"Rep. Weiner 'still pissed' about public option"

Michael O'Brien (The Hill):

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) says he's "still pissed" that Democrats gave up on including a public option in their healthcare reform bill.

On the heels of a federal judge's ruling on Monday striking down the entirety of President Obama's healthcare law as unconstitutional, Weiner expressed regret that his party abandoned a government-run health insurance option.

He tweeted:

We know this : the public option is constitutional. #stillpissedwegaveuponthat

Weiner had been a leading proponent of the public option during the months-long healthcare debate in Congress. But his party's leadership had to cut it from the bill after centrist Democrats in the Senate refused to vote to advance legislation that included the controversial provision.

The federal judge's ruling likely would still have struck down a healthcare law, including a public option, as unconstitutional. Judge Roger Vinson said that the individual mandate — the requirement that each American have health insurance — was unconstitutional. Under his ruling, the entire law is unconstitutional, because that provision is not "severable" from the rest of the law.

Howie P.S.: Greg Sargent Michael O'Brien (The Hill): says

If conservatives do succceed in getting the whole of health reform junked, they should prepare for true armageddon: Dems trying to pass an expanded version of Medicare via reconciliation.

Obama, Helen Thomas, Binyamin Netanyahu', Karzai and Health Care (with video)

TheRealNews, video (09:20)):

White House Press Corps longest-serving member says Obama lost credibility when he dodged her question on Israeli nukes.

"Binyamin Netanyahu's efforts to heal rift marred as Barack Obama branded 'disaster for Israel'" (Guardian UK):

Both sides deny snubbing the other in settlement row as insiders launch outspoken press attack on US leader.

"President Obama Sneaks into Kabul to Beg President Karzai to Clean Up His Act" (Dave Lindorff):

The government US forces are propping up is so weak and corrupt that it doesn't really "rule" anything but the capital city of Kabul, and it, and its police and army enforcers, are largely viewed by the majority of Afghans as little more than an official mafia. It is well known that President Hamid Karzai stole the last election and thumbed his nose at world opinion (his opponent simply quit the race in disgust during the ballot counting).

And it was this usurper Karzai whom the visiting Obama was left to plead with to clean up the mess of a government he runs. Clean up how? Karzai's own brother is a leading warlord and opium baron. Even the country's opium crop is being left untouched by US forces, for fear of alienating the country's farmers, so we're actually in there fighting to defend the world's leading producer of opium for the heroin trade! How on earth do you "clean up" a government in a country like that?

"Coverage Now for Sick Children? Check Fine Print" (NY Times):

Just days after President Obama signed the new health care law, insurance companies are already arguing that, at least for now, they do not have to provide one of the benefits that the president calls a centerpiece of the law: coverage for certain children with pre-existing conditions.

"Analysis: Economy, not health care, will be focus" (AP):

Losers in a brutal struggle with President Barack Obama, Republicans now hope voter anger over newly enacted health care legislation will propel them to victory in midterm elections this fall.

Forget about it.

No matter the impact of health care, the economy still matters most — unemployment in particular — in a country struggling to emerge from the deepest recession in decades.

In poll after poll, it isn't even close.

A CBS/New York Times poll taken last month, when the health care debate was in a lull, showed 52 percent of those surveyed identified the economy as their top priority. Health care was a distant second at 13 percent.

"Harry Reid and the Public Option" (Booman):

I think the take-away is that Ben Nelson exerted an effective veto over the public option and Joe Lieberman did the same for the expanded Medicare buy-in. There was a narrow window to try to push the public option through reconciliation (which is what I advocated from the beginning) but, in the end, the toxicity of the political climate left the entire process in too much doubt for Reid and the administration to risk everything on it.

Howie P.S.: I think I understand why The President might be tempted into smoking an occasional cigarette.

