Rumor has it that neoRepublicans have begun to disappear in large numbers; uttering high-decibel obscenities, tearing their hair out, and then exploding in puffs of black smoke. I guess nobody ever told them that their "rapture" was, in truth, a socialist weapon....

Johnathan Alter absolutely nails this one in a wonderfully concise overview of the politics, and a great takedown of Republicans, and recalcitrant Dems on the left and the right.

The money 'graphs:

This is Politics 101, a class that many Democrats apparently flunked. The House Democrats who voted for the bill at the end of 2009 have no choice but to vote for it again if they have any clue as to what's in their political self-interest; the he-was-for-it-before-he-was-against-it ads write themselves. And the more conservative Blue Dog Democrats who voted against it need to understand that no matter how toxic health care is in their districts right now, things will be a lot worse if they have to run under the banner of a failed president. Voters won't reward them for being fake Republicans—they'll vote for the real ones instead. . .

These members all know that, according to a Harvard study, 40,000 people a year die for lack of health insurance. Do they want that on their consciences? It's hard to imagine they do. This is their moment of truth as Democrats. Let's face it: if they vote to cripple a Democratic president now, they ain't real Democrats. It's like a Republican voting against Bush's tax cuts. In 2001 no House Republican did.

If they're that close, then they should try for the Public Option. The group at BoldProgressives.org (I love the name) announced on the Ed Show that there are 51 votes for PO (figured somehow.) We really need the PO and an alternative to forcing people to buy from private insurers. That is suspect to both conservatives and more fervent progressives, which is not a good sign. OTOH, Johnathan Alter via zeitgeist has a sound political point. What to do? Put in the PO and other reforms (make sure of removing anti-trust exemption, ensure that profit-margin limit that we aren't hearing enough of anymore around here, make the bill to be true reform, etc. That will bring back at least the disaffected elements on the left yet maintain respect and interest from the center/independents. You need both of those, to keep Dems and Obama up there.

Great point, Neil B -- you beat me to it. Sadly, Obama made a deal with the for-profit hospital industry. From August 13, 2009 NY Times:

"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."

Obama campaigned on single payer. He says he's for it. BUT he cut a backroom deal that screws those who voted for him because he said he was for single-payer. Very disheartening. And no, I'm not a troll -- I'm a lifelong Democrat, voted for Mondale, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama ... the list goes on. VERY DISAPPOINTED in Obama on this one. Do the public option already, dammit! It makes just the kind of sense Obama said it makes during the campaign. "Sorry, Indusrance Industry -- we need the votes and I'm going to get them if I cut a front-room deal with the American people. Squawk all you want." How hard is it to say that?

It's the witching hour for all elves, hobs, and brownies

...the likely inclusion of student-loan reform...

Dennis the Munchkin and clan have no excuses. You can't rail against corporate welfare and then piss away a once in a lifetime opportunity to annihilate it's greatest instance. True liberals aren't that stupak.

If left-wing pixie-crats still don't support it even with the student-loan reform gold: their demonstrated incompetence demands they be primaried from the center-left.

Seize the day.
Pass the freakin' bill.
And give the Democratic party a booster shot of self-confidence that it hasn't had in 50 years...

But...but ...where was President John McCain? he normally goes on TEEVEE Sunday to explain why Obama and Healthcare reform are bad for America. Gee I miss him.

Following up, I got another email - this time from DFA (hurray!) about supporting the PO. You can sign their petition here.
(May work differently depending on whether member, replying direct or from email, etc.)

BTW, as many point out - signing student loan and other finance reform will much help to attract the public and make up for some disaffection regarding the HCR Bill.

One thing that seems dissonant is about the measures that were "a condition of their support" from sectors of the HC industry. Well, I thought they were mostly fighting this Bill (yeah, AMA is for it, etc - but most of the "industry"?) I know, it's not a simple triangulation but there must be some disconcerting deep games going on here.
'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."
That basically implies - and those of us similarly worried really do hate to say it and are not "perfectionists" etc - that the rest of us can't. Yeah Obama, cut a *front-room* deal with the people, not with the industry. Don't underestimate how many people will be irritated at forced buying without alternatives and deeper reform. If we're going to PTDB, it can at least be reformed first.

If Obama made a deal with the health industry, the industry has not kept to it, they have never supported the bill so why should Obama honor the deal?
Very troubling news that the wife of a supreme court justice has started a teabagging group, does that mean that the justice will have to recuse himself from 75% of the decisions of the court?
My feeling is that the supreme court is way too right wing.

...but if the leadership thought there was a reasonable chance the votes simply wouldn't materialize, the Democratic rhetoric this morning would sound quite a bit different.

That's how politics was always played before. But that's not been the case in the Obama years. The Dems have gone out on a limb several times and occasioned the same commentary, i.e. "would they be so confident if they weren't sure?" And then fail.

Don't bet the house. Or the House.

