The last recorded mention by Obama was in May, when he announced that six health industry groups agreed to lower the growth rate in health care spending by $2 trillion over 10 years, resulting in a savings of $2,500 per family "in the coming years."

Campaign advisers sought to make Obama's plan tangible to voters. But the $2,500 estimate was controversial, even among progressive health care economists. First, the figure represented not simply a family's share of premiums, but also savings that would accrue for employers, Medicare and Medicaid. Second, experts did not expect the savings to materialize for many years.

A year long battle with a major loss combined with a crappy economy will surely cripple him and damage the party as a whole.  Am I naive to believe that it is not about the greatness of the bill rather the need to pass something?

The reason is quite simple - the government has a strong incentive to control health care costs and premiums. No other actor in the industry does.

Larger point about costs is, the only reason the public option would work is it creates a reimbursement ceiling and forces that upon providers.  The hope is providers accept this by nature of the fact that there's no other means to get money in their coffers.