"The Bat Is Back - Howard Dean Pledges To Fight For A Public Option Until We Get One"

Blog for IOWA:

I'm going to fight for a public option until we get one. It really is that simple.

The American people want the choice of a public option. I'm going to stand up for what the majority of the American people want again and again and again and I'm going to keep doing it until we win.

Now is not the time to give up and accept less. With 40 Senators on the record in support of passing a public option by majority vote, we've proven that the majority of Senate Democrats are ready to get the job done. All it takes now is leadership. It only takes one senator to offer an amendment from the Senate floor to bring the inclusion of a public option to a vote this year.

So today, we're bringing back the bat.

Democrats in Washington think that if they pass healthcare reform by the end of March, they'll be done no matter what's in the bill. But they're wrong. If the bill doesn't include a public option, we're not going away and we will not forget. Send Washington a message that they understand.

CLICK ON THE BAT TO CONTRIBUTE RIGHT NOW

We will prevail in this fight this year.

And if Democrats in Washington don't deliver, we will not stop because of their failure of leadership. We will not stop because Democrats in Washington say it's done. We will not wait 20 years -- 10 years -- we will not wait a single year -- because we will not stop until every American has the option to voluntarily buy into a program like Medicare.

Send Democrats in Washington a message: Get on board or get out of the way.

HIT THE BAT

We will not stop until we win and it's up to us to make sure Democrats in Washington get the message.

Thank you for everything you do.

-Howard

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Founder, Democracy for America

ED on publicoption#fail: "Democrats will pay a price for this" (video)

MSNBC-ED Show, video (14:42).

Nancy Pelosi: "Public Option Will Not Be in the Health Care Bill"

Politics Daily:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed back aggressively in response to Sen. Richard Durbin's statement that he will work hard to pass a public option, should the House include it in a package of "fixes" for the upcoming health care reform reconciliation process.

In a statement to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a Durbin spokesman said Friday morning, "I want to be crystal-clear: Senator Durbin and the rest of the Senate leadership will be aggressively whipping for the public option, if it is included in the reconciliation bill the House sends over."

The PCCC has secured commitments from 41 Democratic senators to vote for a public option if it comes up for a vote in the reconciliation process. That would be far fewer votes than necessary for passage using any legislative process.

When asked during her weekly press conference Friday if she will include the public option in her legislation, Pelosi reminded reporters that she has always wanted to create a single-payer health care system. Short of that, she said she fought for and passed a public option when it came up for a vote last year. But Senate Democrats failed to include the public option, or government-run health insurer, in its bill, and President Obama never pushed to include it in either piece of legislation.

"I'm not having the Senate, which didn't have any of that in its bill, put that on our doorstep," Pelosi said. "We had it, we wanted it, they didn't have it. So it's not in the reconciliation. But it has nothing to do with whether we initiate it here. We did initiate it."

The speaker said that by including a government insurer in her original package, the bill was better designed to make health insurance more accessible and more affordable for Americans.

But, she added, "it isn't in there because the [Senate] doesn't have the votes. Otherwise it would have been in there to begin with."

Howard Dean: "We're going to fight for a public option until we get one."

DemocracyForAmerica:

Democrats in Washington think that if they pass healthcare reform by the end of March, they'll be done no matter what's in the bill.

But they're wrong.

If the bill doesn't include a public option, we're not going away and we will not forget.

We're going to stand up for what the majority of the American people want again and again and again and we're going to keep doing it until we win.

"Cantwell & Murray Sign the Public Option Letter"

seajane:

According to Open Left Senator Cantwell signed the Bennett letter to pass the public option through reconciliation. Senator Murray signed earlier this week so we're 2 for 2!!

Howie P.S.: Ryan Grim posts an account of Obama's meeting with House progressives:Obama To Progressives: This Is Just The Foundation.

Cantwell, Murray still haven't signed Senator Bennet's Public Option Letter

Democracy for America:

LETTER FROM SENATE DEMOCRATS TO LEADER REID

Dear Leader Reid:

We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.

