I'm no expert on this but I think Politico is misreading this one. Conrad: Reconciliation can't be used for comprehensive reform:

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) threw cold water on the idea of using the reconciliation process Sunday during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"Reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform," said Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "The major package would not be done through reconciliation."

Asked by CBS host Bob Schieffer to elaborate, given that the White House suggested earlier Sunday that they could pass the main bill with a simple majority of 51 votes, Conrad said that reconciliation was not, in fact, an option.

"I am the chairman of the committee in the Senate, and I think I understand how reconciliation works and can't work," he said, arguing that the so-called Byrd Rule would prevent the use of reconciliation for the main health care bill. "The only possible role I can see for reconciliation would be to make modest changes in the major package."

Conrad said only "side car" issues could be affected through the reconciliation process.

Well, yeah. What part of what's been going on already does the staff at The Politico not understand? As Conrad tries to explain here, no, the health care bill cannot be passed with reconciliation. It already passed the Senate. The House would have to pass the Senate bill and then there can be some fixes done with reconciliation. Now whether they have the votes or not in the House with the Stupak bunch mucking up the works is another matter.

I'm no fan of Conrad but it looks to me that all he was trying to do here was beat back the Republican talking points that the health care bill is going to be as they keep calling it "jammed down the throats" of the American public with a reconciliation budget vote. Since when is getting sixty votes for something that they already passed after months of debate and hearings "jamming something through"? That's just utterly ridiculous. A lot of us including myself might not like what they passed, but they did pass the Senate bill with 60 votes. I think Conrad was just stating the obvious here. I also think The Politico is trying to twist this into something it's not but coming from that Drudge gossip rag, I'm not surprised.

Transcript via Nexis Lexis below the fold.

Continue reading »

(h/t Heather)

Did you know that the Congress is made up of only one elected body of representatives that crafts our legislation? I didn't know that. I thought we had two co-equal legislatures--a House and Senate.

Each of the 435 members of the House of Representatives represents a district and serves a two-year term. House seats are apportioned among the states by population. The 100 Senators serve staggered six-year terms. Each state has two senators, regardless of population. Every two years, approximately one-third of the Senate is elected at a time. Reelection rates for incumbents often exceed 90%.[1] Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress. The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process (legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers)

But that's not what Kent Conrad told me on Fox News Sunday.

WALLACE: Senator Conrad, what do you expect to happen? Because now this isn’t the end of the process. It’s just another step in the “Perils of Pauline.”

What do you expect to happen in the House-Senate conference next month? After struggling for months to get Senate Democrats on board to accept this, what are you going to do for Democrats who have a bill which is considerably to the left of your bill?

CONRAD: I think any bill is going to have to be very close to what the Senate has passed because we’re still going to have to get 60 votes. And anybody who’s watched this process can see how challenging it has been to get 60 votes...

WALLACE: But to go back to the question of the conference, you’re saying that you don’t -- you can’t go further, that the House is basically going to have to accept -- the House is going to have to accept the Senate bill?

CONRAD: It is very clear that the bill, the final bill, to pass in the United States Senate is going to be -- have to be very close to the bill that has been negotiated here. Otherwise you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate.

Kent Conrad is telling the House of Representatives to go "Cheney" themselves. Are Nancy Pelosi and the progressive members of Congress listening? I wrote this last week and Conrad just made my point for me.

How does the House feel after being rendered useless in 'Health Care Reform' by the Senate?

When the House and Senate committee members meet in conference and supposedly merge their bills, exactly what can they do to influence it at all? If the Senate bill is as far as the Gang of Four, or Six or Ten or whatever it is, are willing to go, then is the House bill nothing more than a stage prop?

Do members of the House of Representatives feel jubilation at the thought that any pieces of major legislation they are asked to put together will ultimately be decided by President Lieberman, Queen Snowe, Mary Landrone, Ben "floppy hair" Nelson and Max Baucus? I'm sure more names will be added to the list.

I really want to know how they feel.

The White House needs to understand that there are many progressive members of the House who will not vote for the Senate bill as it stands. When they meet up in conference there is supposed to be a compromise struck on the bill between both bodies. What Conrad, President Lieberman and the hairpiece known as Ben Nelson are telling 435 elected members of the HOR is that they don't matter.

