CHICAGO – Let’s recap: We received a massive – and still largely undefined – body of health care legislation earlier this year to expand health insurance coverage while holding down costs.

So imagine my confusion as I look through the week’s headlines while waiting for an all-too-early flight back home.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs off on a pair of bills to expand coverage to between 25,000 and 30,000 Californians whose pre-existing conditions have prevented them from getting private insurance. And it’s only going to cost us around $760 million or so to fund the high-risk pool to pay for these individuals. And yes, I say us, because those are federal dollars, so we’re all footing that bill (as if California could afford one more entitlement program). And, anyone want to start taking odds on how quickly that budget’s going to run off the rails?

Meanwhile, back at the drive-through, we’ got more breaking news. Yes, we’re getting fatter. Still (or is it again?). A new obesity report (how many of these do we do a year?) just came out with the sobering finding that obesity rates have continued to climb in 28 states. The only drop came out of the District of Columbia (which must mean the only pork they’re cutting is the one from the kitchen). The Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation report  found adult obesity rates jumped over 25 percent in those 28 states. And keep in mind that no state boasted an obesity above 20 percent less than 20 years ago. In fact, Colorado – the nation’s thinnest – is the only state left with a rate under 20 percent.

I suppose it’s no wonder then that Americans appear to be warming to health reform. At least according to one Kasier Family Foundation study where 48 percent of those surveyed claim they had “a favorable view of the law in June while 41 percent had an unfavorable opinion. A month earlier, the split was 41 percent favorable to 44 percent unfavorable.”

So, I guess we really are fat and happy. Either that, or it just takes too much effort to complain anymore.

The Commonwealth Fund released its annual worldwide health care report card, and at first blush, it’s a pretty damning assessment. But you don’t need me to tell you that the devil’s in the details.

But first things first: The United States ranks dead last in health care quality, delivery and efficiency despite spending more per capita than anyone else.

(And, yeah, I had a U.S. World Cup joke ready here, but Landon Donovan nailed that goal in overtime right after I finished writing this. Reminds me of my college roommate, who always insisted, “I’d rather be lucky than good.”)

But I digress. So, as usual, the United States gets hammered for the amount of money we spend on health care, more than double than anyone else, at $7,290 per capita and how “little” we get in return. And by little, one can only deduce the study’s authors refer to our lack of universal health care.

The Netherlands, by contrast, besides fielding another questionable futbol squad, ranks first in the study. Never mind that we’re talking about a country smaller than West Virginia. How’s that a fair comparison? Sure, it’s easy to hand out health care like candy if your population is less than a 10^th of ours and your tax bracket’s double.

Let’s not forget that we also lead the world in obesity rates, among a host of other unhealthy lifestyle choices. And what’s with the six other countries we’re compared to here? Haven’t seen this much selective sampling since the last time I watched the Jon Stewart Show.

So expect to see this report earning a lot of headlines in the morning papers and talking head admonitions on the news shows, but don’t let it get to you. Sure, read the study, but gather all the facts before the phones start ringing.

While the news remains bleak in most sectors – carrier rate hikes rage on, the number of uninsured continues to climb, and, strangely, President Obama’s health care reform law is becoming more popular – the storm clouds reveal a hint of silver lining.

Consumer-driven plans are growing faster than my 10-year-old son (and usually behave a lot better). According to a recent AHIP study, more than 10 million people own health savings accounts (typically paired with a high-deductible health plan). That’s up from 6 million just two years ago.

And despite the usual critiques, these plans work at saving money, and encouraging more responsible health care decisions (see, told you they were better behaved).

But don’t take my word for it: The results of a 2009 American Academy of Actuaries study revealed “properly designed [consumer-driven health] plans can produce significant (even substantial) savings without adversely affecting member health status.”

It’s more than just hype. These products not only hold the key to wresting control of our health care from big brother, but putting it where it belongs - on the patients themselves.

Press releases are a lot like the journalists who get them: They’re cheap, full of info you can’t use and are better after a few drinks.

Seriously, though, we’re both a dime a dozen, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have value sometimes.