There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach – its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.

The current list of Senate signers includes:

Michael Bennet (CO) Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) Jeff Merkley (OR) Sherrod Brown (OH) Patrick Leahy (VT) John Kerry (MA) Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) Al Franken (MN) Roland Burris (IL) Bernie Sanders (VT) Barbara Boxer (CA) Barbara Mikulski (MD)

Dianne Feinstein (CA) Frank Lautenberg (NJ) Chuck Schumer (NY) Jeanne Shaheen (NH) Jack Reed (RI) Tom Udall (NM) Arlen Specter (PA) Robert Menendez (NJ) Tim Johnson (SD) Daniel Inouye (HI) Carl Levin (MI)

Show these Healthcare Heroes you have their backs -- join them as a citizen signer today.

"Fourteen Senators Now Calling For Vote On Public Option"

Greg Sargent:

Fourteen and counting.

Senators Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed and Tom Udall have all now signed the letter pushing for a reconcilation vote on the public option, the group organizing the push confirms, bringing the total of Senators now pushing for the vote to roughly a fourth of the Dem caucus.

That means the number of signatories to the letter, which calls on Harry Reid to allow a vote on the public option under reconcilation rules, has more than tripled in two days.

“Going from 0 to 4 to 14 senators on the record in 2 days?” Adam Green, a spokesman for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, emails. “This is what momentum looks like.”

It’s unclear, however, where all this momentum is headed. The Dem leadership has signaled no appetite for taking such a vote.

And yet: Reid’s spokesman is on record saying that the Majority Leader supports the public option in general but doesn’t think this measure has the votes to pass. Which means that the higher the number of supporters for such a vote climbs, the more the pressure increases on the leadership to at least consider such a vote. In theory, at least.

What’s interesting here is that the range of Senators now signing the letter goes well beyond those who are conventional liberals or facing tough primary challenges. The ones to watch now: Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, neither of whom have taken a position on this.

Whatever the unlikelihood of this ever happening, it’s getting pretty interesting.

Howie P.S.: Patty and Maria, can we hear you now?

"Lee, Woolsey push for public option" (Updated)

UPDATE: Washington state Democratic Chair Dwight Pelz puts the eventual HC bill in historical context: "An Historic Victory."

California Reps. Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey said in a joint statement Wednesday. "For Congress to achieve true health care reform we must have a meaningful conference process that integrates both bills into the best possible piece of legislation for the American people."

Politico:

On the eve of a historic health care vote in the Senate, liberal Democrats in the House have launched a full-throated defense of the public option — a sign of battles to come when party leaders try to meld the two bills.

“Now that the Senate is poised to pass its version of a health care reform bill, it is time to turn to reconciling it with the House legislation," California Reps. Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey said in a joint statement Wednesday. “For Congress to achieve true health care reform we must have a meaningful conference process that integrates both bills into the best possible piece of legislation for the American people."

Their top priorities:

"A public option — If the bill requires people to buy health insurance, there must be a public option to bring down costs by providing lower-cost competition to private insurers and choice to consumers."

"Affordability protections — The legislation must protect lower and middle-income individuals by ensuring that subsidies make coverage affordable and that Medicaid patients have access to primary care physicians."

"Tighter market regulations — New regulations must keep premiums reasonable and end abusive practices. Insurance companies should no longer be exempt from anti-trust laws and any premium increases must be reviewed before they take effect."

“Employer mandates — If individuals are required to buy insurance, employers should be required to provide it.

“Tax surcharges — Health care reform should be financed by tax surcharges on the wealthy not excise taxes on health insurance plans offered to many workers and union members.

They're not as critical of the Senate package as New York Rep. Louise Slaughter; Lee and Woolsey, who serve as chairwomen of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus, respectively, even go out of their way to thank the Senate majority leader and Sens. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) for adding a provision on health care disparities and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for helping to secure $10 billion for community health centers.

But it's clear that they're not going to roll over, as some senators have suggested they should. “We look forward to working with the House and Senate leadership to ensure that the final legislation provides affordable and comprehensive health care to people who need it.”

