The US Chamber's role in the health care and regulatory reform fights is profiled in an AP story. The wire service says, "The Chamber has emerged as a multitasking, multimillion-dollar defender of the private sector against presidential initiatives."  The article looks at our grassroots and advertising efforts to fight against a government-run health care plan and our success in delaying the White House's plan to create a consumer finance protection agency.  It also notes our "ambitious" $100 million campaign to defend free enterprise because, as Bruce Josten says, "You've got an administration pushing the federal government into a bigger and bigger footprint."

The administration is losing support for health care reform among senior citizens.  Barely one-third of seniors support a health-care overhaul, several polls found, as proposals to squeeze more than $500 billion out of Medicare has fueled fears that insuring younger Americans will come at the expense of elder care.  The administration is reaching out to skeptical seniors with today’s launch of a "myth-busting" website and public appearances by the president.

The fight over health care increasingly seems like a contest about what scares Americans more, the government or insurance companies.  This week, MoveOn and The Club for Growth are launching multi-million dollar, ad campaigns on the opposite sides of the issue and the public is divided over whom to trust.  In a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll that asked who they would rather have make tough decisions about patients,  40% said insurance companies and 40% said government.

The Wall Street Journal reports that "A proposal to tax generous health plans could ensnare a broader swath of employers and workers whose benefits aren't necessarily gold-plated." Also from the WSJ, for public-plan proponents, the best way to avoid losing a debate; is to not have a debate: "after a series of contentious town-hall meetings, some Democratic lawmakers are thinking twice about holding large public gatherings. Instead, they are opting for smaller sessions, holding meetings by phone or inviting constituents for one-on-one office hours."

and in the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson looks at the true health-care status quo:

One of the bewildering ironies of the health-care debate is that President Obama claims to be attacking the status quo when he's actually embracing it. Ever since Congress created Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health politics has followed a simple logic: Expand benefits and talk about controlling costs. That's the status quo, and Obama faithfully adheres to it...

Obama would perpetuate this system. No president has spoken more forcefully about the need to control costs. Failure, he's argued, would expand federal budget deficits, raise out-of-pocket health costs and squeeze take-home pay (more compensation would go to insurance). All true. But Obama's program would do little to reduce costs and would increase spending by expanding subsidized insurance...
 
Just imagine what the health-care debate would be like if it truly focused on controlling spending...We're not having this debate. To engage it would require genuine presidential leadership, because, admittedly, these proposals would be hugely controversial. Medicare recipients -- present and future -- would feel threatened. Existing doctor-patient relationships might be disrupted. Spending limits would inspire fears of short-changed care. Hospitals, doctors and device manufacturers would object. Obama took a pass. He simply claims that his plan will do things it won't. What he's offering is an enlarged version of the status quo that, as he says, is already unsustainable.