In an Op-Ed for Washington Times, no less. Here's the description:

One little-noticed proposal has attracted an ideologically breathtaking span of senators and seems to have been unjustly overlooked in the debate: the Healthy Americans Act, sponsored by liberal Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and conservative Republican Sen. Robert F. Bennett of Utah. The amazing list of 15 co-sponsors includes eight Democrats, from Bill Nelson of Florida to Maria Cantwell of Washington, and seven Republicans, from Bob Corker of Tennessee to Charles E. Grassley of Iowa.

I had heard about this bill but never took the time to look it up and research it. How is it possible we know so little about it? And why hasn't Mr. Obama invited these 15 senators to the White House to have them explain it better? Maybe he should before his speech Wednesday.

The basic idea of the proposal is, in effect, to "liquefy" everyone's current employer-provided health insurance policies -- i.e., require all employers to pay in cash to each employee the actual cost of that individual's insurance policy, and that extra compensation would have to be used by each employee to purchase health insurance policies. All those receiving this boost in pay would receive a tax deduction, varying in amount according to their income -- i.e., you get some or all of the tax deduction the employer currently gets for paying your insurance.

So, it's another backdoor way to get rid of the employer exclusion, yes?

Those employers who do not insure their employees would have to make an "employer shared-responsibility payment,"* the amount depending on their revenues and size of their work force, as would all self-employed individuals and all those who do not have insurance and can afford to make this payment.

All "self-employed individuals," eh? This looks like a recipe for, er, alternative forms of invoicing and payment, to me. For those "self-employed" who aren't actually unemployed, that is.

These new sources of revenue for the federal government, plus higher revenues owing to elimination of various currently applicable tax deductions and credits, would finance the cost of subsidizing the premiums of those who cannot afford to pay for private health insurance -- 100 percent for those at or below poverty level and a sliding scale of subsidies on up into the middle and upper-middle class.

And here's the most remarkable fact: The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committee have determined that the plan would be deficit neutral during its first two years (spending would be offset by these increased tax revenues), after which time, the plan would generate net revenue. Meaning, it would help reduce the deficit, rather than increase it ... amazing!

Except that "revenue neutral" is a FAIL. We pay nearly twice as much for health care as the next country with worse outcomes! Any solution that doesn't save money is wrong!

I understand that there are serious offsetting concerns to this Wyden-Bennett proposal -- the most serious being it may be risky to put too much faith in the ability of individuals to make the right choices when it comes to the complex world of health insurance options. (Remember Grandma not being able to figure out all those complicated prescription-drug insurance policy options?)

Yeah, because the insurance companies deliberately obfuscate everything to deny people car after collecting the premiums. That's why "complex world of health insurance options" is complex_{MR SUBLIMINAL Lanny, you tool} With single payer, of course, Grandma doesn't have to be confused about anything; she's on Medicare. And Medicare Part D, which is confusing, is confusing only because it's not a pure single payer system like the rest of Medicare.

But the bill sets up state "health help agencies" to explain, coordinate, and make all private insurance options available** -- plus private-market insurance brokers are still going to be around to offer advice and assist in making the right choice for each individual or family.

This is the sweetener for the "creative class." They get to run more call centers, and also collect the broker fees -- because it's all about the fees, baby!

In short: With such a broad, bipartisan group of senators to work with, the Wyden-Bennett plan may be a better place to start than what we have seen to date.

Well, it looks like a way to make the little guys with insurance pay for the little guys without insurance, to me. But I guess that's a feature, not a bug.

NOTE * I love that "shared responsibility" talking point that the White House is propagating. I'm not seeing the banksters take a whole lot of responsibility, are you? Or the insurance company CEOs? So, whenever I hear "shared responsibility," I mentally translate to "Bend over, please. This won't hurt a bit."

NOTE ** Notice the complete lack of any enforcement powers. Just like the toothless Ombudsmen in HR3200, except privatized.