Greenwald: "The Democrats' scam becomes more transparent"

Glenn Greenwald:

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about what seemed to be a glaring (and quite typical) scam perpetrated by Congressional Democrats: all year long, they insisted that the White House and a majority of Democratic Senators vigorously supported a public option, but the only thing oh-so-unfortunately preventing its enactment was the filibuster: sadly, we have 50 but not 60 votes for it, they insisted. Democratic pundits used that claim to push for "filibuster reform," arguing that if only majority rule were required in the Senate, then the noble Democrats would be able to deliver all sorts of wonderful progressive reforms that they were truly eager to enact but which the evil filibuster now prevents. In response, advocates of the public option kept arguing that the public option could be accomplished by reconciliation -- where only 50 votes, not 60, would be required -- but Obama loyalists scorned that reconciliation proposal, insisting (at least before the Senate passed a bill with 60 votes) that using reconciliation was Unserious, naive, procedurally impossible, and politically disastrous.

But all those claims were put to the test -- all those bluffs were called -- once the White House decided that it had to use reconciliation to pass a final health care reform bill. That meant that any changes to the Senate bill (which had passed with 60 votes) -- including the addition of the public option -- would only require 50 votes, which Democrats assured progressives all year long that they had. Great news for the public option, right? Wrong. As soon as it actually became possible to pass it, the 50 votes magically vanished. Senate Democrats (and the White House) were willing to pretend they supported a public option only as long as it was impossible to pass it. Once reconciliation gave them the opportunity they claimed all year long they needed -- a "majority rule" system -- they began concocting ways to ensure that it lacked 50 votes.

All of that was bad enough, but now the scam is getting even more extreme, more transparent. Faced with the dilemma of how they could possibly justify their year-long claimed support for the public option only now to fail to enact it, more and more Democratic Senators were pressured into signing a letter supporting the enactment of the public option through reconciliation; that number is now above 40, and is rapidly approaching 50. In other words, there is a serious possibility that the Senate might enact a public option if there is a vote on it, because it's very difficult for these Senators to vote "No" after pretending all year long -- on the record -- that they supported it. In fact, The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim yesterday wrote: "the votes appear to exist to include a public option. It's only a matter of will."

The one last hope for Senate Democratic leaders was to avoid a vote altogether on the public option, thereby relieving Senators of having to take a position and being exposed. But that trick would require the cooperation of all Senators -- any one Senator can introduce a public option amendment during the reconciliation and force a vote -- and it now seems that Bernie Sanders, to his great credit, is refusing to go along with the Democrats' sham and will do exactly that: ignore the wishes of the Senate leadership and force a roll call vote on the public option.

So now what is to be done? They only need 50 votes, so they can't use the filibuster excuse. They don't seem able to prevent a vote, as they tried to do, because Sanders will force one. And it seems there aren't enough Senate Democrats willing to vote against the public option after publicly saying all year long they supported it, which means it might get 50 votes if a roll call vote is held. So what is the Senate Democratic leadership now doing? They're whipping against the public option, which they pretended all year along to so vigorously support:

Senate Democratic leaders are concerned about the amount of mischief their own Members could create if or when a health care reconciliation bill comes up for debate. And sources said some supporters of creating a public insurance option are privately worried that they will be asked to vote against the idea during debate on the bill, which could occur before March 26.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for the bill. "We have to tell people, 'You just have to swallow hard' and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen," Durbin, who supports a public option, told reporters.

If -- as they claimed all year long -- a majority of Congressional Democrats and the White House all support a public option, why would they possibly whip against it, and ensure its rejection, at exactly the moment when it finally became possible to pass it? If majorities of the House and Senate support it, as does the White House, how could the inclusion of a public option possibly jeopardize passage of the bill?

I've argued since August that the evidence was clear that the White House had privately negotiated away the public option and didn't want it, even as the President claimed publicly (and repeatedly) that he did. And while I support the concept of "filibuster reform" in theory, it's long seemed clear that it would actually accomplish little, because the 60-vote rule does not actually impede anything. Rather, it is the excuse Democrats fraudulently invoke, using what I called the Rotating Villain tactic (it's now Durbin's turn), to refuse to pass what they claim they support but are politically afraid to pass, or which they actually oppose (sorry, we'd so love to do this, but gosh darn it, we just can't get 60 votes). If only 50 votes were required, they'd just find ways to ensure they lacked 50. Both of those are merely theories insusceptible to conclusive proof, but if I had the power to create the most compelling evidence for those theories that I could dream up, it would be hard to surpass what Democrats are doing now with regard to the public option. They're actually whipping against the public option. Could this sham be any more transparent?

