I am sure we will hear from the Obamanation that all along this is just what Obama REALLY wanted; he just felt it was better to be dragged kicking and screaming to actually , you know support, a strong public option rather than be out front fighting for it which, you know, might have turned a few people off. Rope-a-dope again. What a clever politician. A politician's politician.

"A lot of people around here have faith in Harry Reid's abilty to count votes," Schumer told me.

I hope they're right. It's a long time between now and the floor vote on cloture. The GOP and the lobbyists only need to get to one Senator.

I mean the vote is still going to be in late November, so there is a month of heavy lobbying and all they need to peel off is one.

"Sen. Lincoln, this is Sen. McConnell, if you vote against cloture we'll not run a candidate against you in 2010. How about it?"

"Hey Joe, it's John and Lindsay here, want to stick it to Obama for winning the election and preventing you from being Secretary of State? What better way than to vote against cloture on the Health Reform Bill?"

"Hey Sen. Bayh, this is Jeb Bush - what do you say about being my running mate in 2016? All you would need to do is vote against cloture..."

"Sen Nelson, this is the AHIP, here is oodles of money to vote with your constituents and thus against cloture"

A report just released by Thomson Reuters, which concludes that the current American health care wastes 800 billion dollars per year, should help:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091026/ts_nm/us_usa_healthcare_waste_4

I've got to say I've never been that much of a Schumer fan in the past -- always felt he was more about publicity-hogging than substance -- but on the public option, he's been fantastic -- smart, savvy and tenacious.

Great. Opt out. Woo hoo! Here I sit in Texas. What do you think the odds are that our secession happy Governor or the pinching cheerleader that takes his place will opt out? Now for the hard questions. Will I be mandated to buy insurance even though my state will most certainly opt out of the plan? I personally think that the opt out option is tres pooswah.

the disagreement between the White House and Senate wasn't substantive so much as it was tactical: The White House had its doubts that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could really get 60 votes for a public option with an opt out for states.

This is the context, which was missing from your knee-jerk article from Friday, which pretty much suggested WH was conspiring to shoot down the PO. While you can question WH's tactic, the last article pretty much insinuating negative intent and motive.

Who would have ever thunk it?
A Gameing (Gambling) Commissioner from Searchlight Naveda would be the ramrod of a heath bill.

So much kvetching about how we're not getting the perfect solution. I'll agree it's far from the best it could be, in a wholly sane, well-informed nation where the government wasn't mostly owned by a huge business sector comprising 1/6th of the economy. Since that's not the country we live in, what we look like we might be getting is a lot better than what we have now, though, and as they say, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I'm just curious though, how many of the die-hard "single-payer or it sucks!" brigade have thought about the practical issues that would have to be addressed should 1/6th of the economy become, overnight, a highly regulated, government-funded enterprise. With the current proposal, there's no doubt that private insurers are going to have to get leaner and more efficient - there will be job attrition in clerical and management postions in the industry, but under what's being proposed, it will be gradual. Imagine the impact of "throwing the switch" overnight. Unthinkable in the current economic situation, and probably undesirable for where we'll be in 2 or 3 years. There will be general attrition in clerical positions in hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, etc. as well as claim forms are standardized and records are computerized, etc. The piecemeal private-public model they're proposing will not be nearly as efficient as a single payer system would be - but that will in large part be because fracturing it up like this means more clerical staff and management jobs. And this is just one example of the difficulty in switching over to a single-payer system all at once. When you hear people saying it's an incredibly complex undertaking, they're not just talking out of their asses.

I don't have any doubt that, over time, what we will see is a price gap of 10% or less between private insurers and public insurance - the reason being that if the spread goes beyond that, people will be clamoring to expand the public option to more people. Since there's no explaining people in this country, I think that quite a few people will feel that it's worth perhaps 10% more to have private insurance vs. public. There's enough of those people that the insurers can stay in business if they keep it real, and ultimately our private insurance companies will look something like the ones in Switzerland - they'll make small profits on basic care policies, and make the bulk of their profits by competing on supplemental plans.

For the same reasons, the opt-out for states doesn't concern me all that much. Sure, states like Texas and Oklahoma don't mind it if their citizens are taking it in the pants - but when they find they can't compete in attracting business to their states, they'll come around pretty quickly. And that is what will happen - businesses will choose to locate in states where the market is not operating unrestrained by competition. Health benefits are a HUGE expense for businesses - if they have a choice between a state where those costs are 10 - 15% lower thanks to competition from public insurance or a state where there isn't any competition to hold the price down...we know where they will go. The whole "opt-out" will work itself out pretty quickly.

It's not a bad start.

In August, the public had not yet realized the lack of competition in states, and in the nation, among health insurance companies.

That new information didn't hit until October; once many in the public started to understand that fact -- and with Wyden and Rockefeller and Schumer talking about 'competition' and 'choice' -- more people connected the dots.

Glad to see the Dems show some leadership.
The train is leaving the station while the GOP pretends they need to pack 20 more suitcases before they can board.

The train appears to be about to leave without the GOP.
So it goes...

"After the Thursday meeting, four sources in different Democratic offices told me that the White House had suggested they believed a strategy of pursuing Sen. Olympia Snowe's preferred compromise--a triggered public option--might be an easier path to 60 votes."

Given the context of the meeting (discussion of tactics for reaching 60 votes for cloture), it sounds more to me like this describes a blurt from Rahm ("No, you fucking idiots! We need Snowe - go for the trigger!") rather than an argument from Obama.

Cawleybo and Vlazlo were earlier saying that Obama doesn't support a progressive agenda.

I have a problem with that.

I don't consider myself a progressive. I am a loyal Democrat. But in failing to stand up for the public option, Obama wasn't supporting a basic Democratic value.

I am concerned that things have moved so far to the right that traditional, bread-and-butter Democratic values of protecting workers and creating an even playing field for "the little guy" against industry now have to be called "progressive."

Don't get me wrong - I'm grateful that people now labeled "progressive" have been so instrumental in the fight. But I am troubled by the fact that we have to make the distinction... and a distinction that seems based on an overall shift to the right (and to further corporate power) in this country that hasn't been corrected....

...and which doesn't appear, based on the President's kowtowing to everyone from the banks to health insurers to pharmaceutical, to be on the path of being corrected by this administration.

That's why a lot of loyal Democrats like me feel disappointed by the President. I mean, we've been disappointed for generations, but the fact is that even Republicans were voting for Obama - not based on the cult of personality that seems to reign here - but because the country was finally ready for change.

Serious, substantive change.

That's not what is going on here, and I don't say that as someone that the "cult of personality" posters will call a "whiny progressive" but as a loyal Democrat who's sucked it up for decades.

This is a historic moment. The administration is turning it back into a corporate moment.

I find that extremely troubling.

Whenever the "Obama isn't tough enough" gets going, I remember that he was a community organizer. I worked with community organizers 30 years ago. The job is to advocate for your group, but work with whoever or whatever can help you achieve your group's goals. I see him do this over and over - and it's pretty effective. While I would prefer single payer, Canadian style reform, it's not going to happen immediately. I think a public option that can be strengthened over time is the way to go right now.

Change is happening - not as fast as we'd like, but it is happening - remember it's been 10 months, a pretty short time to undo 30 years of conservative rule (including 8 years of outright destruction of everything.) I'm hopeful.

Exclusive interview: woo-hoo!

TPM gets better and better.