I cannot believe I am saying this. Harry Reid did good!

Co-ops too? Hmm...

It'll be interesting to read this 'merged' bill. I couldn't tell if he was saying that the bill will be sent to CBO within the next few hours or if it will return from the CBO. Could anyone else tell?

2014?!? So voters see no benefits and pissed off health insurance co's jack up premiums to help a Republican wave in 2010 and 2012?

But we need to change everything to suit Olympia Snowe! She won the national election for President, Healthcare Czar and Prima Donna Supreme.

He said he will not submit a plan with a triggered public option to the Congressional Budget Office.

Whoa! That is a bold move by Reid.

Now I'm lost. Could someone please explain this "co-op" and "public option" thing? How they both going to work? Isn't it one or the other?

Love to see Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama and other Red States opt out. So when the citizens of those states get sick, what's going to happen, will they will try and move to states with public options?

The worst case just got better.

We win.

"All-In" would be a Medicare + 5% (with Rural Adjustments) based PO, sans the Opt-Out.

On the other hand, if this carries and the House goes Medicare + 5% (with Rural Adjustments) with No Opt-Out, one gets a *very* interesting Conference. If you go straight compromise, the House wins on the Medicare + 5% (with Rural Adjustments) while the Senate wins on the Opt-Out. If we also somehow could get Wynden's choice bill in there, we might have something.

I'm not a huge fan of the Opt-Out, and it's going to utterly screw some of the Dems Bases (poor people in Red States). On the other hands, if the savings are there, it will be a rallying cry down the road.

John

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great idea on this opt out thing... not! From a policy perspective it's extremely unwise at best and totally unfair to those who would be robbed of any choice if they are unlucky enough to live in a state where the Governor is owned by the insurance industry (and that's likely to be more than one or two). How about including an opt out for the states regarding the insurance subsidy mandate?

Are you actually suggesting that in a state where the majority of voters want a public option that a insurance industry-bought Governor would somehow be able to overcome that? I think the real danger is with the voters themselves - aka, if you've got 20% of the state's population who will not vote for a public option no matter what, just because it's government-run.

I would assume the Opt-out(at least initially) will resemble the Stimulus with a few Gov's talking shit and the state legislators overruling them. However, I wouldn't be too suprised if in 2013 a few states with lower per capita health costs Opted out for more drastic measures like a state level single-payer or something that can lower the cost even further for their state.

This is political GOLD for the Democrats. It forces the Republicans to opt out and face voter rage. I love this on a political level.

However, I am sad for the concept of America. Knowing that we're allowing some Republicans to create a third world, tiered society based on who can afford healthcare and get immunity to the latest FLU strain. Having shots is being and will be increasingly used as a basis for discrimination in the workplace, travel and for attending schools.

It seems contrary to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that a person who cannot afford healthcare or whose parents or state opts out of healthcare, will be denied the job and school of their choice.

"There will be a co-op in this bill", why? I got a co-op out here in Washington state, and all it does is pit my need for medical services against my gatekeeper pcp. If it saves any money its due to discouraging people from getting service. It's not the answer, but part of the problem. Ditch it Harry!

As a student of both politics and negotiation strategy, the one thing that is a certain is that when finesse is required, one cannot open with an offer of the desired outcome. My regret is that it will be years, if not decades, before the inside story of the planning for this HCR gets out, and many years more until the real inside story is confirmed.

The most plausible case is that Obama was very good at covering his bets. He had a range of options, and was careful not to show his hand or get too far out in front. From a policy side he recognized that the best option is single-payer, but he played the political side, knowing that any reform that provided more universal coverage, less exclusions or lower costs would be seen at least as a start, and possibly as a win. Now the probability that we will get all three is increasing.

He and Emanuel are very aware how the Clintons owned the 93-94 attempt at HRC, and knew that anything he actively supported would be a lightning rod for the opposition. So he revived the art of politics from an era we haven't seen for a very long time.

I'm not sure which scenario makes me smile more, the one where Obama was truly masterful at reading the tea leaves and quietly orchestrated (or at least encouraged) this process or the one where he was a bit too eager to compromise, but the grassroots involvement and push-back supported by the facts and progressive politicians and experts proved compelling and irresistible.

While it appears that a celebration is occurring here, being the pessimist that I am, I count nothing until the final legislation, with all additional ancillaries, is voted on and signed into law...

Additionally, it should be noted that even if the "public option" is included in the final bill, it will only cover approximately 10 million people, and there will be no so-called "public option" for the general population as a whole - hence the need for the addition of the Wynden Amendment, which gets no real consideration from the Senate Majority Leader ... (Hopefully, in another decade or two, this issue will be re-visited, as future health insurance premiums sky-rocket)...

