Politico:

[President] Obama told Democratic leadership at the White House Thursday evening that his preference is for the trigger championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) – a plan that would allow a public plan to kick in if private insurers don’t expand coverage fast enough, a top administration official told POLITICO. It’s also sign Obama is interested in maintaining a sense of bipartisanship around the health reform plan.

At that meeting, Obama did not sign on to a plan being floated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to include a different variation of the public option in the Senate bill – a plan that would create a national public plan but allow states to “opt-out.” Reid now believes he can get 60 votes to bring a bill with that plan to the floor by breaking an expected GOP filibuster – and then secure the 51 votes needed to pass it.

(Emphasis supplied.) What now, 11 Dimensional Chess players?

Speaking for me only

Brian Beutler:

I asked Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) for her thoughts on a public option compromise that would allow states to opt out of a national government insurance program, and her answer could slow down the proposal's considerable momentum. "I don't support that," Snowe said.

Asked further whether she would participate in a filibuster on a bill with a public option, she went almost all the way. "I've said, I'm against a public option...yes...it would be difficult" to support allowing the bill to proceed to a vote.

Now what? If I was playing the Dem hand, I would start talking about reconciliation in response to this. To wit "if Republicans do not want to grab a mop on health care reform, then we will do what we have to do to fix it ourselves."

Speaking for me only

Politico:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the White House are leaning towards including a national public option -- with a provision for states to opt out of it -- in the Senate health care bill, Sen. Ben. Nelson (D-Neb.) said Thursday.

That seems to be the political sweetspot in the Senate. Listen to Nelson:

Nelson said he prefers allowing states to decide individually whether to create a public option or some other sort of competitor to private insurance. "A state public option I can support," said Nelson, although he added that he hasn't made any threats to oppose the bill based on the public option.

Nelson gets to vote for cloture and against the bill and still say he protected Nebraska from "government run health care," because Nebraska can opt out. The fight seems to be moving in this direction. The key now will be to make sure the Federalist Public Option is MedicarePlus (Medicare +5 rates).

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias writes:

The two major advantages of relying on [the Baucus Care excise tax] method of financing health care are that (1) it “bends the curve” by encouraging people to take more of their earnings in the form of money [. . .] rather than health care services, and (2) it lets you stay deficit-neutral over the long-haul. What the House has done, by contrast, is deficit-neutral inside the three-year window but not longer than that. The big problem with Finance’s excise tax, I would say, is that it doesn’t actually raise enough money.

(Emphasis supplied.) Ezra and Yglesias live in some mythical world of a perfect competition model for labor where workers get to pick and choose how their compensation packages are formulated. It does not exist. Yglesias also contradictorily argues that the Baucus Care excise tax is "deficit neutral" but does not "raise enough money." The two statements are irreconcilable. And then Yglesias goes for the obvious solution - adopt the House approach of a surtax on the wealthy.

I say let's just cut through the nonsense and tax the wealthy - if it makes some feel better that a part of the tax comes in the form of an excise tax on health care benefits - limit it to incomes over $200,000. Mind you, I believe all the "bending the cost curve" stuff is sheer nonsense. But as long as the wealthy pay the bill, it's ok with me.

Speaking for me only

John Aravosis writes:

There's something the President is not telling us. And it's rather annoying for him to be lecturing us about coming together when, frankly, we are together. Unified around a campaign promise [a public option] he is so blithely blowing off. We have the best chance at reform in a generation, and this White House is trying awfully hard to get the bare minimum with the least possible effort. We deserve to know why.

I disagree with John. The President and his team have been telling you for some time and people just do not want to believe it (see Steve Benen) -- he does not care about the public option. He can live with it and he can live without it. Why do folks have such a hard time accepting this? The goal now should be to make him live with it. Speaker Pelosi is doing her bit. Make Leader Reid do his. Obama has been and will be a bystander in all of this.

Speaking for me only

Points for honesty for Senator Mary Landrieu:

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) [said] "I am not a big fan of public option[. . . .] We already have two public options that most people in America understand Medicaid and Medicare. Both have very, very serious problems. One is gonna be bankrupt in seven years and the other one doctors won't want to participate. So we certainly don't want to create a third one like that."