Just this morning, I came across an e-mail from the LIMRA number crunchers (oh, why won’t you ever call me back?) about life insurance.

I know, life insurance, right? How good could it be? Well, before you pick up your vuvuzela and go back to your World Cup game cast (yeah, right), give me a sec.

Seems this latest study found out that African-Americans have a better idea about life insurance than your average employee. In fact, they’re more than twice as likely to consider buying life insurance as their white counterparts.

The rest of the report reads as you would expect, with their financial goals in line with the other ethnic groups, especially the top three: enough money for retirement; adequate health insurance; and paying off debts. The only glaring difference emerges when it comes to life insurance, “and having a plan to replace income if unable to work.”

Just something to think about next time you’re heading off to an enrollment. Remember that not everyone’s coming from the same place, or looking for the same thing.

A lot, really. Especially in this business. As a lot of you know, I’ve covered half a dozen (at least) different industries over the last 15 years. And none of them gave me as much trouble as this one.

Our business is one littered not only with rules and regulations, but a vast vocabulary created (it seems) to stir confusion and debate. Even some of our most fundamental definitions – terms and conditions that establish the very foundation of our business – remain open to interpretation (and endless regulation).

And what we call ourselves is no different. (Well, at least what you call yourselves. I’ve remained an editor, despite what some of you over at AIG have called me over the years.)

Just this week, a group of us pored over our subscription data, and once again found ourselves scratching our heads over the list of names our readers dub themselves. And what’s funnier is how the numbers seem to ebb and flow like some kind of textual tide.

So, what do you call yourself? And why? Are these instructional titles? Or instinctual references? And do these syntactical distinctions really mean anything?

Jump in take our poll and tell us what you call yourself. And feel free to elaborate in our forum below (especially if you think you really fall into the black hole of "other").

So, I’m trawling along the Web like I do most mornings, taking in the headlines of the day. I’m a longtime journalism junkie, so I manage to find something to shake my head about on even the slowest of news days.

The Federal Trade Commission drew my eye – and later ire – today. It began with yet another delay in the enforcement deadline for the so-called Red Flag Rule, which basically forces financial institutions (among others) to “to develop and implement written policies for detecting and preventing identity theft.”

It’s the fifth time now this part of the law’s been pushed back, all the way to January 2011, this time. And this legislation became law more than two years ago. Something to keep in mind as we stare at calendars full of health reform deadlines. Hmm, and I thought editors couldn’t hit deadlines.

But the FTC’s all over the place this week. Seems that in their spare time (you know, when they're not busy missing deadlines), the agency’s looking at taking over (bailing out?) America’s newspapers.

In short, the FTC just put out a major study of modern American media titled “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.’”

Now I love newspapers more than most. But this Orwellian extension of the executive branch makes me more nervous than James Cameron telling BP how to plug an oil leak.

In honor (or surrender) to all of the questions left in the wake of Sunday’s Lost finale, I thought that maybe there are a few still swirling around about health care.

I know the media’s moved on to Lindsay Lohan’s disastrous court hearing, but does anyone outside of our industry even care anymore about the mess we’ve been left with?

Why does the Obamacare individual mandate lack a subsidy for individual insurance? (If you’re going to make me buy insurance, and my employer doesn’t offer it, why do I get punished?)

Why do those picking up insurance in the exchange get such generous reimbursements? (They seem to get more subsidies than oil companies.)

And why would we pass an individual mandate, yet leave out any meaningful penalties or enforcement?  (It’d be like leaving my son alone with Sunday morning’s box of donuts.)

Why is the implementation of the so-called Cadillac plan taxes delayed until 2018? (Answer: Because I can almost guarantee you that little bit of the law will be quietly set aside sometime over the next 24 months.)

And why is so much of this reform so short-sighted? We’re handing out fistfuls of (somebody else’s) cash so providers can update their practices, but there’s no concern about those chickens coming home to roost. Those bills will come due – just like those ARMs did a couple of years back – and what do you think will happen to health care costs then?

