It was a long day of commentary for many health policy bloggers, who concluded that President Barack Obama signaled his intention to push forward with the current proposals, though who will score the most political points from the seven hour health care summit remains contentious.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “The big story out of the summit is not that Republicans and Democrats extended their hands in friendship, but that the White House has dug its heels into the dirt. The Democrats are not taking reconciliation off the table, they are not paring back the bill, and they are not extricating themselves from the issue. They think they’re right on this one, and they’re going to try and pass this bill.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn: “Yes, there was some common ground. But not a lot. And while Obama offered to accommodate the Republicans further on issues like malpractice reform, I didn’t hear the Republicans offering to reciprocate. Their mantra at the end seemed to be the same as it was at the start: Scrap the bill and start over… [Obama] believes, as he has long believed, that ‘baby steps’ won’t do.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein: “Despite 7 hours of talking, Thursday’s White House health care summit ultimately did nothing to change the dynamics of the debate. President Obama, at least for now, ruled out the idea of scrapping the current health care bill and taking ‘baby steps.’ And Republicans won’t be willing to sign on to the current health care bill with a few mere cosmetic add ons to create the illusion that Obama wants to integrate GOP ideas.”

Time’s Kate Pickert says, “Let no one question that President Obama is still hoping to push health care reform across the finish line – he stayed put and moderated the entire seven and a half hour bipartisan summit on the issue today.”

Critical Condition’s James Capretta: “The president is trying to make it seem like the only cuts in the Medicare program he is advocating are for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. That’s demonstrably not true. The chief actuary has raised concerns about the payment-rate reductions that the Democrats are pushing for hospitals in the traditional program. He believes those cuts will harm access to care. That’s one of the points Rep. Paul Ryan made earlier.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky: “This morning, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) refused to say what Republicans would be willing to ‘to give in return’ if Democrats accepted GOP proposals after the bipartisan health care summit. Cornyn insisted that the Democrats must scrap the current legislation and start from scratch if they hope to win bipartisan support.”

The New Health Dialogue’s Joanne Kenen says Republicans used almost identical talking points after the summit as before it began, and notes: “Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell urged the president to scrap the whole bill and predicted not a single Republican would vote for the bill. We’ll see what happens, but the ball, and the bill, may be back in the Democrats’ court.”

The Huffington Post rounded up a group of experts and commentators, including the National Women’s Health Network’s Amy Allina, who was one of few who mentioned statements on abortion: “I understand why the President didn’t want to spend the small amount of time they have left refuting all the misstatements that Boehner made. But unfortunately, the result is that the falsehoods were stated and the facts weren’t. And it’s also unfortunate that none of the prochoice members of Congress at the summit has found time to point out how damaging the abortion restrictions in the bill will be for the health of women and our families.”

Cato’s health care experts live-blogged the meeting.

The Heritage Foundation’s health experts provided reaction. Nina Owcharenko argued, “Simply adjusting the magnitude of these proposals or adding new ‘conservative’ provisions as suggested in the President’s latest proposal does not change their fundamental direction.”

The Daily Caller’s Jon Ward live-blogged the summit.

And TPM’s Josh Marshall looks at reported live streams, which were lower than the State of the Union, and notes, “But over the years I’ve gotten a pretty good feel for how different kinds of political events bump traffic on TPM. And there was a much bigger bump than I would have expected for an event like this.”

Commentary is accelerating as bloggers get ready for Thursday’s bipartisan health care summit.

Time’s Kate Pickert posts the list of expected attendees.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein looks toward tomorrow’s event and doesn’t forsee much Republican compromise, arguing, “Republicans got these substantive concessions [to the current health overhaul bills]  not by making a deal, but by not making a deal.”

The National Journal’s Marilyn Werber-Serafini queries her experts about Obama’s new health reform plan.  Responders came out in droves, including Michael Cannon, Paul Ginsburg, Robert Greenstein, Karen Ignagni, Darrell Kirch, Elizabeth McGlynn, Sally Pipes, John Sheils, Andy Stern, Janet Trautwein and Grace-Marie Turner.

