The New York Times has an “analysis” piece — essentially a front-page editorial with quotes — that among other things accurately explains why a threat still remains to freedom and innovation in health care:

Mr. Obama likes to say that in the 100 years since President Theodore Roosevelt began advocating universal health care, “we’ve never had such broad agreement on what needs to be done.” On Capitol Hill, it is possible to see how a compromise could come together; Mr. Nelson indicated over the weekend that he could back a provision known as a “trigger” to create a public option if private efforts to cover the uninsured failed.
And despite the fracas of August, the major stakeholders in the health care debate — hospitals, doctors, insurers and the pharmaceutical industry — have not abandoned the negotiations. Ralph G. Neas, chief executive of the National Coalition on Health Care and a veteran of Washington legislative fights, said this was especially significant.
“They’re saying to themselves: ‘We’re going to get 30 to 40 or 50 million new customers. This is in our economic self interest,’ ” Mr. Neas said. “That, as much as anything else, could propel this forward to a law that does provide quality health care for all.”

Of course, the Times didn’t use the word “threat” to describe this opportunity to fashion a massive expansion of federal power over health care. But I will. That Neas is involved is enough of a justification.