Additionally, while I strongly support this type of HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM, there remains nothing proposed that advances real HEALTH CARE REFORM, which remains problematic... (And there is a huge difference between the two)...

Lastly, concerning Sen. Reid, D-Nev., assuming he pulls this off, each of us should write an e-mail, to him and/or his office, thanking him for standing firmly on this issue, or at a minimum for even trying... Indeed, I never thought Sen. Reid had it in him and I'm pleasantly suprised...

am i the only one who heard him say "White Whore"??....and then he smiled about it, naughty naughty Reid...

While it appears that a celebration is occurring here, being the pessimist that I am, I count nothing until the final legislation, with all additional ancillaries, is voted on and signed into law...

Additionally, it should be noted that even if the "public option" is included in the final bill, it will only cover approximately 10 million people, and there will be no so-called "public option" for the general population as a whole - hence the need for the addition of the Wynden Amendment, which gets no real consideration from the Senate Majority Leader ... (Hopefully, in another decade or two, this issue will be re-visited, as future health insurance premiums sky-rocket)...

Additionally, while I strongly support this type of HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM, there remains nothing proposed that advances real HEALTH CARE REFORM, which remains problematic... (And there is a huge difference between the two)...

Lastly, concerning Sen. Reid, D-Nev., assuming he pulls this off, each of us should write an e-mail, to him and/or his office, thanking him for standing firmly on this issue, or at a minimum for even trying... Indeed, I never thought Sen. Reid had it in him and I'm pleasantly suprised...

A couple comments on the Beutler story on Sat., so I feel I'll respond.

Josh Marshall did respond to a couple of emails to me over the weekend, essentially saying that it was impossible to report this stuff w/o anonymity, as he's said in the comments section, and a sort of implication of trusting TPM is doing their due diligence. I feel anonymity is handed out like candy, that's why no one will speak their name even when not much is at stake. And this trust, well, could evaporate. But I'm not there yet, and they have done a great job reporting since I began reading TPM.

SO, with that said, I'm not so sure that one part of this story doesn't convince me that the reports they received could in fact be true. Snowe received the call from Reid on Friday, the story ran saturday. With Snowe's displeasure, I don't think it would be out of the ordinary for the White House to then push the Senate to try and retain her. What I don't know is if this amounted to them actually pushing for the trigger option in the Senate, hence my reservations on the story.

But, the spirit of that article may well have been true, but I still find it vague and am not surprised it has been controversial.

AnswerFi: "their chances in 2010 are dependent upon grassroots support and enthusiasm " Precisely.

The Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because the Democratic Congress treated President Clinton, a Washington "outsider", with disdain and obstructed his legislative agenda, including health care reform. Clinton was reelected in 1996 but the Democrats lost control of Congress. This was because Democratic politicians were more beholden to lobbyists and the Washington bubble than to their base and the President.

President Obama is popular, depite the protestations of the teabaggers in August. The campaign against health care reform has been an epic failure because of the energy and actions of progressives in keeping eyes focused on the opinions of the vast majority of the American people.

Many of the Democrats in Congress are, by nature, cowards. Only the relentless pressure of the Democratic base, which elected a President and restored Democratic majorities in Congress, forced these self-serving politicians to be held accountable.

We need to reward these politicians when they do the right thing and scream like hell and act with our wallet and our votes when they betray us. Unlike the teabaggers, we understand policy versus rhetoric and are truly representative of the majority of Americans.

It's just amazing to me is all... we complain about health care reform... we say we want competition... to get that competition we need a large pool of people to keep cost down/competitive so hey... let make everybody pay! And if they don't like it then we can either fine them or throw em in the pokey (were they will get HC for free... go figure). So we cheer the great accomplishment that 10% might get it... and it's a bargain at 900 billion+.

Woohooo party like it's 2009!

I guess i'm being cynical... I should not have expected this much from these precious anointed few. After working a blistering 3 day work week im sure this is the best they can come up with. We sure are lucky to have them.

Take Nevada off the list of possible Democratic Senate losses for 2010 and move it onto the Safe D list. I never thought it was anything but a sure thing for us anyway, but this puts the icing on the cake. Big Harry, Give 'em Hell Harry II, is going to make mincemeat of that pathetic Lowden, Tark the Snark, and whatever other flimsy nonentities the GypOP can dredge up from the disabled list. He's got a ton of money and as for the Daschle example, Nevada isn't SD and this is now, not then.

Same goes for Dodd. So what if he got a good deal on a home mortgage anybody with the same income probably deserved anyway. What difference does that make compared to helping pass a bill that can help millions of Americans lead a better, more secure life? Wins in 2010 in a landslide against that has-been Simmons.