James Capretta of the New Atlantis thinks public opinion is working against Democrats, and they seem not to care: “The White House and its allies have apparently made their choice. They are going to try to jam their bill through, despite overwhelming public opposition. This will have the entirely predictable result of triggering a backlash of epic proportions. Voters will be beyond irate at the arrogance of it all.”

Heritage’s Curtis Dubay says Obama’s plan represents “taxes, taxes everywhere” — and lists them.

John Goodman takes to the Health Affairs Blog to argue for selling health insurance across state lines, saying it would expand consumer protetctions.

And Economix’s Casey Mulligan asks if Americans are “overpaying Grandpa” and argues that the amount of subsidies seniors receive doesn’t reflect their often higher income levels.  He concludes, “The question for the future of Medicare is this: Are families ready to triple their spending on the health care of their highest-income members?”

Many commentators are analyzing support in the House of Representatives after President Obama released his new health overhaul proposal yesterday.

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein performs some calculations to estimate the number of House votes Speaker Pelosi could lose in the House.  Klein thinks election pressure and the Senate bill’s abortion provisions could lead to more Democratic defectors, and regaining them won’t be easy: “Pelosi will have to make up for any votes she loses by picking off members among the 39 Democrats who already voted ‘no.’”

Hot Air’s Allah Pundit lays it out more starkly: “Stupak called Obama’s abortion language “unacceptable” this morning. Assuming he’s not bluffing about those 10 to 12 pro-life Dems, Pelosi now needs roughly a dozen more yeses while not losing a single moderate or progressive.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein lists five reasons he’s worried about health reform passing, including: “The House and the Senate hate each other: And for health-care reform to pass, they’re going to have to trust each other, at least a little bit.”

But Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky found some optimism in words from House Majority Whip James Clyburn, who hinted yesterday that the bill has enough votes in the House, saying, “So I do believe there is more fertile soil today than there was when we first took this up.” 

Elsewhere, a few others have chimed in with their reaction to Obama’s new proposal.

Heritage’s Conn Carroll is disappointed: “The problem is, the plan the President released yesterday is not a ’start over’ … it is just a continuation and expansion of the same Washington-centric policies that the American people have clearly rejected over the past year. There still is a chance for Obama to save his presidency, but yesterday’s plan will not do it.”

Keith Hennessey offers a detailed analysis of the bill’s provisions and politics, and says, “Somebody in the Administration put a lot of work into this proposal.  It is extremely detailed, and it reads like a best effort to find a fair middle ground between two warring legislative bodies.  All that substantive work is subsumed by the apparent lack of strategic coordination and substantive agreement with Members of his own party.”

Health Beat Blog’s Maggie Mahar seems to approve of the proposal, but says, “I’m not going to bet how this will turn out. I’m just glad that the White House hasn’t given up.”

And Bob Laszewski says the plan is “not a game changer” and continues, “the President ought to say, ‘Deal.’ Then call on the Republicans to join he and the Democratic leadership in 60 days of intensive negotiations to get a bipartisan deal. That would really put the Republicans on the spot—and Democrats as well.”

Today bloggers analyze more shifts in the health overhaul political landscape, including a letter urging the inclusion of a public option, and a call to convince Democrats to “start over.” 

Time’s Kate Pickert ponders whether the so-called public option could “get a third lease on life.” Pickert points to news that 17 Democratic senators and 119 members of the House have signed a letter trying to revive the controversial health reform item by using a reconciliation procedure in the Senate.  Pickert determines it’s “EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY unlikely. But hey, you can’t blame public option devotees for trying.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein relays what he’s hearing on Capitol Hill in regards to reform: “I’ll also note that I’m detecting more confidence among Hill aides lately. They sound a lot less down and a lot less uncertain than they did a few weeks ago. The prevailing view is that everybody realizes they have to pass something, and though passing something will be hard, most are willing to bet that it will happen.”

Grace-Marie Turner offers a primer on health overhaul efforts in advance of next week’s health care ’summit’.  Turner says: “the first challenge is convincing Democrats to start over. They need to admit that the problem wasn’t the marketing but the fundamental substance of Obamacare.”

