Surprisingly, from the NYT

Robert Pear, in the NYT:

WASHINGTON — At the heart of President Obama’s drive to rein in health costs is a proposal for federal review and regulation of health insurance premiums, with a new agency empowered to block excessive rate increases.

State officials are leery of the proposal, which raises a host of questions: How would Congress define “excessive”? How would the new federal power relate to state insurance regulation?

The proposal has great political appeal. But experts see a serious potential problem: Federal officials will focus on holding down premiums while state officials focus on the solvency of insurers, the ultimate consumer protection.

The president made a big deal about requested rate hikes from a Blue Cross company in California because it suited his agenda. So he highlighted a request, not a rate hike. He didn't mention that the request most likely wouldn't be approved, or that there were already lawsuits to limit any increase. Also not mentioned are the reasons for the request.

Should Obama get his desired Insurance Rate Ministry?:

“You can’t separate the underlying solvency of companies from the rates they charge,” said Sean Dilweg, the insurance commissioner in Wisconsin. “The federal proposal would be a huge pre-emption of decisions that states have made over their history.”

....Insurance commissioners said they fully supported efforts to expand coverage and rein in health costs. But they said it would be risky to hold down premiums before costs were under control. And they do not expect the federal legislation to drive down costs anytime soon.

Sandy Praeger of Kansas, one of several insurance commissioners who met with Mr. Obama at the White House last week, said: “From a consumer protection standpoint, the most important thing we do is ensure the solvency of companies. We would strenuously resist not having the ability to approve rates or having the commissioners’ oversight of rates overturned.”

Course, maybe that's the point. Maybe Obama's intention is to gently strangle the insurance companies, so that Big Brother can step in to save the day when the bodies hit the ground.

Which makes it all the more important: call, write, fax, or send a pigeon to your representative. Now is the time. It can be short, simple, and to the point: this bill will be bad for the country; they need to start over.

***Update:
The Hill has been keeping track. Here's a list of the undecideds and the leaners. If any of these are your rep, it's even more important that you contact them:

Leaning No
Michael Arcuri (N.Y.) (Y)

Undecided
Brian Baird (Wash.)
Marion Berry (Ark.) * (Y)
John Boccieri (Ohio) *
Dennis Cardoza (Calif.) * (Y)
Kathleen Dahlkemper (Pa.) * (Y)
Steve Driehaus (Ohio) * (Y)
Bart Gordon (Tenn.) *
Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio) (Y)
Ron Kind (Wis.) (Y)
Dan Maffei (N.Y.) (Y)
Scott Murphy (N.Y.)
Solomon Ortiz (Texas) * (Y)
Tom Perriello (Va.) * (Y)
Nick Rahall (W.Va.) * (Y)
John Spratt (S.C.) * (Y)
Bart Stupak (Mich.) * (Y)
John Tanner (Tenn.) *

Leaning Yes
Russ Carnahan (Mo.) (Y)
Jim Oberstar (Minn.) * (Y)

No comment
Mike Doyle (Pa.) * (Y)