UPDATE: One related point: when I was on Morning Joe several weeks ago, I argued this point -- why aren't Democrats including the public option in the reconciliation package given that they have the 50 votes in favor of the public option -- and, in response, Chuck Todd recited White House spin and DC conventional wisdom (needless to say) by insisting that they do not have the votes to pass the public option. If that's true -- if they lack the votes to pass the public option through reconciliation? -- why is Dick Durbin now whipping against it, telling Senators -- in his own words -- "You just have to swallow hard' and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen"?

No discussion of the public option is complete without noting how much the private health insurance industry despises it; the last thing they want, of course, is the beginning of real competition and choice.

Howie P.S.: Only time will tell, for sure, if the backroom dealing makes the public option a deal-breaker for Obama.

Howard Dean on Countdown: "Support for public option creeps ahead" (video)

MSNBC-Countdown, video (04:06)

"Gibbs Explains Why Obama Didn't Include Public Option"

Sam Stein (HuffPo):

The White House decided not to include a public option for insurance coverage in its final health care proposal because of concerns about vote count, spokesman Robert Gibbs suggested during Monday's briefing.

But the window to pass a government-run insurance plan has not fully closed, even if the Obama administration isn't enthusiastically on board.

Much to the chagrin of progressive and some non-progressive Democrats, the White House on Monday appeared to fully reject the idea of passing the public plan using reconciliation despite calls from at least 20 senators to pursue this route. Asked by the Huffington Post why the administration dumped the idea -- even though aides continuously stress that the president supports the public plan -- Gibbs suggested that the main consideration was getting something into law.

"The president has put forward a proposal that is based on the Senate plan with some modifications to that and, as the best way forward, into something that can ultimately wind its way through the Senate," he said.

But the case isn't fully closed. A campaign to get the public plan added to the legislation during the amendment process is still very much alive. And even Gibbs conceded that the provision could still come to a vote on the Senate floor.

"I think they have asked for a vote on the floor of the Senate," Gibbs said. "And that is certainly up to those who manage those amendments and to [Majority] Leader [Harry] Reid."

"FLASHBACK: Obama Repeatedly Touted Public Option Before Refusing To Push For It In The Final Hours"

Think Progress:

In recent days, there has been an uproar in the progressive community over the Senate’s decision to drop the public option from its health care bill in order to reach the crucial 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Given that many liberals backed a single-payer, Medicare-for-all system, the public option was seen as a political compromise.

“I didn’t campaign on the public option,” President Obama told the Washington Post. But he touted the public option on his campaign website and spoke frequently in support of it during the first year of his presidency, citing its essential value in holding the private insurance industry accountable and providing competition:

– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]

– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]

– While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]

– During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]

– Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]

Despite all this overt advocacy for the public option, it appears that Obama was reticent to apply the political pressure necessary to get the plan in the final hours of congressional negotiation. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) — who threatened to filibuster the creation of any new public plan or expansion of Medicare — told the Huffington Post that he “didn’t really have direct input from the White House” on the public option and was never specifically asked to support it.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), one of the most ardent backers of public insurance, blamed the demise of the public option on a “lack of support from the administration.” Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) — perhaps the most visible defender of the public option in the entire health care debate — went even further, saying that Obama’s lack of support for congressional progressives amounted to him being “half-pregnant” with the health insurance and drug industries.

Update "All I'll say, I was surprised to hear this because I had assumed all along that the White House was pushing strongly for the public option," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) said. "I just assumed that."

Update In response to a questionnaire from the Washington Post, then-candidate Obama said, “My plan builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and creates a new public health plan for those currently without coverage.”

"Senate Overcomes Key Health Care Hurdle--Reform Now On The Horizon"

TPMDC:

By a vote of 60-40, the Senate agreed to end debate on a major package of health care amendments--and by doing so, signaled that the Democratic caucus is unified, and ready to pass a far-reaching reform bill straight down party lines.

The Senate is now expected to hold more procedural votes on Tuesday and Wednesday before finally voting on the bill late Christmas eve. Keep your eyes on TPMDC for all developments.

Howie P.S.: Feingold speaks

“I’ve been fighting all year for a strong public option to compete with the insurance industry and bring health care spending down. I continued that fight during recent negotiations, and I refused to sign onto a deal to drop the public option from the Senate bill. Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle. Removing the public option from the Senate bill is the wrong move, and eliminates $25 billion in savings. I will be urging members of the House and Senate who draft the final bill to make sure this essential provision is included.

