The bipartisan Senate committee on negotiating on health care met in secret to "compromise." AP is reporting the following:

• participants were on track to exclude a requirement many congressional Democrats seek for businesses to offer coverage to their workers
• no provision for a government insurance option, despite President Barack Obama's support for such a plan
• considering a tax of as much as 35 percent on very high-cost insurance policies, part of an attempt to rein in rapid escalation of costs
• likely to be included in any deal was creation of a commission charged with slowing the growth of Medicare

Looks pretty much like a bipartisan sellout to the corporate interests. Without the possibility of opting into a government insurance option, costs will continue to spiral out of control, further threatening consumers with financial hardship and bankruptcy. Doubtful that this will do anything for those without insurance, or those who are under-insured.

This makes reconciliation with the the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bill, the Affordable Health Choices Act all the more important.

As a final outrage, our oldest, illest, most vulnerable Americans will be at increased risk for health care neglect, as so-called "health care reform" will be made at their expense - by slashing $50 Billion dollars from Medicare funding.

Dr. Stuart Shapiro, president of the Pennsylvania Health Care Association, described it as "an ugly shell game."

No sooner was the ink dry on the federal stimulus package, which provided millions of dollars to support care for the elderly in Pennsylvania, before Congress and the administration began to propose major cuts in Medicare to finance healthcare reform....In Pennsylvania, if the proposals currently on the table are enacted, these policies would result in an almost 10% reduction in cumulative payments over 10 years, or more than $2.1 billion.

It's said that all things old are new again, and that may well be the case with the parallels between Medicare and health care reform.

When Medicare was implemented in 1965, more than 50% of Americans over 65 had no health insurance; private insurance had failed to meet their needs and a compassionate society in the wealthiest nation on earth extended care to them.

Today, Medicare's success is in danger, ironically from private insurance companies.

The Center for Medicare Advocacy explains it this way:

Since 2003 the number and costs of private Medicare plans have increased exponentially as a result of the design of Medicare Part D and "Medicare Advantage". Unlike plans to privatize Social Security, which were debated and largely rejected by lay people and professionals alike, the privatization of Medicare is well underway and has occurred largely without public knowledge or discussion. Medicare privatization and the billions of dollars being spent to subsidize private plans threaten the future of Medicare and the health and economic security the Medicare public program has provided for America’s older and disabled people and their families.

Medicare wasn't broken, but because of the ever-increasing private Medicare options, it is breaking. The myriad private plans are creating confusion and barriers to care for real people. The Center for Medicare Advocacy is contacted everyday by people who were inappropriately marketed to, people who did not understand what they were getting into, people who have been unable to get the health care services they need from their Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, and people who are "locked into" their MA plan. Further, the Center gets calls for help from people who thought they had MA "on top of" their regular Medicare and/or Medigap and are surprised to find out that is not true when the service or provider they need is not covered by their MA plan.

Medicare privatization costs taxpayers approximately $15 billion a year, while it hurts many people with Medicare and strangles the traditional Medicare program.

So, this could be a lose-lose situation across the board for health care consumers. Private insurance companies could keep their financial grip on captive consumers, under the pretense of "choice," as for-profit insurance companies devise ways to increase their profitability.

Wendell Potter explained one way that for-profit insurance companies are juicing their profits to increase shareholders' returns, executive compensation, and golden parachutes - by shifting consumers into "consumer-driven plans."

"...they're really plans that have very high deductibles, meaning that they're shifting a lot of the cost off health care from employers and insurers, insurance companies, to individuals. And a lot of people can't even afford to make their co-payments when they go get care, as a result of this.

Another way that the insurance companies insure their profitability is to employ battalions of clerks to find reasons to deny payments to those they insure to decrease "medical loss ratio:"

it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

There's too much at stake not to keep the pressure on. Keep making those calls to legislators, and tell them your personal story. Keep demanding that single-payer be considered, and that the media report on it.

Explain how your family will be affected by health care costs doubling every 9 years, by losing your insurance due to unemployment, by your employer reducing your insurance benefits, by under insurance or un-insurance - and more.

And please sign the petition.