HuffPo’s Ryan Grim asks the right question. He’s reacting to the compromise of a compromise of a comprise of a misguided effort that has become Congress’ abysmal efforts to reform the nation’s embarrassing health care system.

The LA Times today, reported on the unfair "recission" practices of the nation’s private insurance companies, in which their goal is to deny coverage to anyone they can even remotely argue concealed a prior condition when applying for health coverage.

Executives of three of the nation’s largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive. . . .

Executives of three of the nation’s largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.

Read the whole disgusting piece and ask yourself, why are these people demanding to be shielded from competition?

And think about what the recission policy says: The current for-profit system creates a perverse incentive for consumers not to be forthcoming about their actual medical needs. Then when those needs become manifest, the insurers penalize the consumer and deny them coverage. That’s nuts. As Ryan would say, "it sucks."

We need a system that encourages consumers to tell their doctors what’s wrong, what their history is, all of it, and not be afraid to reveal prior conditions or illnesses. That’s just good medicine and common sense. But today’s insurance system defies common sense and works to conceal consumers’ real problems and punish them later.

When politicians claim we can’t displace this crowd, because they’re too deeply ingrained in how people are covered today, then at least give consumers a robust alternative that doesn’t have these perverse unhealthy, anti-consumer incentives. Give us a real choice.

Congress has already ruled out, won’t even discuss, not allow on the table, not even allow to speak at Senate hearings — any advocacy of the simplest, most workable approach. It’s called single payer. People get the care they need. They don’t hassle with forms. Doctors and hospitals do what they believe the patients need. The government collects taxes to pay for it. It works, improves care and costs less.

But Congress won’t allow itself to think about that. Instead, its goal is to preserve the existing structure, even though it’s literally killing nearly 20,000 people every year and driving thousands more into bankruptcy. And left unchecked, it’s going to bankrupt the US Treasury.

Accepting this imposed restriction, the best in Congress have proposed a reform that would at least give consumers a decent alternative, a robust, non-profit public option along with the freedom to choose that over what we have now. But apparently, that’s too much to ask of this Congress. Why?

Why can’t we have a health care system that doesn’t suck?

How about some straight answers, Congress.