“But while the loss of the public option is a bitter pill to swallow, on balance, the bill still delivers meaningful reform, and the cost of inaction is simply too high. This bill significantly expands coverage and helps protect Wisconsinites from high costs and insurance company abuses, such as denying or restricting coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The bill also improves a flawed Medicare formula that denies Wisconsin fair reimbursement rates, encourages the kind of low-cost, high-value care practiced in our state, increases access to home and community-based long-term care, and reduces federal budget deficits by $132 billion over the next decade.”

"Cracks in the public option" (video)

MSNBC-Countdown, video (07:36).

Howie P.S.: Rep. Anthony Weiner explains how the Pelosi bill falls short. Weiner runs out of time as he faults the bill for failing to control prices in the public option.

Maddow: "Lieberman defends insurance industry interests" (video)

MSNBC-Maddow, video (11:24).

Howie P.S.: Glenn Greenwald joins Maddow to discuss conflicts of interest on the health care reform issue involving Lieberman and Evan Bayh.

"Daou: Don't bother waiting for bloggers to get credit for the Public Option"

John Aravosis (AMERICAblog):

Peter Daou, writing in the Huffington Post. Peter was Hillary's online adviser:

Not surprisingly, despite lots of buzz about the use of the Internet as a fundraising and organizing tool, the outsized role played by blog denizens was buried in the gush of excitement that followed Election Day. Ultimately, that relatively small band of online progressives received very little of the credit they deserved for changing the course of American history.

Now, a similar dynamic is playing out. Although it's far from clear what the final health care bill will look like, especially the public option (opt-out, trigger, etc.), there's absolutely no doubt that it is alive primarily because of the vigorous efforts of online progressive activists and bloggers on Huffington Post, Firedoglake, Daily Kos, TPM, Think Progress, Media Matters, Salon, AmericaBlog, Crooks and Liars, and hundreds of smaller sites (not to mention MoveOn).

But don't hold your breath waiting to read about the netroots' pivotal role in forcing the inclusion of a public option -- it's just not the way things work in our current media and political world. Instead, at most expect to hear vague allusions to the 'left'. Or even more likely, the credit will go to liberal-leaning legislators and will reference "public support," neglecting the fact that it took bloggers to draw attention to the polling that showed a majority favored the public option.

Your thoughts?

Howie P.S.: MSNBC and talkers like Ed Schultz won't get their due, as well, I suppose.

Maddow: The "Opt out option" for dummies (video)

MSNBC-Maddow, (10:10).

Howie P.S. Rachel uses visual aids to explain the political menu for the public option. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)discusses his concerns about the "opt out" option.

"List of Pundits who Declared the P.O. Dead"

brooklynbadboy's diary on Kos:

Brad Blakeman:

The "public option" is dead, but birth has been given to the "co-op" by Senator Kent Conrad.

Cesar Conda:

The public option has flat-lined. As for the legislative outlook for health reform, the Senate will approve a bill without the public option. The current House version includes the public option, but I'm not so sure the Blue Dogs will want to walk the plank and vote on a provision that won't become law.

Thomas J. Whalen:

The public option appears deader than the pennant chances of the Kansas City Royals. Nonprofit cooperatives will now take center stage in the health care debate and from the White House's perspective, this may not be such a bad thing.

Sen. Kent Conrad:

In the Senate, the cooperative plan is the only one that has the prospect of getting 60 votes.

Conrad again:

"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option. There never have been," he said. "So to continue to chase that rabbit I think is just a wasted effort."

One more Conrad, just because I don't like the guy:

"It is very clear that in the United States Senate, the public option does not have the votes," he said. "If we have to get to 60 votes, you cannot get there with public option. That's why I was asked to come up with an alternative."

Jane Hamsher:

Of course he’s not going to include a public option — as DC’s beltway class well knows, it’s been gone for a long time.

...

Rahm and the Baucus Caucus dealt the public option away months ago in order to keep stakeholders at the negotiating tables, and from filling the coffers of Republicans in 2010.

