But some of the early media coverage seems to find it encouraging that the Baucus bill pleases almost no one. The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly presents that view today ("From Finance Chief, a Bill That May Weather the Blows"), with the lead: "On the surface, it appears that no one is happy with Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)--and that may be the best news President Obama has had in months."

What exactly is the good news? Connolly explains that liberals unions "fumed," but more importantly, "the fragile coalition of major industry leaders and interest groups central to refashioning the nation's $2.5 trillion health-care system remains intact." These "influential players" have not found "reasons to kill the effort." Quite the opposite: "Most enticing was the prospect of 30 million new customers." Well, that is good news--if you happen to believe that pleasing health insurance companies is the key to passing meaningful reform of that industry. Here you see the worldview of the Washington Post in action.

Meanwhile, USA Today's front page headline in the print edition (9/17/09) is "Bill Seen as Step in the 'Right Direction.'" This is a strange conclusion to reach about a bill that no one seems to like. The "right direction" comment was made by Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican included in Baucus' Gang of Six, who the paper tells us isn't even sure she'll support the Baucus plan anyway. On their website USA Today has changed the headline to read, "Bill Elates Few but Seen as Progress"-- an improvement, but still a strange way to describe the state of the debate. Unless, of course, one sees Max Baucus, Olympia Snowe or the insurance industry as the most important voices in that debate.

Racing to regain control of the health-care debate, two top administration officials signaled Sunday that the White House may be willing to jettison a controversial government-run insurance plan favored by liberals.

In Beltay mediaspeak, "regain control" must mean doing something that right-wing Democrats and Republicans want. The Post's Dan Balz already made this recommendation about the public option, writing on August 12, "Some of his staunchest allies believe that course would be prudent and might change the dynamic of the debate in the administration's favor." And on the roundtable segment on ABC's This Week on August 9, host George Stephanopoulos wondered if Obama would accept a watered-down bill in order to break with the "Howard Dean wing of the party." This notion was seconded by panelist Cokie Roberts, with right-wing columnist Peggy Noonan chiming in to say, "Maybe it would be good for the President if the left got absolutely furious about something."

So the health reform debate has shifted even further to the right--exactly where the corporate media wanted it.

The idea of a federal, single-payer system patterned on those in Europe and Canada, long a dream of the political left, is now virtually off the table.

One might well reach such a conclusion if you only talked to the people Levey quoted in his article:

-"Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, a leading trade group whose members helped kill the Clinton administration's healthcare campaign in the early 1990s."
-"Stuart Butler, vice president for domestic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation"
-Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa)
-"Todd Stottlemyer, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, which was also instrumental in defeating the Clinton plan."

Perhaps for balance, there are two liberals primarily talking about the need for consensus: Ron Pollack of Families USA and UC Berkeley political scientist Jacob Hacker.

And in the no-reason-to-quote-because-they-might-as-well-not exist-department:

At the same time, advocates for a single-payer system, including the California Nurses Association, have vowed to continue pushing the idea next year along with many Democrats on Capitol Hill.

And in Sunday's Washington Post, Ceci Connolly writes under the rather blunt headline: "U.S. 'Not Getting What We Pay For'; Many Experts Say Healthcare System Inefficient, Wasteful." Post readers learn that "among physicians, insurers, academics and corporate executives from across the ideological spectrum, there is remarkably broad consensus on what ought to be done."

But the spectrum of sources in the report are not nearly as broad, and their preferred solutions reflect that-- a focus on preventive care, electronic records and so on. While those ideas have their benefits, what about advocates for a single-payer system? Or what about strong critics of the health insurance giants, whose ideas for reform are given a hearing in the Post report?

These article suffer from the same problem: There is an obvious healthcare crisis in this country, and the solution that has worked in other countries to expand access to services and cut costs as well is one that the political establishment still rejects. Thus the corporate media must reject it as well.