I see no reason for national Democrats (not being an interloper, Louisiana Dems can decide if they want her) to care about the political fate of Mary Landrieu. But at least her opposition to a public option is honest - she would abolish Medicare if she could. As for Medicaid, Louisiana can opt out any time it likes. I wonder that Landrieu does not argue for that?

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein continues to argue that the BaucusCare excise tax will lead to increased wages. There are two points to be made about this.

First, if that is so, then Ezra can not credibly claim that the excise tax will be more deficit neutral than the House's wealthy individual income surtax for health care. Why? Because, according to Ezra, employers will structure the compensation+benefit packages to avoid the BaucusCare excise tax. Wealthy people will not make less money to avoid the health insurance income surtax. Second, Ezra claims that:

Yesterday, Steve Benen wrote:

At this point, there really shouldn't be any lingering doubts surrounding President Obama's support for a public option -- he's endorsed, promoted, and defended the idea repeatedly for months. [. . .] Indeed, wavering lawmakers are now well aware of some key truths: [. . .] the White House wants a public option [. . . It's now up to Obama to "weigh in" and tell these dithering members, who are unmoved by these obvious and important details, exactly what to do?

Obvious is it? President Obama begs to differ:

Medicare for Everyone sounds great, but I think it does not work right now as a rebranding effort. Why? Because the public option that is even possible now is not Medicare for Everyone. The Hill:

Say hello to “Medicare Part E” — as in, “Medicare for Everyone.” House Democrats are looking at re-branding the public health insurance option as Medicare, an established government healthcare program that is better known than the public option.

The flaw in this approach is revealed when one considers one of the main proponents of the rebranding, Jim Oberstar (D-MN):

Is Fox news an arm of the Republican Party? Is the Pope Catholic? Of course Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party and should be treated as such. Caterwauling from other so called journalists only points out how incompetent they are. Now is it good political strategy for the White House to do this? From their perspective, there is no doubt it is smart. Paul Begala gets it:

"This is a mutually beneficial deal,” said Paul Begala [Politico identifies Begala as a former Clinton WH advisor, which he is, more significantly he is a CNN political analyst] “Fox's ratings keep going up, as they're seen as the voice of opposition to Obama. The Democrats need to do something to excite their base, which is suffering from a case of the blues.”

Precisely.

Speaking for me only

Sam Stein:

There is a growing sense on Capitol Hill that the White House's refusal to weigh in more forcefully in the health care debate could come at the cost of a public option for insurance coverage. Democratic aides said that a "handful" of senators who are skeptical of a public plan likely could be persuaded if not to support it then at least to oppose a Republican filibuster, if the administration were to apply a bit more pressure -- or even guidance.

"There is a clear sense that it would be helpful," said one senior Democratic aide. "Throughout this entire debate the White House line has been 'We will weigh in when it is necessary'.... Well now we need 60 votes. So if it's not necessary now, then when will it be?

The President as Bystander approach the Obama Administration has employed has fallen apart. Democratic Senators will not be left holding the bag on this one. They will point fingers . . . at Obama.

Speaking for me only

This is getting interesting. The Obama Administration is trying to be a bystander on health care reform. Some Dem senators are pushing back:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller told CNN on Tuesday that he's "disappointed" that President Obama wasn't more forceful in pushing the Senate to include a public option in its health care bill. "A little bit, a little bit I'm disappointed," the West Virginia Democrat told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "I know he's strongly for it, and I know his tactic has been to let the Congress do his work and then he'll come in when the crunch really counts. What I'm saying is that the crunch is really beginning to count now, and I think he's - I know he's for it, and said so publicly, and campaigned on it, so I think it's important that he come in at this point strongly."

Whether Obama likes it or not, he has skin in the public option game. Some Dem Senators will not take the hit for Obama the way Dodd did on the compensation restrictions for AIG. I expect Harry Reid will be doing this too.

Speaking for me only