Local health care news: 

►  In the Yakima H-R -- Health care reformers, protesters offer different views, tactics -- While a crowd of protesters denounced health care reform proposals in downtown Yakima on Saturday morning, a small band of reformers fanned out across the city and rang several hundred doorbells to try to win support from people who might be sitting on the fence. The two events -- one loud and boisterous, the other quiet and tactical -- provided contrasting images of the battle over health care that has come to define the domestic agenda of President Obama.  

►  In Sunday's Seattle Times -- Does Group Health hold answers in health care debate? -- Even some of Group Health's most ardent admirers warn that replicating the co-op would be difficult -- and replicating it quickly practically impossible. Creating health co-ops, after all, could involve building or assembling new organizations from scratch, including management, medical staff, clinics and customers. (Word.)

►  In today's NY Times -- Senate Democrats consider option to push through public plan option -- Senate Democrats say they are fleshing out plans to pass health legislation, particularly the option of a new government-run insurance program, with a simple majority, instead of the 60 votes ordinarily needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.

►  In today's Wall St. Journal -- New split emerges in health reform talks -- Not satisfied with dropping the public option, Republicans in the Senate's so-called "Gang of Six" are pressing to reduce the size of tax credits for families with incomes that are below three times the poverty rate. They would also like to trim back insurance mandates in hopes of lowering premiums that would have to be subsidized.

►  At Huffington Post -- Why is the Gang of Six is deciding health care for 300 million? (Robert Reich op-ed) --  I really don't get it. We have a Democratic president. Democrats control 60 votes in the Senate, enough to overcome a filibuster. It is possible to pass health care legislation through the Senate with 51 votes (that's what Bush did with his tax cut plan). Democrats control the House. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a tough lady. She has said there will be no health care reform bill without a public option. So why does the fate of health care rest in Republican Sen. Charles Grassley's hands, a man who refuses to debunk the rumor that the bill will spawn "death panels," empowered to decide whether the sick and old get to live or die.

►  In today's LA Times -- Health insurers get upper hand -- The leading overhaul proposals would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers -- many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies' premiums. "It's a bonanza," says one industry consultant.

►  Today from Reuters -- New deficit projections pose risk to Obama's agenda -- The White House budget office and the CBO will release updated economic forecasts and deficit estimates Tuesday, providing fiscal fodder to opponents of Obama's nearly $1 trillion healthcare overhaul plan.

►  From AP -- Rich NYC mayor: Drug CEOs don't make much money -- Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and their chief executives, declaring that they "don't make a lot of money" and shouldn't be scapegoats in the health care debate.

Health care opinion: 

►  In Sunday's NY Times -- The uninsured (editorial) -- If nothing is done to slow current trends, the number of people in this country without insurance or with inadequate coverage will continue to spiral upward. That would be a personal tragedy for many and a moral disgrace for the nation. It is also by no means cost-free. Any nation as rich as ours ought to guarantee health coverage for all of its residents.

►  In the News Tribune -- Health system needs emergency treatment (op-ed by Sen. Karen Keiser) -- Many of us have children who can’t find a job with decent affordable health care benefits. Some of us are locked into our jobs because we cannot afford to lose the health care benefits which seem to get hit with higher premiums, co-pay creep and ever-rising deductibles. Others work for employers that do not provide affordable health insurance options. None of us can be confident that the health care we have today will be there for us and our families tomorrow. That is why the current debate over national health care reform is so important.

►  In today's NY Times -- All the president's zombies (Paul Krugman column) -- debate over the “public option” in health care has been dismaying in many ways. Perhaps the most depressing aspect for progressives, however, has been the extent to which opponents of greater choice in health care have gained traction — in Congress, if not with the broader public — simply by repeating, over and over again, that the public option would be, horrors, a government program. Reaganomics has failed to deliver what it promised, yet people still believe that government intervention is bad, and leaving the private sector to its own devices is good.

►  At HorsesAss.org -- Controversial -- The fact that media outlets across the country are describing a proposal that has the support of 3/4 of Americans as “controversial” tells you everything you need to know about the influence that corporate special interests have over our political landscape.  

►  In the PS Business Journal -- Sticking to the facts on workers' compensation costs (Richard Davis column) -- Asking how Washington’s workers’ comp rates compare with others, the (L&I) department quickly dips into controversial territory... (and) leans on a study done by its Oregon counterpart to tout Washington’s performance. The Oregon piece ranks Washington’s 2008 workers’ comp rates 38th lowest in the nation. (The author, Richard Davis, is a business lobbyist. Criticizing the costs of government and advocating for lower business taxes is his stock and trade. The day he concedes that Washington is "competitive" is the day he cashes his final paycheck. That's why he hates the Oregon study and all other evidence that Washington is competitive. That's why he devotes many of his columns -- published regularly in several newspapers across the state -- to trying to refute the Oregon study. And that's why in this column he just happens to advocate for the business lobby's No. 1 workers' comp legislative priority for 2010, compromise-and-release, as the solution to lowering costs. Make up your own mind if you agree with Richard. All we're saying is, consider the source.)

►  From AP -- Oregon's minimum wage not likely to rise in 2010 -- The state's minimum wage, now $8.40 an hour, will be recalculated next month. An increase would be effective Jan. 1. Inflation, however, is in check, and the Oregon minimum wage is tied to the Consumer Price Index, a measure of U.S. inflation. (Washington's minimum wage, $8.55 an hour, is also tied to the CPI and L&I will determine our increase, if any, at the end of September.)

►  In today's Columbian -- Dropout candidate returns from California to 15th LD contest -- After coming in second in the primary, Democrat John (Jobs) Gotts has decided to return from launching a business in Palo Alto to run against incumbent Republican Rep. David Taylor.

►  In today's Everett Herald -- Teabagger runs for seat in state legislature -- Elizabeth Scott begins her Republican challenge to Rep. Marko Liias (D-Mukilteo) in the 2010 race in the 21st District.

►  In today's Seattle Times -- Merit pay for teachers would end fight on pay (editorial) -- Teacher strikes, or even the threat of them, disrupt the stability schools need. Merit pay for teachers is the best way to avoid perennial contract talks that end up with eleventh hour strike threats.