Well I say to Conrad that he can "Cheney" himself -- and that's what the House should say.

I've never said to "kill the bill," as many are arguing liberals have been advocating like Howard Dean. But I do want to improve the Senate version of it and there's still time. I'm sorry that I do have some principles and want to keep on fighting. I always knew as liberals that we would be disappointed in the end, but it still can help millions of Americans in need of health care. And I would like my own premiums to stop being jacked up too.

Digby writes an excellent post that should be read in its entirety called "Clarifying Debate"

As for the internecine politics, there were numerous graceful concessions from the left from the beginning on health care that were not exactly easy to make, from single payer to the abortion language to immigrants. But it was the late dangling of a swap on the long held dream of a medicare buy-in, getting liberals to sign on and then allowing the loathed Lieberman, of all people, to capriciously snatch it away that was the real gut punch. And admonishing them to "get with the program" within minutes of that outrage while Lieberman preened that the president thanked him was gratuitous. Lucy and the football is an overused metaphor, but this was a classic. You'd have to be soulless not to be angry about that.

I'm glad Gov. Dean basically called John McCain is a damn liar after McCain spun his words into a bullshit Republican talking point. The conservative obstructionists in Congress only want to destroy health care reform for all Americans, and to me that borders on being a traitor the office they hold.

So it--you know, I respect John McCain, but it's, he wouldn't be the first person who twisted my words around and used them for something I had no intention of endorsing, which is the Republicans' behavior in this bill.

Nancy Pelosi can bring about some much needed improvement to the bill and I say go for it Nancy. Call Lieberman's bluff. If health care reform dies, it should be killed by the people who are destroying it, not by the people who have fought tooth and nail to reform a broken health-care system.

And America will know who they are.

The deal is cut. Women's right to legal abortion? Subject to state legislative lottery! Buh-bye!

The bill will go to conference committee, but it's unlikely that the House will change that much, because Ben's holding their constitutional rights and duties at gunpoint:

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, announced to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.

"We're there," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), as he headed into a special meeting to outline the deal.

Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with him on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.

Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in insurance exchanges the bill would set up to serve individuals who don't have employer coverage. Plus, enrollees in plans that do cover abortion procedures would pay for the coverage with separate checks - one for abortion, one for rest of health-care services.

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax. He also was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

"I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree," Nelson told reporters at the Capitol, of the many changes made at his behest. "But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions."

As Wanda Sykes might say, "I am so damned sick of these @#!*# Democratic snakes on this @#!*# plane!" Yes, once again, ConservaDems are holding a gun to the head of progress. This time, they want to blackmail Congress into overriding the Constitutionally-mandated power of the House over the nation's purse strings - and hand it over to them:

Seven members of the Senate Budget Committee threatened during a Tuesday hearing to withhold their support for critical legislation to raise the debt ceiling if the bill calling for the creation of a bipartisan fiscal reform commission were not attached. Six others had previously made such threats, bringing the total to 13 senators drawing a hard line on the committee legislation.

“You rarely do have the leverage to make a fundamental change,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who said he hasn’t ruled out offering the independent commission legislation as an amendment to the healthcare reform bill.

What is it about Kent Conrad that makes me want to slap him? Is it that perpetually robotic grin? Is it the fact that he's so reliably a corporate tool? Or maybe it's that somehow, I just know that Celine Dion is on his iPod.

The panel, which has been championed by Conrad and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H), would be tasked with stemming the unsustainable rise in debt.

Among its chief responsibilities would be closing the gap between tax revenue coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. The Government Accountability Office recently reported the gap is on pace to reach an “unsustainable” $63 trillion in 2083.

The panel would also have the power to craft legislation that would change the tax code and set limits on government spending.

The legislation would then be subject to an up-or-down vote; it could not be amended.

Chris Bowers calls it a "national suicide pact":

Let's review the threat that these five Democrats are making:

* They will allow the United States to default on its debt, which will vastly increase the overall amount we have to pay on our debt

UNLESS

* Speaker Nancy Pelosi turns over Congressional power on Social Security and Medicare to an unelected commission that will almost certainly propose deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare entitlements. Keep in mind that if deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare pass under a Democratic trifecta, the party would be doomed at the ballot box for years to come.

