President Obama has promised Americans clarity in his speech tonight on health care. I hope he does better than he did on Good Morning America today. What did he say? No one knows for sure. Even the journalists can't agree on what he said. Check out the different versions in the Washington Post and LA Times. (Clue: It all depends on the meaning of "it.")

According the the Washington Post, Obama will argue strongly for a public option. But if the final health care bill (not the public option per se) adds one one dime to the deficit, he won't sign the bill.

He said there were "principles that, if they're not embodied in the bill, I will not sign it," but he ducked a question on whether those include the public option. Instead, he cited as an example, "if it's adding one dime to the deficit, if it's not fully paid for, then I will not be supportive."

According to the LA Times, he said the public option is a good idea but if it (the public option) passes and adds one dime to the deficit, he won't sign the bill. [More..]

More details about the Baucus compromise for health care reform:

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected....The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds. (my emphasis)

So a 60 year old and a smoker who can't afford premiums gets fined for not having insurance? But the 25 year old, whose premiums are 5 times less than the 60 year old, will get help with catastrophic insurance?

Mr. Baucus’s proposal would offer low-cost catastrophic insurance as an option for people 25 and younger. Policy experts say many people in this age group cannot afford comprehensive coverage or see no need for it.

And the public option? The AP says it's sinking fast: [More...]

It's pretty obvious President Obama is going to push a compromise bill. The latest reports on the details of the compromise bill make little sense to me. I'm waffling on whether to support it at all. Here's the latest:

...remarks by the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, on the flight to Cincinnati reflected an effort by the White House to play down the importance of a public option to the larger overhaul. Mr. Gibbs said a public option would not affect most Americans — up to 180 million — because they already have insurance through employers. (my emphasis.)

So then why do we need this? [More...]

Thanks to the LA Times for publishing this glossary of health care terms, including "single-payer system", "public option", coops, mandates, universal health care, the "gang of six" and more. It's short and you don't need a Ph.D. to understand it.

President Barack Obama today spoke about health care to the AFL-CIO in Ohio:

In Monday's speech, at the AFL-CIO's annual Labor Day picnic at Ohio's Coney Island amusement park, the president drew wild applause when he spoke of his support for a government-run insurance plan, one of the most contentious health reform issues.

"I see reform where Americans and small businesses that are shut out of health insurance today will be able to purchase coverage at a price they can afford," he said. "Where they'll be able to shop and compare in a new health insurance exchange. And I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs."

But, what does that mean? [More...]

President Obama may make a major speech on the health care legislation next week. He's going to use the time between now and then to re-tool his strategy.

The Boston Globe reports that the Dems may force the bill through using a "reconciliation" maneuver it likens to a "nuclear option." But, since that option requires the bill be related to the budget, some portions may have to be dropped.Others say that is not the strategy the Dems will use.

And CNBC's Maria Bartiromo should stick to reporting on stocks. She doesn't even know that Medicare applies only to those age 65 and older. Check out the video where she berates 45 year old Rep. Anthony Weiner for not having it himself.

In a mocking tone, she pressed the congressman: "How come you don't use it [Medicare]? You don't have it. How come you don't have it?" Rep. Weiner, who turns 45 this week, tried to walk Bartiromo through it. "Because I'm not 65." But she was insistent. "Yeah... c'mon!" she exclaimed, laughing incredulously.

[More...]

California First Lady Maria Schriver, whom I like a lot, will be on Meet the Press today. She will say that her uncle Teddy Kennedy's death could spur action on health care.

Maria Shriver says the death of her uncle Sen. Edward Kennedy could provide momentum to the senator's lifetime effort to overhaul the nation's health care system.

Shriver says in an interview set to air Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that she thinks his passing may reinvigorate people's efforts to get it done.

I hope she's right.

The New York Times examines the various studies on the number of U.S. residents without health insurance and examines the reasons.

After noting that none of the proposed health care initiatives would cover undocumented residents (another false myth propogated by ignorant right wing opponents), it concludes:

If nothing is done to slow current trends, the number of people in this country without insurance or with inadequate coverage will continue to spiral upward. That would be a personal tragedy for many and a moral disgrace for the nation. It is also by no means cost-free. Any nation as rich as ours ought to guarantee health coverage for all of its residents.

Someone touted me to this article in The Atlantic about how we should be revising our health care system.

I disagree with almost every idea in it. Not surprisingly, a businessman wrote it. Everyone knows health insurance companies are a large part of our health care problem. But the writer's suggestions are far worse in my view.

Some of the worst of his proposals: Everybody pays for their own medical care personally -- no insurance except for catastrophic things, which would limited to events costing over $50k. How would people pay for their expenses up to that amount? They should use their savings or put it on a credit card. Unless they are dirt poor, and then the government would pay for all of it directly. Everyone would be required to have a Health Savings Account and contribute to it. What about Medicare? Abolish it of course, and let the elderly stop getting so many tests and procedures and pay for their own end of life care. What if they can't afford it? Whip out that credit card. [More...]

Jane at Firedoglake reports contributions to the ActBlue Fund for members of Congress who won't support a health care bill unless it has a public option have soared to over $300,000.

Crooks and Liars reports MoveOn has joined the effort. Think Progress says a SurveyUSA poll finds 77% of Americans support the public option.

Keep the contributions coming.

Not everyone, including journalists, understand the terms "public option", "single payer" and "universal health care." Media Matter has a primer with definitions for the media, reminding them that "Universal health care is different from the public option, which is different from single payer. Britain and Canada have very, very different health care systems."

Public Option:

The public option is a proposal included in the Senate health committee and House bills that would establish as one option among many a government-run health insurance plan. It would not be open to anyone who wishes to enroll in it, and those who are eligible would be able to choose it from a list of other, private options. CBO estimates that if the public option passes in the form envisioned by the House draft bill, only about 11 or 12 million people would be enrolled in it by 2019.

[More...]

The Wall St. Journal reports Democrats are discussing splitting up the health care bill. Here's what would pass first.

Next would come:

Does this satisfy anyone who wants the public option?