Heritage’s Marguerite Higgins looks at a new Robert Wood Johnnson Foundation/University of Wisconsin study of American counties’ health status and says it “reinforces the need for federalism in health reform.” Higgins writes, “States must have the tools and flexibility from Congress to test their ideas and find out what reforms work best or need to be changed. That won’t happen with the Obama Administration’s current health care agenda, especially in light of the upcoming Health Care Summit. The new report should serve as a wake-up call to Congress and the Obama Administration — trying to create a one-size-fits-all health care system is harder than it looks.”

The Corner’s James Capretta reacts to news of a new bipartisan budget commission to study the federal deficit.  Capretta isn’t pleased with the plan so far for the commission, particularly when it comes to health care costs: “Team Obama’s plan here is quite obvious: lock in a partisan health-care program over the unanimous objections of congressional Republicans, and then to try to get Republican help to clean up the government’s budgetary mess. That Republicans are resisting this one-sided game should surprise no one.”

And Brady Augustine of Medicaid First Aid hosts a “Dr. Phil” themed version of Health Wonk Review.

 Bloggers take in a new poll and look at what’s next in the health overhaul debate.

Several commentators reacted to a Zogby/University of Texas Health Science Center poll that found a majority of Americans polled think Congressional leaders should “start over” on a health overhaul bill.

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein thinks the poll suggests that Americans are unwilling to make certain trade-offs for their health priorities: “Americans like some of the individual components of the legislation — covering those with preexisting conditions, preventing insurers from dropping coverage when people get sick, creating health insurance exchanges, etc. But at the same time, about 80 percent of people were at least somewhat satisfied with their current insurance, and were unwilling to accept the tradeoffs necessary to achieve the measures they support.”

Reason’s Peter Suderman thinks the poll “shows one major reason why health care shouldn’t be a centrally managed, consensus project, but instead should be left to individuals who can make their own decisions about what they’re willing to pay for and what they’re not.”

The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan responds to Suderman and the poll findings, saying, “It would be nice to infer all sorts of sophisticated libertarian things from this polling data, but one suspects that all this just shows that most Americans are utterly immature or woefully under-informed or simply so used to being told, from Reagan on, that they can have their cake and eat it – with a cheerful cherry on top – that adult self-government seems immensely difficult for them to wrap their emotions around.”

Elsewhere, Time’s Karen Tumulty reports that a deal is in the works to bring a proposal to next week’s health care ’summit’: “The signals are growing louder that the Obama White House is readying its own health care plan in advance of next week’s summit. Press secretary Robert Gibbs fueled the speculation in his briefing yesterday. Asked about the possibility, Gibbs replied: “Stay tuned.”

And The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent’s talks with leadership aides on Capitol Hill and concludes: 

Crucially, the House leadership may sign on to the compromise even without a tweak to the Cadillac tax, according to a senior leadership aide. That’s because the compromise is not going to be voted on — it’s merely to create something to take to the summit. So this logjam may still get resolved in time.

Presuming it does, the compromise bill that Obama would take to the summit would include a national health insurance exchange and tougher penalties on employers who don’t insure employees, leadership aides say.

A minor blog controversy broke out over the last week following an Atlantic article by blogger Megan McArdle in which she argued that health insurance doesn’t necessarily lead to lower mortality rates.  The piece, published in print and online, quickly ignited a firestorm of criticism from academics and journalists who think the evidence shows otherwise.

Harvard health policy expert J. Michael McWilliams on The Incidental Economist reviews the literature and concludes that McArdle cherry-picked papers and didn’t look at enough studies: “The research to date provides consistent and compelling evidence that health insurance coverage significantly improves health outcomes, particularly for adults with treatable conditions.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein says the column is “interesting but ultimately misleading.” He interviews experts on mortality and health insurance who mostly disagree with McArdle’s conclusion, including former George W. Bush administration official Katherine Baicker.  Baicker tells Klein, “Policy can’t wait for perfect evidence…The evidence we have is strong enough that insurance is important for people’s health that one oughtn’t use the excuse of the absence of perfect information for not doing something about it.”

Klein also posts an interview with the Urban Institute’s Stan Dorn, who authored a study (pdf) on health insurance and mortality dismissed by McArdle.  Dorn argues, “McCardle [sic] erred by presenting the Kronick study as the gold standard for research on this issue to the exclusion of all studies published since 1994 that go against her argument.”

