But wait!! Weren't we supposed to be worrying that President O wouldn't be moving quickly enough on healthcare??

Oh, yeah, that was earlier today. . .

With gas prices now about $2/gallon lower than at their peak this summer, they should consider adding a 50 cent per gallon gas tax to pay for this. Gas would still be $1.50 cheaper than it was six months ago, and the tax would generate about $70M per year. It would have the added benefit of heading off sharply increased consumption.

Bold moves rule - let's go!

Breaking News: I'm worried for Biden.

It drives me crazy (too bad psychiatric care isn't included in my high-risk pool coverage) every time I read that we can't afford health insurance reform because of the recession. Au contraire - we can't afford NOT to build this long delayed part of our social safety net.

In our consumer-driven economy lack of confidence leads in a straight line to a deeper recession. Health insurance reform to provide universal access will greatly ease the economic insecurity of millions of Americans.

Health insurance reform is also critical to our economic health, to the extent that we as a nation devote an excessive share of GDP to health care. It is not purely altruistic - if it were no politician would bother with it. Reform can build in incentives for preventative care, as well as reduce administrative costs, and hopefully deliver higher care at lower costs, as other developed nations have experienced.

the more health care reform gets talked about, fleshed out, debated, the better. I don't know if a comprehensive plan can be part of a stimulus package, but the more congress and the executive talk about it, the more a bill starts to take shape, gets picked apart, etc, the more chance it has of actually happening......keep it in the conversation.

and, tying any auto bailout to clean cars is a no-brainer.

and, I am just so happy that all of this is in our national conversatiobn. and will continue to be.

Wait, just to make sure I understand:

The idea being floated is to extend large tax credits to employers providing health coverage for the first time.

I'm a partner in a small ($5+ mil per year gross) business that has provided high quality health care coverage for our employees for fifteen years, because it's the right thing to do. Of course, our competitors who didn't do so -- and there were many -- had a competitive advantage over us. Now they get a new competitive advantage: large tax credits for coming late to the party, tax credits we won't get.

And . . . this is fair because?

If Hillary wants it it's very likely that she already has it (GE deal-making). I don't mind Hillary in this role because A]Barack Obama is the President and she'd be working for him (meaning she couldn't try any power plays because he could remove her)- this was my main beef with her as potential VP, because Obama would have been stuck with her if she tried any power plays. B]I think she could be pretty effective at it (as long as she accepts the Obama Administrations FP guide lines and not her neo-con tough talking. This hardass talk might suit her well in the role now though because folks will know what counsel she'd be giving Obama, and she'd have the gravitas of the Clinton name.

I wouldn't like it because I believe Bill sold future influence when he was "giving speeches" for big money and sitting on the Clinton Library donor list.

Also with many Clintonites finding roles in the Obama White House will there be any issue there. Will they be able to see her as the SOS and not First Lady.

I could see Hillary wanting this role for the reason that she has always had designs on the White House and was using her Senate seat as a stepping stone. With Presidential plans put on hold for at least eight years (at which point she'd be 68yo), she might want a more active role. I think she could be a real asset and strong voice in the Senate, but it all depends on what she wants.

A huge question remains around the reason for this from Obama's perspective. If this is true, I wonder if a major shock awaits us in terms of a braod-spectrum unity cabinet. Including Hillary after already proving she was not needed as veep to win to my mind signals a radical "Team of Rivals" strategy. If the Hillary move pans out, look for more three or more Republicans in the cabinet, and if 60 Senators is off the table, Lieberman as well.

A theory I've been kicking around - Biden only serves one term and Hillary is the VP on the ticket for 2012. Hillary as SOS will give her real world international experience for the VP job. I could see Biden then moving on to SOS, the job he wanted in the first place (if he couldn't be President).

Thinking about this last night, if the news that Hillary Clinton may become Obama's SoS is accurate, this puts a whole new spin on Max Baucus' entry into the healthcare policy area the other day. Obama is going to need a powerful and influential pointman to shepherd healthcare legislation through the Senate. One that can work across the aisle, and will have Kennedy's back if he gets too sick to lead the way.

Everyone, including me, has figured that this point person would be Hillary. After all, this is the one issue that she's personally been closest to for almost 2 decades now. But if she leaves the Senate to join an Obama administration, Max Baucus is perfect for this role. He's got friends on both sides of the aisle, has a history of bipartisanship (much to some of our annoyance at times), and as head of the Senate Finance Committee, he's in the best possible position to ensure that legislation doesn't get derailed in the Senate.

I'm still not convinced that Hillary would join an Obama administration, but it sure is a hell of a puzzle piece that fits in with other pieces as this things starts to take shape.

Color me intrigued. And impressed if this thing comes to pass. If Obama's not careful, I'm going to start expecting big things from him. :)

Why would health care reform require more money?
The US is already spending 16% of the GDP 2.3 trillion $ on health care. growth rate is 2x inflation (7%). and projected to reach 20% of GDP in 2016. In most western-European countries it's 10%. Why think about spending more money on it, rather than CUTTING spending and still maintain adequate care. The United States spends six times more per capita on the administration of the health care system than Western European nations. Here's the obvious place to CUT spending. Create simple universal standards. And please, the nurses do NOT need to measure my weight, my temperature, nor my height when I just want a prescription for my allergies. There needs to be open competition. Either the government sets all prices, or I should be able to get a price estimate. I always ask, never get an answer, just that my insurance will pay for it (and who pays the insurance company).