This is completely insane, and there is no choice but to call this bluff.

Let's see these five Democratic Senators explain to the entire nation why they allowed the country to default on its debt. No matter how safe their seats appear to be, no Senator is going to win reelection after making the entire country default on its debt. Their rationale does not matter. Being blamed for making the country default on its debt - especially after all five of these Democrats voted in favor of the Wall Street bailout and are demanding that Social Security and Medicare be cut - will be the effective end of their political careers.

Go for it, guys. Form your national suicide pact. Tell the country that you are demanding deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare, or else you will personally cause the United States debt to double. Let's see how well that message plays on the air.

Sen. Arlen Specter told Fox News' Chris Wallace that the Republican Party was the party of "no, no, no" when it comes to passing meaningful health care reform. While Specter believes the public option is "gaining momentum" within the Democratic Party, the GOP is the "party of obstructionism," said Specter.

UPDATE: Joe Sestak and Ned Lamont will be on C&L live chatting with us tomorrow, Monday Oct. 19th at 3pm PST/6pm EST so don't miss it.

From The Colbert Report:

Senator Max Baucus will pay for your medical bills from the $3.2 million he's received from the health care industry.

Keith Olbermann talks to Sen. Jay Rockefeller about the foot dragging by the Republicans during the amendment process on the health care bill. Rockfeller still intends to try to have a public option included in the final bill. When Keith said it didn't appear that they have the votes to get it passed, Rockeller said "nothing is impossible, and that particularly includes the public option".

From TPM: Schumer And Rockefeller: We Will Get Public Option:

I just got off a conference call with Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). They are confident -- very confident -- that health care reform will include a public option.

"The health care bill that is signed into law by the President will have a good, strong, robust public option," Schumer said.

How that will happen remains an open question. But the Senators assured reporters on the call that we're all going to get a taste of their passion and persuasiveness on this issue at the ongoing Senate Finance Committee hearings on Friday.

"I think it's a great idea," Rockefeller said of the public option. "Chuck Schumer thinks it's a great idea. And we're going to be all over it tomorrow."

Schumer said there will be a "full-blown debate" and that "even though the public option might be the underdog in the Senate Finance Committee, don't count it out."

"Tomorrow is the opening day in our big fight," he said.

Reporters tried to press on how, exactly, a public option would make its way out of the Senate Finance Committee, let alone make it to the President's desk. Will a public option amendment be tacked onto the Baucus bill? Will it be added on the Senate floor? How many votes do the Democrats have on a public health insurance option? Will they try to pass it through a 51-Senator reconciliation vote?

Rockefeller responded to TPM's question by saying "I think we have a good shot of getting it out of the Finance Committee."

He continued: "Don't rule it out. Don't fall victim to this feeling that it's not going to happen."

Chuck Schumer appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show and added this:

Schumer: Well tomorrow is really the first day of the fight. It won't be the last. We are going to offer Sen. Rockefeller and myself, two public option amendments and have the Finance Committee vote. Your viewers should know that this is the beginning of the fight because the Finance Committee is more conservative than the Senate as a whole. The Finance Democrats tend to come from rural and redder states. We'll then move to the floor of the Senate where the public option has a better chance than in the Finance Committee and then we'll move to Conference Committee with the House where it has a better chance still because the House has been very strong.

And my prediction is that at the end of the day we will have some form of public option, and a good form of public option in the final bill. Tomorrow's fight to be honest with you is uphill given the membership of the Finance Committee but we want to start the debate because the more the public hears what the public option really is the more they like it.

Watching Kent Conrad proudly read off the list of items that the Senate Finance Committee included or should I say turned over to the conservatives in their bill just to kowtow to the obstructionist minority party is just mind numbing. Why didn't Baucus just let Renzi and Grassley write the bill for the democrats? Didn't John McCain win the election? He's actually proud of what they've done. Republicans should just love this bill. It cuts out all the things that would have an impact on health care reform. Here's Kent Conrad's ode to da republicants.

Mitchell: How did you do? Are you guys going to get any Republicans to join you in this?

