He might just be saying that he wants it to be fiscally autonomous, like the Post Office. Which I believe is what everyone envisions.

He doesn't seem to be talking about state level co-ops. What's the practical difference between a national level co-op and a public option? I'm coming up empty.

Also, I think you may be overlooking a critically important word, which is the determiner "a" — as in "a private entity."

If he supported the co-op plan, it would be "private entities."

If you're talking about one entity, it's the public option -- or a heckuva powerful co-op.

Devil is in the details, it's possible you can regulate and construct a plan to be equivalent to a PO in all but name ... BUT

The Public option, as detailed in the house bills & HELP (4 out of 5 for those keeping score!), will save $150 billion. The CBO didnt find this savings with wimpy feldgling regional coops (which might even have trouble getting off the ground).

That's $150 billion -- $1100 per taxpayer -- which is a hell of a lot of money to leave on the table.

Why on earth can anyone claim with a straight face they want to be fiscally responsible, yet keep leaning in the direction of the weak plan which COSTS MORE.

Put it simply: I don't think we can afford these coops. And I don't feel like paying an extra $1100 so that Harry and Max's insurance friends can have fancy vacations and bigger yachts.

I can't believe this story is getting a top-of-the-page headline at TPM. On the one hand, I'm glad that the left responds hysterically at the slightest hint of anyone in Congress selling out the public option. We clearly need to.

On the other hand ... it seems a little hysterical for TPM ... I thought HuffPo usually occupied this niche in the left-blogospheric ecosystem.

The problem is that lefties don't have anyone to represent them.

Harry Reid is dead meat.

NOT HELPING HARRY!!!!

When, oh when is the caucus going to dump this quisling?

Remember how the insurance conpanies fought Hillary's plan with the HARRY and Louise commercials?

Coincidence?

How about this public option, Majority Leader, Chuck Shumer!

Beutler continues to strain at gnats while the camel's nose is in the tent

Sheesh...

On the progressive side, the entire debate is akin to reading goat entrails

No wonder the bithers and tenthers have the upper hand

Unbelievable myopia

The government contracting aspect is fucking appaling. The who point of a Public Option is to cut out massive Big Insurance admin & overhead cost. So Harry's idea, which no doubt is a new concept of the Co-Op that Conrad & Co. are desperately trying to come up with, is to give some entity a nice fat chunk of money to manage this.

For fucks sake. I look forward to tuning out politics for the next twenty years starting in the fall once Healthcare and Environmetal Policy are rolled over and watered down to mean little more than a "win" on Rahm's scoreboard.

John

Can we just get rid of this guy, he's done nothing for the liberal cause. It's time to switch generations.

Reid is good for Republican morale. One way to improve the Democratic Party would be to replace Reid as Majority Leader.

The beauty of the public option idea was that it was unambiguous in that it would be completely controlled by a government agency. Insurers would be competing with a federal non-profit that had the insureds' interests at heart rather than that of shareholders and management.

Harry may be moving toward a new definition that would put a private insurer in charge of administering the plan under a contract. At first look such a plan would at least remove the profit motive from denial of payment for care, but of course that is supposed to be eliminated by new regulations. It would cost more because the contractor's executives and shareholders would still take a cut. If this is the only way to get the holdouts on board then it may be necessary.

If we assume that the new regulations will include no rescission, no lifetime limits and no rejection for pre-existing conditions, then it might really work. Far better than losing the public option entirely. I know that the odds of the federal government ever taking over administration of the plan are remote, but at least we would be in the game.

The downside is that this new hybrid public option would allow for all kinds of loopholes and giveaways. How much influence would the private administrator have over policy? Would congress be involved in setting rates and policy? What restrictions would be placed on the non-profit to make it easier for private insurers to compete? A federal plan that looked like "Medicare for all" would allow for far less ambiguity and therefore, mischief, but it's that possibility for mischief that might make the plan salable to the holdouts in the Senate.

Reid is about as pusillanimous and mewling as it is possible to be and remain upright. And the other Nevada senator is Ensign! What a joke. Hey Nevada! Do us all a favor. Elect a couple hookers next time. Maybe we'll get someone with some spine, some sense, and some grounding in reality.

Once again the Democratic Senators chosen leader reflects their own limp, weak nature. They chose him. They support him. They are to blame.

I just simply cannot think of one good word to say about the lilly-livered, cowardly, craven, weak Harry Reid.

What a worthless sack of senatorial shit.

There, I feel better.

NOMROM!

this is his way of saying don't change the system. If you're not going to try and save money why try any reform? The government knows single payer, medicare for all will save billions of dollars. It cuts out the insurance companies and takes their 30% and puts it back into the system to pay for care. HR 676 single payer.

Few people realize, mark my words, universal single payer health care if not enacted at the federal level will be enacted at the state level. Google single payer at state level. At lease 10 states have done studies of the cost effectiveness of single payer along with other plans. Single payer was the only plan that covered everyone and still saved money. All other plans left people uncovered and cost increased 150-500 million.

Because of republican tax cuts states are short of funds to run the state. They have found, like Kansas if they switch to a universal single payer system they will cover everyone in the state and save 869 million dollars a year.

December, 2007: Kansas

Single Payer would save $869 million

The Kansas Health Policy Authority hired the consulting firm of Schramm-Raleigh to do a fiscal analysis of five options for expanding coverage. They found that single payer (“the Mountain plan”) would cover all the uninsured and reduce state health spending by $869 million annually. The other plans would cover a portion of the uninsured and would raise costs between $150 million to $500 million in the state.

A link to the Schramm-Raleigh Report “Kansas - Pricing the Roadmap to Reform” is located on the web site of the Kansas Health Policy Authority :

www.healthfund.org/reportspubs/11012007fdn_report_khpa.php

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=all

First off, Harry Reid is a poster child for Stockholm Syndrome and thinks that if he makes nice with bullies, they won't kick sand in his face again. There is little other explanation for his continual belief that Democrats can effect anything only if they can get 60 votes, whereas Republicans need only the 50 votes that are called for by Senate rules and the Constitution. Given his dismal performance (and Nancy Pelosi's, for that matter) following the Democratic VICTORIES in 2006, there is no good reason why he wasn't replaced this January.

His own argument, as quoted, and such as it is, makes no sense at first reading, and makes even less sense on rereading. Not to be forgotten, for example, is that Blue Cross is ostensibly non-profit. Which simply means that excess of premiums over expenses just gets fed into executive compensation.

Honestly, I am a huge Democrat and a big supporter of Obama, and this douchebag waffler needs to go.

oooh somebody please vote this bastard out of office.. Reid is a disgusting democrat.

Well, since corporate welfare is always easier to pass than legislation that actually helps people, maybe Reid wants to make sure that even a "public option" offers some opportunity for a private company to suckle at the taxpayer's teat.

It would be a really good way to shift the authority, the more I think about it -- all the private companies could compete for the contracts to administer the plan (and it probably would play out on the state and local level), but the decisions about what is covered for whom and when would be government. This way, you don't put a gajillion insurance company worker bees out on the streets all at once, but you drastically change their profit structures and incentives. They would have to get more efficient in order to compete.

The mistake often is made to completely wipe out what is there and start over, but we really ought to use the expertise to better purposes.

I say we just go ahead and give the leadership back to the republicans. In either house we have no leadership or anyone with conviction or passion for a cause. Reid is in fine feather with the likes of Tom Daschle.....Two real prizes of mediocrity that couldn't find their ass with both hands.