Newt Gingrich:

"I think the president has a real opportunity to fundamentally change the tone of his administration," Gingrich tells NRO. But, he says, "I think it takes deeper change than simply yes or no on the public option. Frankly, if he does come out against a public option — given what the Left and the ACLU have said — it would be a very significant moment, and we should not understate how significant that would be."

Nate Silver:

Is the public option really dead? Probably.

Perhaps the better question is whether the public option was ever really 'alive', meaning that it ever had enough votes to pass both the House and the Senate.

Karen Kerrigan:

It is dead. Never had a chance. Yet, debate over the public option will continue.

Steve Steckler:

Steve Steckler: The public option was like a cheap tattoo on the bride in an arranged marriage, betraying a questionable past (Medicare cost history) and an ominous future (budget-driven service constraints) for what was supposed to be love at first sight.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson:

President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and a parade of House and Senate Democrats should get academy awards for their play act on the public heath care option. It's as dead as a doornail.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich:

"It’s my opinion that the blue dogs are doing exactly what the white house wants them to do. The public option was a trial balloon. I can not stress how cynical and brutal the politics are. This is not about the public option. Anyone looking for the public option needs to look someplace else. It is not going to happen and anybody who says it is is in fantasy land."

Alex Castellanos:

Well, the public option... it will still keep growing for a few days, but it's dead. It's not going to happen.

Gloria Borger:

I think it's pretty dead, Campbell. I think it's safe to say that right now it looks like it's a goner.

Fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle

It's probably on life support. It'll go to the Senate floor. There, they will have other votes. There may be other dynamics. There's another amendment on a public option that probably has a lot more possibility, and that is the so-called Snow amendment, which is a trigger for a public option over the course of several years.

Bill O'Reilly:

The big federal insurance apparatus isn't going to happen.

Krauthammer:

The wascally wabbit is dead. It doesn't have a chance.

Dana Perino:

I think what this signaled this weekend is that the public option is dead. It's not coming back.

Joe Klein:

Well, but the public plan was never going to be on the table.

And real gem from none other than Tweety:

OK. Let's take a look at the bottom line. We asked The Matthews Meter, 12 of our regulars, do the Democratic leaders who are pushing the public option now really deep down know that it's dead, that it can't be part of a solution that gets 60 votes, 218 in the House?

Sen. Lindsey Graham:

Appearing on FOX News Sunday this morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) declared that a health reform bill in the House "is dead" and that "we should just throw it in the garbage can."

Jim Cramer:

The public option in health care is dead. So go buy the health care stocks. But what else does President Obama have up his sleeve?

Chris Cillizza:

Snowe's support in committee virtually ensures that the public option won't wind up in the final bill as she is on the record opposing such a move and it's hard to see the White House giving up her support after they won it once.

Bill Kristol:

The real "public option" is to scrap the current grandiose plans and to start over. There is no health care crisis, and doing no harm is far preferable to doing real damage to a good health care system.

David Brooks:

There's, first of all, the people who still want the public option. I think they've unconsciously capitulated; they don't realize it yet.

Lawrence O'Donnell:

I — Nancy Pelosi firmly believes that when the moment comes, she can gather her caucus together, tell them that she fought harder for the public option than Barack Obama did, than Harry Reid did, than any senator did. No one fought harder for it than Nancy Pelosi, and she is now telling her troops they’re going to have to go forward without it. That moment is going to come.

Steven Pearlstein:

If there is anything that's been made clear over the last two weeks, it is that the public option is a political non-starter that threatens the entire reform effort. It's time to let it go.

David Gergen:

Wolf, I think it's now clear that a robust public option, the type supported and proposed by Senator Rockefeller today, is dead. They simply do not have the votes.

T-Mac:

"I wish we could have a public option, but I'm also a realist."

President Barack Obama:

"I absolutely do not believe that it’s dead," Obama told Univision. "I think that it’s something that we can still include as part of a comprehensive reform effort."

(Thanks to all who helped compile this list.)

Melber and Carpenter react to the "opt out" public option (video)

MSNBC, video (06:27).

Howie P.S.: Ari Melber and Amanda Carpenter react to Harry Reid's announcement that he will put forth a health care reform bill with an "opt out" provision for states that don't want to participate.

