Media coverage of President Obama's healthcare proposal (which included reports on all three network newscasts) generally gives it little chance of becoming law. The plan was swiftly confronted with GOP charges that it amounts to a "government takeover" that "slashes Medicare for our seniors," while Democrats are described in a front-page New York Times (2/23, A1, Stolberg, Herszenhorn) story as taking "a wait-and-see attitude." Obama, the AP (2/23, Alonso-Zaldivar, Werner) reports, "knows his chances aren't looking...promising," and "realistically, he's just hoping to win a big enough slice to silence the talk of a failing presidency." The AP adds that "privately, a senior White House official sought to lower expectations" for Obama's comprehensive plan, "saying a solid single is better than striking out swinging for the fences." Publicly, meanwhile, David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Obama, "said the president had no intention of scaling back his vision -- unless forced."

        While the Wall Street Journal reports that the plan would add about $75 billion to the cost of the measure passed by the Senate, the CBS Evening News (2/22, lead story, 1:30, Couric), which led with the story, reported that "this plan is $200 billion more than the existing Senate version," and that it "will not be an easy sell." CBS (Reid) added that "the White House claims they're going to pay for that $200 billion mostly with increases in taxes on the wealthy. But it will be a tough sell and that's not the only hurdle in the President's new plan. He's also proposing a brand new federal board called the Health Insurance Rate Authority and he wants to give the Federal government the power to block insurance companies from unreasonable rate increases."

        USA Today (2/23, Fritze) reports that the plan "includes several changes Obama hopes will ease friction among Democrats that has slowed progress on the effort for weeks." On its front page, the Washington Post (2/23, A1, MacGillis, Goldstein) says that "Obama's proposal takes the more modest Senate bill as his basic framework. But, in what is perhaps his proposal's most notable feature, he scales back the Senate bill's main revenue source, a tax on high-cost insurance that he has strongly supported. Instead, he would impose a new tax on the unearned income of the wealthy." Obama "would expand subsidies to help working-class and middle-class families afford coverage. To win over some of the bill's strongest skeptics -- seniors and state officials -- he would expand the Medicare drug benefit for seniors and Medicaid assistance for budget-strapped states."

        The Los Angeles Times (2/23, Levey) reports that the plan does "not include a government insurance plan -- or public option." The measure's cost "would be around $950 billion over the next decade, offset by a mix of new taxes and cuts in federal Medicare spending. ... Additionally, the president would give the government new authority to regulate the premiums charged by private insurers, a new proposal the White House made in response to steep rate hikes in California and elsewhere in recent months."

The AP (2/23, Murphy) reports that the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) warned on Monday that "President Obama's latest push for a healthcare overhaul could drive health plans around the country into insolvency." Under the President's plans, HHS and state regulators would have "the power to regulate health insurers like a public utility." BCBSA "warned against separating premium reviews from those that state regulators conduct to make certain health insurers have enough money to pay claims. Such a separation could lead to 'multi-plan insolvencies.'"

        The Wall Street Journal explains that America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) attributed recent health insurance premium increases to higher medical costs. AHIP president Karen Ignagni said, "Regulating premiums won't do anything to reduce the soaring costs of medical care. ... This would be like capping the prices automakers can charge consumers, but letting the steel, rubber and technology manufacturers charge the automakers whatever they want."

        Along with insurers, "state insurance regulators reacted coolly Monday to provisions in the new White House healthcare overhaul plan that would the give the secretary of Health and Human Services power to deny excessive premium increases," CQ HealthBeat reports.

ABC World News (2/22, story 3, 1:40, Sawyer) reported that Democrats and the White House "have a strategy for doing this [healthcare reform] without Republican votes if Thursday does not result in the legislative kumbaya that there probably will not be." Similarly, NBC Nightly News (2/22, story 3, 3:00, Guthrie) reported that "if a bipartisan breakthrough doesn't come, Democrats appear poised to use special Senate rules to push the bill through."

        The Washington Post (2/23, Kornblut, Shear) notes that "White House officials say" reconciliation "is the likeliest outcome if they hope to advance anything resembling the healthcare proposals already on the table." A "senior administration official" tells the Post, "This is our last, best hope for comprehensive healthcare reform." The Post also quotes "one senior administration official" saying that "this is like the 'last exit for gas' sign on the interstate."

        The Los Angeles Times (2/23, Levey) similarly reports that Pfeiffer "said the administration was preparing to move forward without GOP lawmakers, if necessary," as "Democratic leaders" develop "a legislative strategy in which the House would vote on the Senate bill and then both chambers would separately pass a series of changes, likely along the lines of the ones proposed by the president." Pfeiffer "said no decision had been made about using budget reconciliation, but he said the president's proposal was developed with that option in mind." Bloomberg News (2/23, Donmoyer, Gaouette) also notes that "Pfeiffer said the possibility of using reconciliation played a part in the design of the White House plan and gives Democrats 'flexibility.'"

        The Wall Street Journal says chances of success for reconciliation remain unclear, mainly because of the House's narrow margin for passage last November (220-215) and the possibility that some Democrats may now oppose the President.