Howie P.S.: As expected, this morning the Senate passed their version of the health care reform bill: "Now, it's on to the House/Senate conference."

"Democrats: Stop screaming and pass health reform"

E.J. Dionne (WaPo):

For progressives, the question on the health-care battle going forward is not whether they have a right to be angry but whether they can direct their fury toward constructive ends. The alternative is to pursue a temporarily satisfying and ultimately self-defeating politics of protest.

Of course what has happened on the health-care bill is enraging. It's quite clear that substantial majorities in both houses of Congress favored either a public option or a Medicare buy-in.

In a normal democracy, such majorities would work their will, a law would pass, and champagne corks would pop. But everyone must get it through their heads that thanks to the bizarre habits of the Senate, we are no longer a normal democracy.

Because of a front of Republican obstruction and the ludicrous idea that all legislation requires a supermajority of 60 votes, power has passed from the majority to tiny minorities, sometimes minorities of one.

Worse, more influence in this system flows to those willing to kill a bill than to those who most devoutly want to pass one. The paradox in this case is that senators who care most passionately about extending health coverage to 31 million Americans have the least power.

That's why Joe Lieberman held the whip hand in killing the idea of letting Americans 55 and older buy into Medicare. Unlike liberal senators such as Jay Rockefeller or Sherrod Brown, Lieberman was perfectly happy to see the health-care proposal die if that was the price of getting himself into the spotlight.

What transpired was thus not the product of some magic show in which more conservative senators are endowed with mysteriously ingenious negotiating abilities while liberals are a bunch of bunglers. The whole system is biased to the right because the Senate itself -- a body in which Wyoming and Utah have as much representation as New York and California -- is tilted in a conservative direction. The 60-vote requirement empowers conservatives even more.

In light of this, the notion that letting the current health-care bill perish would produce a more progressive bill later is preposterous. Anyone who wants to change or even abolish the Senate has my full support. But that is not an option now.

In the meantime, progressives such as Brown and Rockefeller are right to be fighting with all their might to push through this less than perfect but still remarkably decent proposal.

To vote against it, Rockefeller said when I caught up with him recently, "you have to be for not covering 30 million people . . . you have to be for denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions . . . you have to be against helping small businesses buy health insurance." His list went on and on, pointing to the rather astonishing progress this bill makes. Brown agrees, and suggests that progressives now need to direct their energies toward improving on the Senate's work. Senate passage of this bill, expected later this week, will not be the final step. There will still be negotiations with the House, whose plan is, in some important respects, the superior product, especially when it comes to making insurance more affordable for low- and middle-income Americans.

While the Senate's intricate balance severely constrains how many changes it will accept -- Sen. Ben Nelson, who provided the critical 60th vote, made that clear in a Sunday CNN interview -- there is still room to maneuver. Instead of trying to derail the process, which is exactly what conservative opponents want to do, those on the left dissatisfied with the Senate bill should focus their efforts over the next few weeks on getting as many fixes into it as they can.

And then they can do something else: Start organizing for the next health-care fight. Enactment of a single bill will not mark the end of the struggle. It will open a series of new opportunities. It's a lot easier to improve a system premised on the idea that everyone should have health coverage than to create such a system in the first place. Better to take a victory and build on it -- to accept this plan as a "starter home," in Sen. Tom Harkin's apt metaphor -- than to label victory as defeat.

Successful political movements prosper on the confidence that they can sustain themselves over time so they can finish tomorrow what they start today. At this moment, rage is understandable, but hope is what's necessary.