Two "Fighting" Videos

ABAShowdown: "BankersBallProtest," video (01:47).


BoldProgressives: "President Obama: It's Time To Fight," video (01:01):

YesWeStillCan.org.

CBS News: "Liberals Open Fire on Harry Reid"

CBS News:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is feeling the heat from his liberal colleagues to include a government-run health insurance plan, or "public option," in the Senate health care bill.

Now, as Reid and other negotiators move closer to unveiling their health care plan, liberal advocacy groups are ratcheting up the pressure, saying they will run Reid out of Washington if he does not bring a public option to the Senate floor. With a tough re-election bid ahead of Reid next year, the liberal "Netroots" could potentially make good on their threat. Coming from a purple state, that puts Reid between a rock and a hard place -- and has some local progressive activists at least somewhat worried.

One television ad pressuring Reid to support the public option is already out: The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) is running a spot for at least five days in Las Vegas called "Is Harry Reid Strong Enough?"

"I'm your typical swing voter," Lee Slaughter, a Las Vegas nurse says in the ad. "I voted for Republicans for president, and I voted for President Obama. I also voted for Senator Harry Reid many times. But in 2010, I'll only be voting on one issue. I'm watching to see if Harry Reid is strong and effective enough as a leader to pass a public health insurance option into law."

FDL Action, the political action committee for the progressive group FireDogLake, is also planning to pressure the majority leader on the subject. The group has already targeted a handful of other moderate Democrats for not supporting a public option, like Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, who has since come under a firestorm of scrutiny from all directions.

The message from the left is that a large Democratic majority in Congress is meaningless if the caucus is unwilling to support liberal causes.

"I'll take a Chuck Schumer-run Senate with 57 Democrats (bye bye Reid, Lieberman, and Lincoln) than a Harry Reid-run one with 75 Democrats," Markos Moulitsas Zúniga wrote last week on the liberal blog network Daily Kos.

Bob Fulkerson, the state director for the nonprofit Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, disagrees with that reasoning.

"Certainly we'd all like to see a barrage of progressive legislation get passed left and right, but even if we elected a more liberal senator than Reid -- likely impossible given Nevada's conservatism -- that would do nothing to change the dynamics of the Senate, where there's a number of conservative Democrats and Independents," Fulkerson told CBSNews.com. "And, would these lefty blogger types be happy with a right-wing senator to replace Reid who is openly hostile to all of our interests? Because that's where their strategy could lead."

Reid wouldn't necessarily hold up against a Republican opponent any stronger than a new Democratic candidate would, contends Ben Tribbett, executive director of the Accountability Now PAC. In fact, he said, having a relatively unknown Democrat in the race could be a good thing.

"There's an oft-quoted statistic that 98 percent of incumbents win re-election, but that's not the case with Senate incumbents in recent years," he told CBSNews.com. "People are able to mobilize earlier, and a lot of those incumbent advantages no longer exist."

Excluding senators who never draw strong challenges, he said, the chances for re-election are closer to 50-50. Furthermore, Tribbett said, a Republican candidate would be able to raise more money running against Reid than against another Democrat.

"Harry Reid's only chance to win this election is representing his own base and bringing a strong public option on the floor," he said.

Indeed, if liberals in Nevada do not get behind Reid next year, he could see his four-term Senate career come to an end. A recent Mason-Dixon poll showed the Nevada senator trailing two possible, relatively unknown, Republican challengers. Real estate developer Danny Tarkanian led Reid 48 percent to 43 percent in a hypothetical matchup, while those polled favored former GOP party official Sue Lowden over Reid by 49 percent to 39 percent.

Fulkerson contends that national liberal advocates are not considering the clout Reid can bring to local progressive issues and are underestimating the number of conservative and moderate voters in the state.

"Why would Nevada want to give up the power of being represented by the Senate Majority Leader? [Reid] has skillfully used that power to kill coal plants, plug state budget holes, and to kill Yucca Mountain, among other things," he said. "If the looney left wants to get rid of Democrats like Reid for not being more like [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi, they should move here and help us transform our state from conservative/libertarian to more liberal/progressive."

How Much will the Public Option Matter in Nov. 2010?

