And what happens if the Senate has to scuttle the provision in light of Republican obstructionism and opposition from center-right members of the Democratic caucus? Time will tell.

All obstructionism at this point is from the Dems. And Lieberman, who I would hardly describe as "center-right".

The Repubs are just handing them the ax handle to beat it to death and holding their coats.

We get this one done... then we can laser in on the clown car -- threats and exposés should bring some of these clowns and puppets to seeing things a little more democratically...when the eyes of the public focus exclusively on the battle in the clown car senate...

maybe even Slimey Joe will vote for cloture with enough horse heads in his bed...

One word: reconciliation.

One word: reconciliation.

Well if they can't get enough votes in the house for what is already a watered down b.s. versions of a "robust" public option, which it seems they can't, then how will reconciliation, even assuming that votes are there in the Senate, help?

Well, you could always pass the bill without a public option, then consider a separate bill with just the public option under reconciliation rules. Might be a better strategy, all things considered. But I don't think Lieberman will filibuster. His shifting and incoherent opposition to healthcare, coupled with the threat, seems to me a sign that he's either demented or that he wants something. I'm beginning to strongly suspect the latter--it might be the White House's support for another term, or maybe he just his ideological objections to a public option. I doubt very highly it's dementia. Every single thing Lieberman has done since 2006 makes sense from his perspective--he's playing off perceptions that he's insane to make a play here.

Even with negotiated rates, I think a public option will beat the competition, PROVIDED it is available to everyone. The more access is restricted, the less effective a public option will be.

PROVIDED it is available to everyone.

Well, that is really the problem more than anything else isn't it. Wider availability is nto even on the table at this point although Wyden is going to try for it I guess. But it doesn't look good and that is why all of this drama over something which the vast majority of people won't even be allowed to buy is puzzling.

I think in the long run, negotiated rates are better than rates tied to Medicare. Part of the reason healthcare is so expensive is because Medicare rates do not adequately compensate health care providers.

Regarding who has access to the public option, I believe the intent is to give only those not covered by employer health insurance acces to it initially. The plan would be to expand access to the public option over time.

I'm all for this. Let's get it through before Xmas please!

You have to always keep in perspective how negotiations went:

Progressives: Single-payer?
Blue Dogs: No
P: Public option open to all?
B: No
P: Public option on the exchange open to 15% of Americans?
B: Nope
P: Public option for 15% of Americans, but not pegged to Medicare rates?
B: OK, some of us MAY vote for that.

To put this as simply as possible: If congress were advocating in the interests of the American people, which it is their legal and ethical obligation to do, there would be no debate here. A public option tied to medicare rates would be a signifigantly better deal for the American public than the one now being proposed by the House. Converesly, this bill is a better deal for the for-profit institutions involved, who also happen to be major campaign contributors with professional lobbyists on their side. Politics as usual.

It should be clarified that the health care "reform" that we are going to have is going to be deeply conservative in nature; ie., the status quo is being maintained. The interests of all the major players have been studiously attended to do, while the interests of the American public have been marginalized.

This is not a victory for democracy, let alone a victory for progressive values. It is yet more evidence that both political parties, in their present form, are incapable of performing their sworn ethical duty of representing the people. We really need to consider that, regardless of the short term losses to republicans that would be incurred, it is necessary for the health of our nation to consider genuininely progressive third party candidates, and continue to build genuinely progressive institutions to represent us more aggressively in Washington.

In the meantime, and against the spirit of cynicism, let's hope that the present reform highlights the need for and points in the direction of where we need to go.

But it doesn't look good and that is why all of this drama over something which the vast majority of people won't even be allowed to buy is puzzling.

Because it's a critical first step, a foot in the door to wider availability later. Medicare wasn't born in its current iteration, either.

You make laws with the Congress you have, not he Congress you wish you had.

Because it's a critical first step, a foot in the door to wider availability later.

Fair enough. But at what point does the game become not worth the candle?

There absolutely is a point at which the game isn't worth the candle. In my view, a public option with negotiated rates hasn't reached that point, and a "reform" bill minus any public option has.

Agree.