Howie P.S.: MoveOn has "Five Critical Flaws in the Senate Health Care Bill," that can serve as a resource for ideas about "fixes" as well as the basis for future organizing:

#1—Deny Americans the choice of a public option. In contrast, the House bill contains a national public option, the key to real competition, greater choice, and lower costs.¹

#2—Leave insurance unaffordable for some lower income and working people. Both bills require virtually all Americans to buy insurance. But even with the subsidies provided, some families could have to pay up to 20% of their income on health care expenses.²

#3—Impose dangerous restrictions on women's reproductive health care. Unfortunately, both bills do this and the House provision is worse. Both versions would be a dangerous step and neither should be in the final bill.³

#4—Tax American workers' health coverage to pay for reform. The Senate would pay for part of reform by taxing the hard-won benefits packages of some working Americans. The House, on the other hand, pays for reform with a small surcharge on only the wealthiest Americans—a far better approach.⁴

#5—Allow insurance companies to remain exempt from anti-trust laws. Under current law, insurance companies are actually exempt from laws designed to prevent monopolies and price-gouging. The House bill would fix this, but the Senate bill leaves it in place.

"Resurrecting the public option" (video)

MSNBC-ED Show, video (03:14).

Playbook: The Hill’s Brent Budowsky explains how the Democrats can bring back both the public option and the Dorgan amendment.

Nate Silver: "The Public Option Fight May Not Have Been Winnable"

Nate Silver:

There's been a little bit of revisionist history in the post-mortem over the public option. The fact is that progressives did very, very well to get to within a handful of votes in the Senate on a weak-ish public option -- perhaps as close as one or two votes on the latest compromise, the Medicare buy-in.

Exhibit A: At least four Democratic Senators had declared relatively unambiguous opposition to the public option as early as mid-June, when the health care debate began in earnest:

Blanche Lincoln -- June 18th:

LITTLE ROCK — U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., says she prefers private insurance cooperatives to a government-run provider that would compete with the private sector in reforming the nation’s health care system.

Mary Landrieu -- June 9th:

Count Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) as a "no" vote on the public insurance option.

"I am not open to a public option, however I will remain open to a compromise - a full compromise," Landrieu told reporters Tuesday. "A public option is not something I support I don't think its the right way to go."

Joe Lieberman -- June 14th:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said this weekend that he opposes a public option plan for consumers in a healthcare reform plan to emerge from the Senate.

"I don't favor a public option," Lieberman told Bloomberg News in an interview broadcast this weekend. And I don't favor a public option because I think there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market."

Ben Nelson -- April 30th:

Sen. Ben Nelson said Thursday that he will oppose the creation of a government-run health insurance plan as part of a health care overhaul, contrary to the position held by many of his fellow Democrats.

Nelson, D-Neb., said he may try to assemble a coalition of like-minded centrists opposed to the creation of a public plan, as a counterweight to Democrats pushing for it. He said he does not believe a majority of the Senate supports the idea.

Exhibit B: As of August 12th, the number of clear yesses in favor of the public option stood only at about 43.

Exhibit C: On September 29th, the very robust Rockefeller public option was defeated 8-15 out of the Senate Finance Committee, with 5 of the 13 Democrats voting against, and the marginally robust Schumer public option was defeated by a vote of 10 to 13 moments later.

In other words, I don't see the ConservaDems -- with the possible and important exception of Joe Lieberman -- constantly moving the goalposts on the public option or otherwise negotiating in bad faith. Rather, I see them as having staked out a firm stance and sticking to it, and the public option advocates always facing a consequently uphill battle.

Suppose the following scenario plays out when you're trying to buy a used car:

Dealer: The price of the car is $2,000.
You: For that beat-up Honda Accord? I'll give you $1,200.
Dealer: Nope, it's $2,000.
You: How about $1,500?
Dealer: I'm going to stick with $2,000.
You: Will $1,700 get it done?
Dealer: My best and final offer is $2,000.
You: Give a guy a break! $1,875?
Dealer: $2,000.
You: $1,995 and a Slurpee coupon?
Dealer: Now we're talking -- step into my office.

Is that a negotiation in bad faith? Is the dealer moving the goalposts? No. He's being very stubborn and very firm -- but he's also being very explicit about what he wants. It's possible that you were an incompetent negotiator and that maybe if your first offer had come in a little lower, or a little higher, you could have gotten a better price. But more likely the dealer simply had more of the leverage and ultimately $2,000 is an acceptable price to you, even if it's more than you were hoping to pay.

