Now it really does seem like the right choice. Members of the Nobel Peace Prize committee yesterday explained their award of the Peace Prize to President Obama, and I have to say that what they said made sense. Like a lot of people, my first reaction to Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize was “Huh?”, and I wrote that the prize “should go to someone who’s achieved more concrete results.” Others said the prize was given in support of Obama’s agenda, or to further dump on Bush.

The Nobel committee, in a rare public discussion of how an award was given, says no, no, and no. It wasn’t about the future, or about an agenda, or about not being Bush. The committee chairman, Thorbjorn Jagland, told the AP that Obama “got the prize for what he has done.” He pointed out that international tensions have eased since Obama’s inauguration, largely due to the President’s policies; Jagland specifically mentioned Obama’s efforts to close the rift between the West and the Muslim world, and the decision to scale down Bush’s anti-missile system in Europe.

The clearest explanation, though, was a simple clarification of Alfred Nobel’s intent. Jagland noted, “Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year. Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?" Well, I thought as I read Jagland’s explanation, who indeed? Beyond the West-Muslim rapprochement, and axing the inflammatory missile defense system, Obama also got Iran to agree to open its nuclear facilities for inspection, and has reinvigorated diplomacy as the “first resort” in international relations. Not bad for eight months in office. Now if he’ll only avoid a quagmire in Afghanistan — a policy decision that is very much up in the air — he could even wind up winning the prize again.

• Alfred "Mr. Dynamite" Nobel: his criteria made Obama an obvious choice

As we were saying in our last blog entry, the health insurance industry has largely become a collection of predators who make a fortune off Americans’ bad fortune. One of the worst of the breed, Bob Greczyn, announced that he would retire next year from his job as CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina. You might remember Greczyn from his role in creating lie-filled ads against health care reform, as well as his failed attempt to change BCBSNC from a non-profit to a for-profit company. His failure in that venture doesn’t seem to have hurt Greczyn too badly, however, since the “non-profit” CEO raked in $3.9 million in pay last year. That’s right – nearly 4 million bucks for the head of a health insurance company that has jacked up its rates, denied coverage to patients in need, and worked against a federal plan to reduce premiums. Like I said, predators.

Greczyn’s successor at BCBSNC will be the company’s current COO, J. Bradley Wilson, who, the company PR folks tell us, is “committed to improving the lives of North Carolinians.” I feel warm and fuzzy already. Despite Wilson’s “commitment,” however, don’t expect BCBSNC to lower rates or cover everyone equally, unless they’re forced to by the federal government.

The health insurance industry may have cut its own throat yesterday with its last-minute claim — the day before a crucial Senate committee vote — that health care reform would “force” them to double the cost of premiums. The timing of the announcement, and revelations that the insurers’ claim is based on a study by a group with a history of creating bogus reports for corporate customers, has both ticked off members of the Senate Finance Committee (which votes on a health care reform bill today), and energized reform supporters. Read about the study in a story by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein.

In Congress and the White House, reaction to the insurers' claims has been along the lines of that offered by a senior Senate Democratic aide who called the move “an incredibly stupid strategic blunder.” In other words, the insurers’ promise of higher premiums practically gives the green light to a public option that would offer consumers more competitive rates. At the very least, a cap on premiums is probably now in the works.

The bottom line: the only reason premiums would have to be increased is to guarantee health insurance companies a profit margin as high as they’ve enjoyed during the past few years. As supporters of a public option have said, if the insurers can’t offer the same coverage as the government for the same price, then what does that say about the insurance companies? The answer, of course, is that it reveals those companies for what they are: predators who make fortunes off Americans’ bad fortune. It’s an immoral business, period. And it’s certainly one that can’t be trusted to have our best interests in mind. We’ve quoted her before, put this is the perfect time to remember author Barbara Ehrenreich’s view of health insurers: “What country in its right mind would pay millions of people to deny other people health care?” Think about it.