But some register their support for McArdle’s position.

In lending support to McArdle’s premise, economist Robin Hanson says, “When the data is this noisy, there will always be exceptional studies, and as Megan says, the left prefers to cite exceptions that find more med tied to more health; the right prefers to avoid the issue.” Cato’s Michael Cannon and economist Tyler Cowen also voice their agreement.

Even though the next action on the health reform bills isn’t until the President’s ’summit’ on Feb. 25, blog chatter is still preoccupied with what’s in the bills and what it means.

Economix’s Uwe Reinhardt argues that in the upcoming bipartisan health summit, lawmakers need to focus on how to make health care, not health insurance, more affordable: “Therefore the proper target of health policy should be the family’s total outlay on health care, including out-of-pocket spending. That total outlay on ‘needed health care’ should be made ‘affordable.’”

Cato’s Michael Cannon thinks the Democrats’ health care legislation would be a “litigation bonanza.”

Critical Condition’s Jeffrey Anderson does the electoral math in Democratic House votes for a health bill and says, “a host of other Democrats who voted for Obamacare the first time are sitting in red states and looking like dead ducks. Many of them would probably love to have a chance to switch their votes to ‘no.’”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein pens a detailed explainer of private contracting, Medicare and the Democrats’ health bills: “The rumor going around that the health-care bills won’t let you pay your doctor for services that your insurer won’t provide is simply false. It relies on a misunderstanding of what private contracting means in Medicare, and then a misunderstanding of how it’s been applied — or not applied — to the health-care bill.”

And Reason’s Peter Suderman argues that passing the current health bills “won’t make [them] more popular.”

Health Populi’s Jane Sarasohn-Kahn notes that 25% of those with cardiac disease say they can’t afford the treatment they need — likely the kind of treatment Former President Bill Clinton received yesterday.

Washington’s blizzard may have stalled work on Capitol Hill yesterday, but it hasn’t kept bloggers from taking stock of health reform’s political future.

Heritage’s Conn Carroll thinks President Barack Obama sent mixed messages in his press conference yesterday: “But more importantly, if we are to take the President at his word, and believe him when he says he wants to prevent a government takeover of health care, then he should know that his plan is the exact wrong direction to go.”

FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver parses polls of Congressional Democrats and concludes:

The near-term political case for passing health care, again, is not that the bill is magically going to become popular over the next eight months. Rather, it’s that the Democrats are already in such bad shape among independents — partly, no doubt, because of their bungled handling of what has become an unpopular health care bill — that they may as well go ahead and give their base something to get excited about. Seriously, the Democrats’ approval rating among independents in 19 percent. What more do they have to lose?

Ezra Klein concurs with Silver that the public opinion supports moving forward on the health care bills, but cautions: ”

The answer for Democrats, of course, is that they need to get their people back in the game, and that means making them feel like their team might actually win. No one stays till the ninth inning when it seems that their side has stopped trying to catch up. So c’mon, Democrats. You know what you need to do. Pass. The. Bill. And keep looking like you want to be bipartisan while you do it.

Reason’s Peter Suderman thinks Republicans have backed themselves into  bit of a corner by recently protesting Medicare cuts.  Suderman thinks Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan have “legitimate plans” to address health care, “Yet legitimacy only goes so far when much of the rest of the party seems less interested in workable policy and more interested in short-term political advantage.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky comments on the buzz that Republican Sen. Judd Gregg could be an ally for Obama in negotiating compromise: Despite Gregg’s instance that Democrats need to ‘reset‘ health care talks by abandoning ‘the House or Senate-passed partisan bills,’ his health care plan actually resembles core elements of the Senate-passed bill.” Volsky makes a table showing which of Gregg’s ideas are included in the Senate bill.

And The New Health Dialogue’s Julie Barnes reports on physician wonk Atul Gawande’s speech to the National Health Policy Conference Tuesday.  According to Barnes, Gawande focused on the need for better organization in medicine, saying, “given the realities of our complicated treatments and procedures, we need simple, systematic solutions that acknowledge and prevent the repetitive patterns of medical errors.”