Progressives did just about everything in their power to try to get a decent public option into the bill. They threatened. They bargained. They complained. They organized. They persuaded. They begged. There was the opt-in, the opt-out, the trigger, the Medicare buy-in. There was no lack of initiative or creativity. And they actually had quite a bit of success: from 43 votes in August, they got up to perhaps as many as 48-52 for a strong-ish public option, and 57-59 for a weak-ish one. People like Kay Hagan, Tom Carper and Kent Conrad, to varying degrees, came on board.

But just because you perceive yourself as being in a negotiation with another party doesn't entitle you to win that negotiation, or even to split things halfway. Sometimes your adversary doesn't think there's anything to negotiate at all. Sometimes they would in theory be willing to negotiate if you could find the right leverage point, but there's nothing that fits the bill, for all your best efforts. Sometimes their first offer is pretty much as good as it's going to get, and not merely a negotiating ploy.

At the end of the day, negotiations are about leverage, and in this case, the ConservaDems had almost all of it. Why?

Firstly, because a bill without a public option still does a world's worth of good from a progressive standpoint, providing in excess of $100 billion per year in subsidies to the disadvantaged to help them procure health care.

Secondly, because the public option is considerably more popular in progressive districts than in ConservaDem ones.

Thirdly, because the health care bill has become fairly unpopular overall. Whereas for a moderate or liberal Democrat, a vote for health care is nevertheless a slam dunk, the more conservative Democrats have to weigh a nay vote that would really hurt their party nationally versus an aye vote that could potentially harm them personally.

Fourthly, because money talks in politics, and corporate campaign donations tend to push policy toward the center-right, and the ConservaDems tend to be especially reliant on corporate contributions.

Fifthly, because progressives do not have a history of behaving "irrationally", and so attempts to refute the above logic are not credible.

Sixthly, because the threat to use reconciliation is only minimally credible -- it could be done, but the bill that emerged could easily be worse from a progressive standpoint than a bill passed under regular order without a public option, and the attendant political fallout would be damaging to all Democrats.

This is a very difficult set of circumstances to overcome. Perhaps not impossible -- if Joe Lieberman weren't such a prick, for instance, maybe it could have been done. But very, very tough. I see neither a strategic failure on behalf of progressives, nor "enabling" behavior on behalf of moderates**, nor bad faith on behalf of conservatives. Nothing was yanked away from progressives -- they set a very high bar, worked their butts off, and just barely failed to clear it.

** The one possible exception -- the White House -- which was pretty darn popular when this debate began and wasn't willing to gamble much of its political capital.

"Ed Schultz Takes On Jonathan Alter Over Health Bill, Public Option (with video)

HuffPo, with video (05:30):

The Ed Show's Ed Schultz took on President Obama Tuesday for not showing support for the public option. Schultz pointed to an email sent out by Organizing for America, asking supporters of health care reform to send money. The email, like the president's speech to Senators on Sunday, did not mention the public option. Schultz accused Obama of allowing a handful of Democrats to shape health care reform and permitting a "watered down, whatever-the-hell-it-is public option" to move forward.

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter stepped forward to defend the president and the health care bill. Alter argued that Schultz was misrepresenting the totality of the billl, telling Schultz that, "You have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be."

Alter accused Schultz of making it sound like the whole bill was the public option and argued that the bill offers tremendous reforms like "ending discrimination against sick people...insuring more than 30 million additional Americans... all kinds of preventative care."

Schultz took issue with Alter's claim that the bill was being misrepresented. "This is nothing but a handout to the insurance industry," Shultz said. "What you've got is tax dollars that are gonna be subsidizing lower income people, they're gonna be mandated to go over to the insurance industry and purchase insurance... If there's gonna be 40 million new customers... why in the heck wouldn't they take that on?"

WATCH:

Howard Dean: "Senate Health Care Deal Contains “Real Reform”"

Greg Sargent:

In a boost for the Senate health care deal reached yesterday, Howard Dean said in an interview with me moments ago that the current compromise contains “real reform,” and said that as it stands now, progressives could support it.

