Even if there's no public option in the Senate bill, isn't it the case that it could, indeed would, return in the conference version and then only require a simple majority to pass? If that's so, then all the current 'sturm und drang' is a waste of emotional energy (though it is necessary politically, I admit).

Since it is now clear that having a Democratic majority in Congress means nothing as far as accomplishing anything the Democratic party voter base wants done, the best course of action would appear to be to let health care die and the Democratic majority die with it.
It's one thing to fall for swindle, it's another thing to be a party to it.

At this point the Senators opposing the public option have no rational arguments left and are not even trying (except for Lieberman who says it will cost more when everyone agrees that, if done right, it will cost less).
This just means that the "center-right" Senators choose to live in the virtual alternative reality built by Fox news and the GOP.
When the highest elected officials in the Land cannot agree on the facts and discuss them rationally, we are all doomed.

I have the same question as sjw. Ezra would know.

The main problem, as I see it, is: how do you negotiate with liars? Not Republicans, but Landreau and Lieberman, who lie and lie about the bill / public plan.

If you go with a "trigger," you lose the center-left and health care reform dies. If you keep the existing compromise, you lose the center-right and health care reform dies. The debate, at that point, becomes a fight over who gets the blame.

I think this is right Steve and its basically the big question I have about the so-called negotiations. I really don't understand why anybody even cares to discuss a trigger. The point of a compromise is that everyone gives a little to get something they want but the trigger is the one "compromise" position that gives noone anything they actually want. Snowe and others would clearly be just as happy to vote yes on a bill with no public option, triggered or otherwise, and noone on the other side really believes that they can sell a triggered public option as a real legislative achievement to their more liberal constituency (because it clearly isn't). So who has anything to gain by supporting a trigger really? I honestly don't get it.

It seems to me that if we have to give up a public option, there are far more substantive issues to negotiate its loss for like better subsidies or stronger regulations on insurance premiums etc. But to give up the public option for a "trigger" which is essentially an imaginary sorta kinda promise of reform is utterly pointless both legislatively and politically. Noone is buying it, so why even try to sell it?

I don't really understand the anti-public option crowd publicly pronouncing that they work for the insurance companies and not the people that elected them.

* Do they somehow think everyone is too stupid to know that anti-public option is pro-insurance company?
* Do they think no one is paying attention?
* Are they so craven that they don't care? They want their bag of money from the insurance companies and everything else be-damned?

Nelson, Landireu, LIEberman, Lincoln, Bayh have surely made a spectacle of themselves. IT would be a crime if they got their way anymore than they already have.

Nelson, Landireu, Lincoln, and Bayh should be forced out of the Democratic party. LIEberman should lose his coveted chairmanship and any seniority advantages he may still hold in the democratic party. He should be personna non-grata.

A little honesty as to what constitutes a Democrat would be far preferable to the crap we have that democrats supposedly have these huge majorities and should be able to get things done, when the reality is that there are all these republicans calling themselves democrats that are able to block the Democratic agenda.

Democrats don't have huge majorities, they have slim majorities because a significant chunk of pols being allowed to call themselves Democrats aren't. And the difference in the political impact of perceived huge majorities getting nothing done and slim majorities getting nothing done are night and day. But then again Democrats are distinguished by their inability to play the game.

A strong PO with a trigger for those that opt-out. That's the last compromise.

Any state wanting a PO should have the right (states rights, anyone?) to have one. Those that opt-out and regret it later should have the ability to require a PO to bring costs in line.

It's especially galling, once you realize that these few vainglorious fools will expect the House's work to be ditched, too, once the conference begins.

Reid should gather them in a room and let them know that if this doesn't pass, he's out next year, and he'll do what he can to take them with him.

If you morons want a "public option" then get off your lazy butts and FORM one! Nobody is stopping you from forming your own institution to accomplish your goals. I mean look what other non-governmental organizations like Acorn have been able to accomplish!

Seriously, you'd have 200,000,000 subscribers and plenty of clout if you have the support of the majority of Americans like you'd have us believe.

"We've come this far, and most seem to agree that there will be some kind of deal that helps drag the bill across the finish line. I'm just not sure what that deal would, or could, look like." - SB

Imagine how sausage is made - it will look something like that.

Liberals are bluffing, they'll accept a health care bill with or without a whiff of a public option.

With conservatives, the bluff factor is not as clear. Given the polls, the nature of Senate rules, and the cost of this little adventure, they hold the better hand.

Libs will blink to save the rest of the bill, then whine like little kids whose wills have been thwarted, forgetting for a moment the historic nature of their party's accomplishment.

Politics can make great theater.

this world is so screwed witht the way we are heading this days