Jennifer Duffy, senior editor of the Cook Political Report, said that health care will certainly play a role in the 2010 election but that it will most likely be overshadowed by the state of the economy. As for whether ads targeting Reid on the public option could sway voters, she said it is too early to tell. Furthermore, she said, there have been ads running in Nevada on both sides of the issue for months.

"Voters are bound to be affected by it to some degree," Duffy said.

Polling on health care has had mixed results. A survey of Nevadans conducted by Mason-Dixon & Research earlier this month showed 43 percent supported President Obama's health care reform plans while 49 percent were opposed to them. Twenty-five percent listed a public option as "the best" way to reduce the number of uninsured Americans and reduce long-term health care costs.

Meanwhile, a new Research 2000 poll commissioned by PCCC shows 54 percent of Nevadans in favor of a public option and 39 percent opposed to the idea. Thirty-one percent said they were less likely to vote for Reid next year if a public option is not a part of health care reform while 17 percent said that would make them more likely to vote for him.

While they may be somewhat split on the issue, Nevada voters clearly care about health care reform. Nevada residents packed an auditorium on Monday night, leaving standing room only at a town hall meeting with Democrat Rep. Dina Titus to discuss health care.

While Fulkerson has reservations about the tactics of national progressives, he acknowledges health care will be a critical issue for Reid.

"I think if a good bill is passed, with a public option, Reid's standing with the base will skyrocket. I think it will also increase his standing with Independents," he said. "Nevada leads the nation in uninsured, and we rank among the worst states in per capita health care spending, so this is a really big issue here. The campaign [targeting Reid] does further raise expectations of liberal voters, who will feel demoralized if the public option is not part of the bill that Obama signs."

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said the issue is a game-changer for Reid.

"Reid would be politically devastated back home if he's weak and caves on the public option," he said.

"Cloture could save the public option" (video)

MSNBC-Maddow, video (06:33).

Howie P.S.: Maddow talks about possible scenarios involving the public option in the health care legislation before Congress. Howard Dean joins her for some addition discussion on strategy.

H/t to Pamela Eakes.

"Heather Graham Pitches Public Option In New Ad" (video)

MoveOn.org, video (01:01):

Heather Graham stars as the Public Option in this funny ad, showing how she'll force the lazy, bloated private insurance companies to get back in the game and compete. After all, competition is as American as apple pie. Featuring actor Peter Coyote as the narrator--

Political compromise: a Public Option “option”

David Goldstein:

There’s a political compromise brewing in the US Senate over several conservative Democratic senators’ opposition to the a public option, a possible “option” clause that would allow states like Nebraska or North Dakota to opt out of the national public option… I mean, if they really want to. And as always, McJoan at Daily Kos gets to the heart of the issue:

In terms of national policy, is this necessarily a good idea? Probably not, when you’ve got crazy secessionists like Rick Perry in governorships. The thought of all those Texans not having access to care is a problem. On the other hand, how many governors ended up sending back those stimulus checks? How many governors, state legislators, or even Senators of Nebraska or North Dakota or Arkansas are going to be willing to stand in front of their constituents and tell them that the rest of the country has access to a government option for their healthcare. Have at it, Ben Nelson.

Yeah, probably not a great policy idea, but if that’s what it takes to get a real public option passed for the rest of us, I agree with Joan: have at it, Ben Nelson.

"Senate panel rejects gov't-run insurance option"

Senate Finance Committee members, from left, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
AP:

In a long-anticipated showdown, liberal Democrats twice failed on Tuesday to inject a government-run insurance option into sweeping health care legislation taking shape in the Senate, despite bipartisan agreement that private insurers must change their ways.

The two votes marked a victory for Montana Democrat Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee chairman, who is hoping to push his middle-of-the-road measure through the panel by week's end. It also kept alive the possibility that at least one Republican may yet swing behind the overhaul, a key goal of both Baucus and the White House.

"My job is to put together a bill that gets to 60 votes" in the full Senate, Baucus said shortly before he joined a majority on the committee in defeating efforts to rewrite a key portion of his draft legislation. "No one shows me how to get to 60 votes with a public option," he said, using the term used to describe a new government role in health care. It would take 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to overcome any filibuster Republicans might attempt.

Supporters of a new role for government repeatedly accused private insurers of placing profits over coverage, and said they would try for a federal option again when the full Senate votes.