Dean also confirmed various details about the deal that he’d learned in direct converstaions with Senators involved in the dicussions — detail that news orgs had mostly attributed to anonymous sources. Dean’s general support for the bill could give it a boost among progressives who say it falls short of real reform.

Some detail from Dean:

* In one provision that liberals will dislike, Dean said he’d been told that the Medicare buy-in for people 55-64 would not have subsidies, potentially making the buy in unaffordable for many intended recipients. Dean said that if this isn’t fixed in conference negotiations, it could be a deal-breaker.

“That’s a huge problem that may tip this into being not real reform,” Dean said.

* Dean confirmed what I reported here yesterday: The Medicare buy-in will be available as early as 2010, a provision he hailed for substantive and political reasons. “They’re making government-run single payer available to people under 65,” he said. “That’s a step in the right direction.”

Dean added, however, that it was unclear as of yet whether the early buy-in applied to all those without insurance or just those at high-risk (I was told yesterday that the latter was true). He said that if it’s high-risk only, that could also be a provision that falls short of real reform, and noted that the early buy-in would have to be made available to everybody.

Asked to respond to progressives who decry the compromise for not making government-run insurance available to all age groups who need it, Dean said:

“The question is, Is there enough of a kernel of real reform in the bill to make it possible for progressives to vote for it? Given the details we know today, I think there is. The group at largest risk is being taken care of, those over 55. There really is reform. Is there enough reform? No. But significant reform matters.”More as I learn it.

Howie P.S.: John Aravosis spins this as "Howard Dean gives contradictory answer as to whether Health Care bill is sufficient." Jane Hamsher says "The failure to establish a public option for uninsured Americans is President Obama's failure alone. Sign our Petition to President Obama to pass a public option without triggers."

"Progress in Senate Democratic health care talks" (with video)

AP, with video from John Harwood of CNBC (08:36):

After agreeing tentatively to jettison a key liberal priority — a full-blown government-run insurance option — Democrats say they are getting close to pushing President Barack Obama's health care bill through the Senate.

"We've overcome a real problem that we had," Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in announcing what he called a "broad agreement" Tuesday night.

Officials said it included nonprofit national health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which runs the popular federal employees' health plan, as well as opening Medicare to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, effective in 2011.

Greater government involvement would potentially kick in if private insurance companies declined to participate in the nationwide plan, although details weren't available. One possibility was for the personnel office to set up a government-run plan, either national in scope or on a state-by-state basis.

"I think when people see this they'll really like what we've done," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who was among five moderate senators who spent several days negotiating with five liberals. Reid planned to describe the plan in greater detail after getting an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.

The White House weighed in quickly with a statement from spokesman Reid Cherlin. "Senators are making great progress and we're pleased that they're working together to find common ground toward options that increase choice and competition," he said.

The Senate is in its second week of debate on the 10-year, nearly $1 trillion legislation that would dramatically remake the U.S. health care system and extend coverage to millions of the uninsured, with a new requirement for nearly everyone to purchase insurance. New purchasing marketplaces called exchanges would make it easier for small businesses and people without government or employer coverage to shop for health insurance, and onerous insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions would be banned.

The deal reached Tuesday puts even more requirements on insurers by requiring that 90 percent of premium dollars be spent on medical benefits, as opposed to administrative costs, officials said. The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly.

Reid wants action on the health bill done by Christmas but more challenges lie ahead. On Wednesday, senators expected to debate an amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to legalize the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and several other countries as a way of holding down consumer costs. The idea enjoys widespread support but is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which has worked closely with the administration on health care and has spent millions of dollars on television advertisements in support of legislation.

The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter saying it would be "logistically challenging" to assure the safety of imported drugs, raising concerns without stating outright opposition.

Underscoring the heated emotions surrounding the government insurance plan, Reid refused to acknowledge its demise, contending that reports it was gone were "not true."

In a statement, Reid said the emerging compromise "includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways: one, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices."