I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me. I don’t expect the feds to get everything right, but do they have to consistently get it so wrong? If this last batch of primaries taught us anything, it’s that taxpayers are fed up with paying today’s bills with tomorrow’s paychecks. And that frustration clearly crosses party lines.

So I spent most of the day at the hospital yesterday.

(Would love to tell you all about it, but, for starters, we’re just not that close. And, besides, I’m sure it would violate all kinds of HIPAA rules.)

Anyway, while it was refreshing to see both the nurse and the doctor toting little netbooks in and out of the room,  I couldn’t help but wonder (again) how out of touch Congress is. I mean, this is right up there with Bush Sr. and the grocery store scanner.

They suffered through blood, pork and cocktails to put this law together to address “needs” that don’t necessarily exist. I’ve been wandering this wilderness for years, warning we should take care of our own problems before the suits do, but this seems like a case of the exception proving the rule. It’s clear that, in this case, the providers are embracing technology, trying to cut costs through efficiency while improving quality of care. So why can’t we get cooperation from lawmakers and regulators instead of more rules?  

It’s a lot like all the claims about insurers now being prohibited from dropping patients because they get sick. But its not like they could do that before, either. It’s already been against the law for carriers to do that for more than 10 years now. But that didn’t stop Congress from legislating that again this year.

Talk about double jeopardy.

There’s a lot going on today. I’m not even sure where to begin. And I certainly don’t know what’s next. So I thought I’d try to cover as much ground as possible before it starts snowing again.

You see that first lady Michelle Obama “rolled” out her childhood obesity campaign yesterday? It’s a 70-step program aimed at cutting childhood obesity to 5 percent by 2030. Hey, I’m all for fighting back against childhood obesity, but does it really need to be so complicated? How about just having the little tykes take 70 extra steps?

By the way, it looks like my home state of Missouri is just the latest to strike back at Washington over health care reform. The legislature there decided to take a different tack and put it before voters in the form of a ballot initiative. Voters there will have their say over the issue of health insurance mandates, but it will probably amount to little more than a symbolic gesture since the courts have held for years that federal law trumps state ones. But it’s certainly an interesting political experiment, especially given Missouri’s own history when it comes to states' rights issues.

Oh, and Walgreen’s is offering genetic testing. Sounds pretty cool, right? I was all set to go pick up my kit and find out if I’ll end up as bald as my grandpa, as absent-minded as my mother, or as out-of-shape as my dad. I mean, seriously, I had this whole checklist sketched out before I finished my first cup of coffee. It was like some kind of crystal ball into my biological future. Well, it's not to be. Apparently right now there are only a limited number of tests available. And each of them costs around 50 bucks or so, in addition to the 30 bucks you have to drop for a glorified Q-tip. But just try to get those kind of figures from your doctor next time you’re in the waiting room.

And, last but not least, it could come as no surprise to anyone that the latest estimates out of Washington indicate that the president’s health reform bill will bill out at more than $1 trillion now. Who didn’t see this coming? I’m not normally one to say I told you so, but, seriously, I did call this one. Not that it was a tough one. I mean, I might as well predict Justin Bieber’s career’s gonna stall out right around the time his voice changes.

The health care reform law that’s now emerged as such a pivotal part of our collective future came about as a way to expand coverage and help control costs.  

(I know, there’s no way it can do both – especially as it's written now, but I’ve already beaten that death-paneled horse.) There’s little question we’ve expanded (or will expand) coverage. Mission accomplished, as our last president once proclaimed. We’ll see an almost-unprecedented leap in the number of insured over the next half decade.

Problem is, it couldn’t come at a worse time. The market might be bouncing along now, but the dollar’s falling faster than offshore drilling prospects. And our debt continues to balloon faster than a college freshman. 

The latest drop in the bucket is the $5 billion the administration dropped yesterday to cover health care costs for early retirees. The temporary program is meant to stem the tide of companies running away from employer-sponsored health care, closing the Medigap, or at least slapping a Band-Aid on it.

It’s a noble effort, but there’s also an obvious PR angle here, with the administration hoping this helps sway a still-unconvinced public. And, honestly, this fix was long overdue. But, again, the timing couldn’t be worse.