I'll say it again:

Opponents of the public option are saying, in effect, that the insurance corporations will voluntarily cut their profits (and CEOs will voluntarily cut their compensation by a few million dollars) just because Congress asks nicely.

Without competition from a public option, then the only thing that will drive down the cost of health insurance would be to regulate the insurance corporations like a public utility -- with government setting limits on what they can charge. Except, unlike utilities, the insurance corporations would have to be regulated at the national level, not the state level. As far as I know, no one has proposed anything like that.

The MSM is in obvious collusion with the Repubs, trying to create a pre-ordained conclusion which is in direct opposition to the will of the majority of Americans.

oh, gee, why do suspect all this contradictory and confusing information is coming out of washington?

allan, could ya wait until i ask the question before you answer it please -- nice psychic work there...

"Yet another effort by big news org to write public option’s obituary turns out to be false..."

With the NYTimes' efforts to attract the far right, they seek to further soil their reputation among the rest of us. For me, the Times had been the last hold out among the mainstream media for potentially fair and accurate reporting (despite their flaws during the Bush years), but it appears that they're going to let me down. Ho-hum.

I am pretty sure this is an example of trying to make something real by repeating it loudly, in public, many many times.

"The MSM is in obvious collusion with the Repubs, trying to create a pre-ordained conclusion which is in direct opposition to the will of the majority of Americans."

I think that's correct, but I don't think it will work this time. The public supports a public option, the townhall malcontents have run out of steam and ended up looking crazy, high ranking Republicans have been making callous tone-deaf comments, the Democrats are starting to realize 2010 could be a disaster if they don't pass a substantial reform bill, and the President needs to to move forward on his agenda as a whole.

The Republicans will have a fit when it passes and Dick Army will bus in his screwy old people and bigots to scream and thrash around in front of any camera pointed in their direction. I think the tide may have turned against the opposition

Can someone clarify for me: Does a conference committee bill have to clear the 60 vote threshhold a second time in the Senate when it comes back for a final vote? If not, then they only need the 60 votes to pass an intial senate version (presumably wihtout a public option), but they could pass a final bill with only 50 votes, plus Biden. Seems like this would be a key point. Of course, if there are not 50 votes for the public option, its all moot - how stands the count these days?

I will be completely unsurprised if, once again, the dumbocraps turn victory into defeat.

Every sane person who has studied health care options understands that the most cost effective and outcome effective solution is one of a variety of single payer systems. Of course, the dumbocraps surrendered that option before they began working on 'health care reform'.

Every sane person who has studied health care options is hard put to argue that anything less than a robust public option will provide needed competition to the corporate oligarchies of the medical insurance industry. 'Reform' without single payer or a meaningful 'public option' is doomed to being another disaster for the working people of the United States.

Mandated medical insurance without a robust public option is a path toward disaster for dumbocraps in the future as the Amerikan Sheeple figure out how badly they have been had.

Will the Dumbocraps turn reform into an electoral disaster and a windfall for corporate profitability? If you look at the arguments from the Evan Bayhs and the Blue Dogs about cost and then see them oppose legislation that would save taxpayer money, how can you bet against the dumbs screwing workers (and themselves electorally) again?

To clarify my question above, I understand that they only need the 60 votes to get to VOTE on a senate bill, not to pass it. I assume, however, that leaving the public option out at least on the first go round would be a price that Nelson, Bayh, et al would extract for supporting cloture.

dcsusie: The Conference Bill will be subject to filibuster rules (60 votes). However it's typically not done, from my understanding, once the initial Senate bill is passed.

This is why getting a public option through the Senate is important. If it cleared the Senate once, it would clear again.

"The MSM is in obvious collusion with the Repubs, trying to create a pre-ordained conclusion which is in direct opposition to the will of the majority of Americans."

Every Thursday afternoon precisely at 3:17, the ringleaders of the MSM get together at a starbucks near the capital to plot out their upcoming conspiracies with republican leaders and insurance company ceos. why just last week i saw paul krugman walking out the door arm in arm with mitch mcconnell, michelle bachmann and the guy who leads united healthcare.

Sometimes I think Greg Sargent is the only reporter in the world with a phone.

Corporate Democrats desperately want Insurance racket money to flow to them.

Which means passing a bill without a public option, while saying "Oh we really want a public option, but had to compromise to get Sen. Snowe's vote".

That way the public thinks they tried their best for the public, while the Insurance racket knows they won for the racket.

As a friend of mine put it, the Dems don't need the Blue Dogs to actually vote for a package containing the option, only a promise that they won't filibuster it. They can vote their consciences- if they have any- on whether or not to pass the bill, but when it comes to cloture they need to toe the line.

In other words, dare the Blue Dogs to filibuster a package which has been a major goal of their own Democratic Party for ~50 years.

-Z

If you think the insurance companies are going to lower their cost while having a monopoly over the process well I’ve got a bridge to sell you, and I think Wall Street should be completely unregulated too I trust strangers with my money and pollution is good and we should remove the air bags from our cars.

When industry has an iron lock grip on distribution and the markets the government is driven by the people to take corrective action, create competition and safe guard the markets.

Now is the time poll after poll is shredding the talking heads on television. Americans want a strong, robust real option to the insurance companies. The insurance companies only have themselves to blame. Decades of raping the sick and infirmed over typos and refusing to pay for health care when it is needed has created a lot of angry people out there. Refusing patients care that's what insurance companies do they collect fees for denying care, and denying service. It's fraud plain and simple.