It wasn't clear what he meant by a "public option" — the Medicare expansion or another element.

Either way, it's a far cry from what liberals had in mind when they envisioned the government competing directly with private insurers to offer health coverage to uninsured or self-employed Americans.

Even though the government plan would have been available to relatively few people, it took on outsize importance in the health care debate. Liberal groups clamored for it as necessary to offer consumers choice and competition, while Republicans and business groups — and critically, a bloc of moderate senators — contended it could mushroom out of control and drive private companies out of business.

In the end, dropping it was the price Reid had to pay for potential support from senators like moderate Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent. Reid must have the support of all 58 Senate Democrats and two independents to achieve the necessary 60 votes to overcome Republican stalling tactics and advance legislation, giving great influence to the handful of moderates opposed to the government insurance plan.

Reid already faced the prospect of losing moderate Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who said his support was in question after the failure of an amendment he offered Tuesday to insert tougher abortion restrictions into the legislation. The vote was 54-45.

The health legislation passed by the House last month includes the tougher abortion language as well as a government insurance plan; those differences would have to be resolved, assuming the Senate passes its bill.

Howie P.S.: Not everyone is going to applaud this kind of "progress," but it does move the legislation down the road.

Rachel Maddow on LIEberman (video) (Updated)

UPDATE: Jane Hamsher takes Chris Dodd to task for backing Lieberman on this issue.

MSNBC-Maddow, video (08:54).

Howie P.S. Jane Hamsher joins Rachel to offer historical perspective. Robert Scheer writes "Lieberman Twists the Knife." Ezra Klein (WaPo) says "I don't know why I don't take Joe Lieberman's threat to filibuster health-care reform more seriously, but I just don't." ED Schultz DOES, video (12:31). Political Wire adds their 2 cents: "Analyzing Lieberman's Threat."

"FOX News Shepard Smith takes down the GOP talking points on the public option" (video)

DailyKosTV, video (07:07).

Conason: "Socialism" and Sham in the Senate

Joe Conason:

Just the other day, Sen. Kent Conrad tried to explain his fervent opposition to a "public option" by mentioning the way they do things abroad. The Democrat from North Dakota wanted to tell his "progressive friends" that we can achieve universal coverage and reduce costs - like all of the industrial nations that pay far less than we do - care for all their people and get better results. Referring to systems in France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Japan, he said, "All of them contain costs, have universal coverage, have very high-quality care and yet are not government-run systems."

It is true that the countries named by Conrad achieve all those benchmarks, but it is false and misleading to claim that none of them have government-run health care.

France, which probably has the best system in the world, is essentially a single-payer plan that operates under their Social Security system. Germany prohibits insurance companies from making any profit on basic coverage.

Japan provides insurance at a very low cost to families and individuals, with private coverage is used only for a narrow range of services. Switzerland runs insurance plans that are so highly regulated, with prices of services and drugs set by the government, that they would be denounced as communist if anyone tried to impose them here.

Conrad, like his colleagues from Iowa and Wyoming, travels abroad on tax dollars, receives excellent briefings and reports from the Congressional Research Service, and employs lots of staff members to help him.

Can they really be that dumb? Or do they just assume that we are?

Colbert: "Send Your Medical Bills to Max Baucus" (video)

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Send Your Medical Bills to Max Baucus
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

Comedy Central-Stephen Colbert, video, (02:41):

Senator Max Baucus will pay for your medical bills from the $3.2 million he’s received from the health care industry.

"Reid: Final health bill will have a 'public option'"

Las Vegas Review-Journal:

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today there will be a "public option" in whatever health insurance reform bill comes out of Congress.

"We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk," Reid said in a conference call with constituents, referring to some kind of government plan.

"I believe the public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us," he said.

Reid also mentioned the inclusion of incentives for healthy behavior, something suggested by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.

Contact reporter Benjamin Spillman at bspillman@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3861.

Howie P.S.: I hope his definition of a public option is similar to mine.

Howard Dean on Rachel Maddow on the public option (video)

MSNBC-Rachel Maddow, video (07:29).