Steve Benen wrote: "... the new White House Office of Health Reform."

Mike Allen wrote: " ... to try for health reform more ambitious than people are thinking."

I know it is useless to point this out, but none of this has anything to do with "health reform".

Nobody is proposing to "reform" anybody's "health".

A relatively small part of what Obama has talked about does address "health care reform", i.e. changes to the actual health care system (such as computerizing records) to improve health care itself.

But basically what this entire issue is about is not "health" or even "health care" -- it is about medical insurance, and about who will pay for medical services.

It would add clarity to the discussion if we referred to it accurately as "medical insurance reform". I think that some people prefer euphemisms like "health reform" because they obfuscate the fact that the basic problem that needs to be addressed is the role of the for-profit insurance industry in paying for medical services.

Once you clearly identify the for-profit medical insurance industry as the problem, it becomes a little too clear for some people's comfort that the solution is nonprofit, universal, single-payer medical insurance under open, transparent, accountable public administration.

Sure, Tom Daschle will get some healthcare reform done. But - since his leaving the Senate - he has been the major health insurance lobbyist in DC!

So, if you were looking for single payer universal healthcare - or even a plan tilted toward the consumer - forget about it. The health insurance industry has invested millions in Daschle - here comes their payday.

I am hopeful that something positive and beneficial to the most people posible regarding healthcare will come out of the Obama administration. This is a good sign, but it is only a sign. My hope is that any changes focus on doctors and patients rather than big pharm and hmo executives. For too long, profit margins have driven the industry. Dollars earned via human suffering.

Secular Animist, I'll take this one up--not on the semantics of what we should call it but on the source of the problem and what shape reform should take.

To state that our health system issues are merely a matter of for-profit medical insurance is short-sighted--not wrong, but incomplete. There are serious quality-of-care issues that a health reform effort must address (such as the 98,000 Americans who die every year from medical error), not to mention such issues as health IT, coordination of care, and comparative effectiveness research. Reform of the for-profit insurance industry (in terms of stricter regulations and the prohibition against denying coverage for pre-existing conditions) are definitely a part of this, but it's not the whole pie, not by a long shot.

If you read Daschle's book (which contains an excellent history of health reform efforts in the United States) you'll see that he is serious about reforming the system, improving the quality of care, improving the efficiency of care (no small matter) and ensuring political feasibility. It's not as neat and tidy as some proposals--Rahm Emanuel's brother Zeke, the chief bioethicist at NIH, has penned an excellent and compelling case for single-payer coverage--but it's doable, and that's VERY promising.

Hope President-elect is choosing the right persons for the government offices. But I guess Daschle and Lambrew are good choices for health related positions.

Daschle is a good choice for this job.

As an aside, shouldn't Tom Daschle thank Harry Reid for making him seem charismatic?

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

We'll be discussing Daschle's challenges at 5 PM New York time Tuesday December 23 on News Talk Online on Paltalk.com.

Please go to www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the Join The Show link to participate.

Thanks,

Gary