"With some work and some compromise, we can get the 60 votes on the floor of the Senate that will make our system better by providing for a strong, fair and viable public option," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who backed one of the proposals rejected Tuesday.

A combination of Baucus, moderate Democratic allies and all committee Republicans combined to defeat both amendments.

The maneuvering occurred as the committee plunged into a second week of public debate on legislation that generally adheres to conditions that President Barack Obama has called for. The bill includes numerous new consumer protections, including a ban on companies denying insurance on the basis of pre-existing conditions. At the same time it provides government subsidies to help lower-income Americans afford insurance that is currently beyond their means. It also includes steps that supporters say will begin to slow the growth in health care costs nationwide.

Obama has urged lawmakers to hold the cost of legislation to about $900 billion over a decade. That's significantly more than House committees originally envisioned in measures cleared earlier in the year, and the leadership has been working in recent days to find ways to cut costs. "It's hard work but we're determined to get it down," Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said of the price tag after a marathon closed-door meeting.

The health care debate is intensely political, and lawmakers in both parties used Tuesday's debate to seek campaign funds as they near the close of the third quarter of the year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., issued a recent appeal for funds for his re-election bid, saying, "Delaying reform to protect insurance companies' profits is completely unacceptable to Nevadans, the American people and me."

Similarly, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., who drew national notice for yelling "You Lie" at Obama during this month's health care speech to Congress, has emerged as a newly featured fundraiser for the National Republican Campaign Committee.

After weeks of delay, both the House and Senate now appear on track to vote on different versions of health care legislation this fall. Passage in both houses would set the stage for a compromise to be voted on by year's end.

Inside the Senate Finance Committee, the first effort to remake a key portion of the bill came from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., who said his proposal was far from the government takeover that critics portray. "It's not. It's optional," he said, adding it was designed to offer competition and a lower-priced, reliable choice for consumers shopping for coverage.

Rockefeller, whose measure was rejected, 15-8, assailed the insurance industry in withering terms. "I hate to use the word 'rapacious,'" he said — but quickly added it was warranted. He said omission of a government option from the measure was a virtual invitation to insurance companies to continue placing profits over people, and he predicted they would raise their premiums substantially once the legislation went into effect.

Republicans countered that the proposals would lead to the demise of the private insurance industry and result in a system that is completely run by the government.

"Washington is not the answer," declared Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, cited private studies — one by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the other by the Lewin Group, owned by United HealthCare — saying millions would be pushed out of private insurance as the government held fees to doctors at artificially low levels. He said the result would be a violation of Obama's pledge that consumers would be able to keep their current insurance if they wanted once the legislation went into effect.

While Baucus voted against the proposal, he was at pains to counter Rockefeller's charge that the legislation increased subsidies that would go to insurance companies without dictating changes in past practices.

He said the legislation would raise taxes on insurers, ban denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions and limit the extra premiums that could be charged on the basis of age.

There was little appetite on the panel for a full-throated defense of the insurance industry, even among Republicans who voted against an expanded government role.

"The private sector is not doing exactly what it should do with medical services. but it can,' said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., one of the committee's most conservative members. He said most Democrats "don't want to help the insurance company" improve, preferring to have the government step in.

Schumer responded promptly.

"If the state insurance commissioners are doing such a good job, then why are costs going through the roof?" he asked.

All 10 Republicans on the committee voted against the Rockefeller proposal to allow the government to compete directly with insurance companies, Sen. Olympia Snowe among them. Democrats are hoping the Maine lawmaker will eventually break ranks with her party and support the legislation.

Also opposed were Baucus and fellow Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Bill Nelson of Florida and Tom Carper of Delaware.

Schumer backed an alternative approach that he said would introduce more competition into the insurance market nationwide. His version differed from Rockefeller's chiefly in that it would have allowed for the government to negotiate payments with doctors, hospitals and other health care providers for an initial two-year period rather than pay them at the same rates as under Medicare.

Baucus, Conrad and Lincoln joined all Republicans to defeat the proposal on a vote of 13-10.

"Public option under the knife" (video)

MSNBC-Countdown, video (09:00).

Howie P.S.: Howard Dean joins Lawrence O'Donnell to discuss the prospects for a public option in the health care reform legislation.