and those EYES! Why, Marquis....what big EYES you haz!

In all seriousness, this is a very thought-provoking idea. I'm curious to see what the comments will bring to the discussion.

This must become a ground swell. The technical part (write a plan) isn't the hard part. Go tell you friends to tell their plans. Folks should be calling their congressmen and asking for this simple version. As to adding more years later, if the first decade is added, the others will become inevitable, but making it part of the initial change provides too much ammunition to the insurance lobby.

The "we've already lost" bs is propaganda, from Business Week (you know, very progressive, right?)

Sorry, that's just too easy. Too pat. Progressives aren't BW's audience; business people are.

Did you read the entire article? There's a fair amount of supporting detail, including information that supports progressive arguments -- such as details about the behind-the-curtain efforts of insurers and their tie to certain Senators such as Mark Warner, who, in exchange for information provided from United Health, or that the "consulting" outfit Lewin Group, relied on by Rethugs and Blue Cross Democrats for cost figures, is owned by UnitedHealth. Here is another excerpt:

During the UnitedHealth road show in July, Democrat after Democrat clambered into the company's promotional vehicle beneath a sign declaring: "Connecting You to a World of Care." Judah C. Sommer, who heads the company's Washington office, looked on with satisfaction. "This puts a halo on us," he explained. "It humanizes us."

And that Democratic proposal to tax insurance companies? It seems to be fading after the industry said it would raise rates for workers and their families.

UnitedHealth's relationship with Democratic Senator Mark R. Warner of Virginia illustrates the industry's subtle role. Elected last fall, Warner, a former governor of his state and a wealthy ex-businessman, received a choice assignment as the Senate Democrats' liaison to business. The rookie senator landed in the center of a high-visibility political drama—and in a position to earn the gratitude of a health insurance industry that has donated more than $19 million to federal candidates since 2007, 56% of which has gone to Democrats.

UnitedHealth has periodically served as a valuable extension of Warner's office, providing research and analysis to support his initiatives. Corporations and trade groups play this role in all kinds of contexts, but few do it with the effectiveness of the insurers. In June, Warner introduced legislation expanding government-backed Medicare and Medicaid coverage for hospice stays for the terminally ill and other treatment in life's final stages. The issue isn't a top UnitedHealth priority. But the corporation wanted to help Warner with his argument that in the long run, better hospice coverage would save money. UnitedHealth prepared a report for lawmakers finding that 27% of Medicare's budget is now spent during the last year of older patients' lives, often on questionable hospital tests and procedures. Expanded hospice coverage and other services could save $18 billion over 10 years, UnitedHealth asserted.

When Warner went to the Senate floor on June 15 to offer his bill, he cited those exact figures. He thanked the company for its support and put a letter from UnitedHealth applauding him in the Congressional Record....

Obama's promise to boost competition and lower costs by having the government play a much broader role in health coverage has been steadily compromised because of the resistance of such Democrats as Warner. "There are different ways to skin this and get competition" in the insurance market, Warner says.

Warner and other opponents of a public plan have relied on an estimate by John Sheils, an actuary who says that 88 million people, or 56% of those with employer-provided coverage, would desert private insurance for a government-run program. That would destabilize the marketplace and potentially kill the private insurance industry, according to Sheils, who works for the Lewin Group, a corporate consulting firm in Falls Church, Va.

UnitedHealth lobbyists routinely cite Lewin's work, as do Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), the second-ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House Republican Whip. Left out of these testimonials or buried in the fine print is that a UnitedHealth unit owns the Lewin Group and thus is ultimately responsible for Sheils' paycheck. In an interview, Sheils says UnitedHealth gives him and the Lewin firm complete independence: "We call it like we see it," he adds.

Some Democrats differ. Says Representative Pete Stark, the liberal California Democrat who chairs the House Ways & Means health subcommittee: "The Lewin Group's so-called analysis is suspect." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that the Sheils-Lewin figure is far too high.

UnitedHealth brings a mixed record to its role helping to guide health reform. The company has repeatedly hit smaller employers and consumers with double-digit rate hikes in recent years, far greater than the overall rate of inflation.

A few points:

1) The article includes plenty of information that is similar or identical to what progressives have been saying about such outfits as Lewin Group and UnitedHealth.

2) From BW's perspective, and that of its audience, this could well be viewed positively. For progressives in the fight, it is not. The point is that the information is there.

3) The article isn't shy about pointing out such practices as UnitedHealth's huge price hikes on small employers and individual consumers.

You just can't dismiss this as corporate/MSM propaganda, or a disinfo campaign to kill it before it's over.

On the face of it, it's false. HealthCos are spending a lot of money ot fight this as we speak. They wouldn't if they thought it was a good deal for them.

Not the point. HealthCos have already gotten a better deal for themselves in the various bills thus far marked up, discussed, or voted out of committee because of the money they have already spent. They will continue to spend money, up until the bill is signed (and after), to try to weaken it further and get an even better deal for themselves.

Trying to kill it -- or, more accurately, to kill the parts they don't like -- is simply part of the strategy. The more they gin up right-wing opposition to Granny-killing "just like Hitler" ObamaCare, the more they believe they will have leverage ("see how many people oppose the takeover?") to weaken the bill into something that's not bad for them, or even actively good for them since it forces consumers to buy plans from them, and provides taxpayer dollars to subsidize those who can't afford the exorbitant prices. In other words, those who can pay UnitedHealth will have to, and for those who can't pay UnitedHealth, well, then the rest of us will pay them again through our tax dollars. A lovely wealth transfer from Joe and Jane Taxpayer to UnitedHealth & co. Bush did it for Halliburton and Exxon, and the Blue Cross Democrats will try very hard to do it for UnitedHealth and Cigna.

I think liberals need to show more spine and fight this thing tooth and nail to the bottom of the 9th, not quit and go home when *anybody* declares it doomed.

Bottom line: Fight harder.

Absolutely no arguments there. But we may as well know what we're up against. Putting our heads in the sand -- including dismissing news we don't like as corporate-media MSM disinfo -- isn't going to help.

It's not that we are winning but we can win. It is not over. Far from it. Congress will be debating this until December.

Why on earth would you possibly quit now?????????