Gov. Ed Rendell is threatening to veto a bill that would give the state insurance commissioner power to rule on the proposed merger of Independence Blue Cross of Philadephia and Highmark. The reason for the threatened veto is not that Rendell thinks the insurance commissioner shouldn't decide the fate of the merger; it's that the bill also would give an advisory panel some role in the process.

Rendell objects to the panel because it is, in the words of a Rendell aide, "a cumbersome and expensive bureaucracy packed with political appointees." But the insurance commissioner, who without the panel's creation would have sole power to approve or reject the anti-competitive merger, is a political appointee — of the governor.

A wide range of critics, from hospitals, doctors and consumer advocates, are concerned about, if not openly opposed to, the proposed merger that would create the nation's third-largest health insurance company.

Former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner and consumer advocate Herb Denenberg says the merger is "anti-competitive and will make health insurance more expensive in Pennsylvania." He predicts the merger would lead to fewer choices, less service, more difficulty collecting claims and slower reimbursements. His warning is clear and should not be ignored.

Rendell, who received donations from the big health insurance companies for his re-election campaign and inaugural festivities, appears less concerned about the impact of the proposed merger.

But Rendell's criticism of the panel for being full of political appointees is weak, considering the alternative (an insurance commissioner acting without the advisory panel) is a single political appointee, appointed by the governor and, theoretically, controlled by the governor.

So, Rendell is saying that he wants his single political appointee to have the power to approve or reject the monstrous merger of Independence Blue Cross and Highmark, but without any interference or review by a panel of eight appointees (including four legislative appointees and the state's attorney general) having input into the process.

There are fears, expressed by Denenberg and others, that the anti-competitive merger of the two health insurance giants could be "paid for"or expedited by Rendell and his insurance commissioner in exchange for Independence and Highmark "donating" a billion dollars or so from their combined nearly $5 billion in reserves to fund some of Rendell's health initiatives.

Beyond opposing this merger,Denenberg makes the common-sense suggestion that Pennsylvania needs an insurance consumer advocate to represent the interests of the public and policyholders.

This megamerger and the role of the governor-appointed insurance commissioner should be watched very carefully by the press and the public. There is a real possibility that a backroom deal between the governor and these highly profitable, not-for-profit giants will give a pass to a merger that few can argue will be good for policyholders.

The public and the legislature should not be excluded from having some say in whether this merger is allowed — and the proposed advisory panel provides at least a minimal level of protection for the public. The legislature should not give in to Rendell's desire to have total control to approve the Independence-Highmark merger.