If setting the PO aside for a while gets this thing through, then so be it. You don't build an addition for a house before you build the house, and you don't risk the continued murder (let's just start calling this what it is) 46,000 Americans each and every year just to satisfy the tantrums of a few purists. Let Denny Quixote vote no.

It'll be his last dance with the windmills....

It's as if they finally realized that if they talk about things like they expect them to happen it might actually help make those things happen. Acting like things won't pass, well, seems to stop things from passing.

Let's just hope they're right and the dems can turn a page and find their collective spine. It's their only path to keeping control of congress come November, hopefully they've realized they will not get re-elected by sitting on their hands and if they don't get re-elected at least they didn't waste all this time.

Nancy Pelosi has been remarkabley efficient in getting bills done, so I believe she will get this done.

Waybright, the PO is not a mere "addition" to a house. It's more like, having a house livable instead of being worth being "condemned."

To all wavering Democrats...here's the deal. We live in the 'land of free, home of the brave.' Americans have been singing that anthem with the FREE and the BRAVE since childhood. We love heroes. We love people who have convictions and stand by them --leave the hemming and hawing to Blue Dogs with yellow streaks.

This is your LAST chance to be a hero.

You either dive on the hand-grenade to protect the American people (and your party), or fall on your sword in disgrace.

I can't get anymore explicit than that.

b, that's got to be the shallowest, most purist-diseased piece of tripe that's ever appeared on this site. You, I, and everyone else on the planet knows full well that the current bill is workable, and that it will benefit millions of Americans. What America have in place now as "health care" is the "condemned house."

You also know full well that adding the PO kills the bill. Dems don't have 60 in the Senate to amend the current package---and in the Senate, it only takes 1 to put the whole thing on hold. 41 GOPers, plus a few like Nelson, and Joe Lie will kill this whole effort on the vine.

Everyone knows it; it's just that some lack the "intestinal fortitude" to acknowledge it.

They also don't have the full-on firepower to ram it through the House unless it comes down "unofficially" from on Senate-High.

So it's not going to happen, kiddo. Either cry me a river and call it Potomac Jr., or start bellowing a worthy barbaric YAWP that someone can figure out how to bring a PO through on reconciliation....

Waybright, I just quoted some messages saying the PO was viable after all. I wouldn't know, maybe you're right and it can't be done. And yes, the current situation is awful. OK, so if no PO is possible, do we really have enough reform measures to keep HCR from being more a boon to the HI industry than to the rest of us? The answer may be yes - indeed, it has to be yes. LMK.

The group at BoldProgressives.org (I love the name) announced on the Ed Show that there are 51 votes for PO (figured somehow.) -- Neil B, @13:07

Figured out "somehow"? Like.. with a sprinkling of magic dust?

Washingtan Independent has a scoreboard, supported with solid quotes by the Senators, and they have 37. TPM, at some point, counted 44, but allowed as the extra 7 were, to say the least, iffy (kinda like reading tea leaves vis intentions, rather than open commitment). Where you Bold Progressives got their 50 (the 51 is Biden, breaking the tie) is a mystery. I heard the same number tossed out at another blog but it was equally unsupported by any sources/quotes.

Obama campaigned on single payer. -- Piehole, @13:28

You must have been watching a different campaign than the one I saw. What I heard was something along the lines of "IF we were starting from zero, THEN single payer would have been the best solution. But it'll never fly in US". OTOH, I *did* hear "robust public option, to keep insurance companies honest" and that is not in the bill, either (robust or wimpy), alas.

Exlibra, et al: We at least need good cost-control. Remember about the profit margin caps, do you know how that is doing? Have to be careful since they can ironically pay out more to make more money, etc.

Waybright - awfully indulgent hype about purist tripe. The PO or similar has been considered by many to be needed to "keep the HI companies honest", indeed. You and other "realists" may not understand the logical difference between politically doable or not, v. operationally acceptable or not. We can only hope PD = OA, it is not a logically necessary relation. Finally, it's a sad commentary on our "political realities" that the PO is not or likely not viable. Obama could have pushed harder himself?

Neil B, @18:54

If you think you can change the subject (from PO's chances in the Senate to cost control) and get away with it, think again :) Tell me, please, who are your 50 Senate votes for the Public Option and quote me some evidence for your belief that we have them. As an erst-while teacher, a mother, and an all-out FM K9, I take a dim view of "somehow" being a convincing argument.

Scott Brown, it was great while it lasted, but now you are consigned to obscurity and people will be asking Scott Who? within the year.

Way"bright" - There's nothing wrong with bringing up related side issues, that "changing the subject" is a canard when objected about other than strict formal debates with specified subjects and tasks. It is not a "logical fallacy" unless I pretend the one affects the other, which I didn't.

exlibra: My "evidence" such as it was, came from emails from Dean's DFA. Maybe true or not, but who can you trust? And, I asked to "consider" it, not as holy writ.