Conrad: Well, we certainly hope so. Look, they asked a series of things be excluded.

*They didn't want a public option, it's not in this package. They didn't want an employer mandate, it's not in this package.

*They wanted tax reforms so that the high end Cadillac plans would have a levy on them to discourage over utilization, that's part of the package.

*They didn't want illegals to benefit, many Democrats agreed, that's not in the package. Those here illegally will not benefit.

*They wanted to make certain that federal dollars not be used to support abortion and so they're not.

*There's the beginning of medical malpractice which many wanted to see be included. There's a clear statement on that.

So I hope that they'll see as we go through the process that there's much here that's worthy of their support....

If Mitch McConnell had told the Baucus Dogs that Americans should be required to produce at least three forms of ID to enter hospital emergency rooms, Conrad probably would have included that, too. In that respect I think the Republicans blew it. Luckily for us, Americans, Senators, Republicans and a lot of members of his own committee do not feel the same way.

Republicans don't like it because... it's a health care bill. Democrats don't like it because... it's a bad health care bill designed to kowtow to Republicans who won't even vote for it. Health care advocacy groups don't like it because it "would give a government-subsidized monopoly to the private insurance industry to sell their most profitable plans - high-deductible insurance - without having to face competition from a public health insurer." A good reason not to like it! And unions don't like it because there's no employer mandate and it would "tax health plans."

Even President Obama's response to the bill was terrible:

Despite months of anticipation, the White House on Wednesday stopped well short of endorsing Sen. Max Baucus's (D-Mont.) healthcare bill.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the release of Baucus's Senate Finance Committee healthcare legislation — the last of five committees to unveil a proposal — moved the legislative process along, but President Barack Obama still thinks the bill will change.

Oh, there is one group of people that love the Bacus bill:Insurance companies.

Following Baucus’ announcement, HealthNet shares increased by 3%, United Health Group Inc shares rose by 2.7%, Humana Inc. grew by 2.6%, Wellpoint stock gained 1.7% and Aetna Inc rose 1.6%...

Max Baucus finally unveiled his new/old bill from the Senate Finance committee today and as has been expected the bill is all about bowing down to the minority party that has no intentions of supporting any type of health care reform. He's chucked aside America just to try and land one Republican vote in the Senate... errrr... I mean, the House of Lords.

Sen. Rockefeller has been very outspoken about his opposition to the Baucus Dogs bill and says as much while many other Democrats are not pleased either.

Baucus Bill: Rockefeller Says Dem Senators Are Not Pleased

On Andrea Mitchell, Sen. Kent Conrad came on at the end of the show and read off a list of things that Republicans should be so happy to support in the bill. It was as if Baucus and Conrad wrote a bill that caters to the Republicans and his Gang of Six committee. It was disgusting watching him gush when he said there was no public option in the bill because Republicans didn't want it. He then read off more and more things that Grassley wants in the bill and it's as if he really thinks there's a chance in hell that they will vote for his bill.

Actually, it's a bill nobody but self-eviscerating Dems will vote for.

John Aravosis uncovers an amazing nugget in TIME Magazine. Apparently, there are Democrats who saw Rep. Joe Wilson yell "You Lie!" at the President of the United States and thought, "that guy has a point." And they happen to be the ones writing the health care bill in the Senate Finance Committee.

The controversy over Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's shouting out "You Lie!" at the President over his claim that illegal immigrants wouldn't benefit from health-care reform apparently sparked some reconsideration of the relevant language. "We really thought we'd resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President's speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again," said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

So many things wrong with this, starting with caving to an extremist. But it's worse than that on the policy end. The exchanges are just health insurance purchasing centers, like a Wal-Mart for insurance. You don't have to receive a subsidy to buy insurance on the exchanges; in fact, if your family makes over $88,000 a year, you can't be eligible for a subsidy, though you can still purchase there. What Conrad is saying is that he would make it illegal for a non-citizen to BUY something.

Not only that, but proof of citizenship laws, which we don't have in most states for voting, are onerous and disproportionately tilted away from the poor and the elderly, as well as potentially restrictive to legal immigrants with green cards, in this case. As the New York Times says today:

Should we take a harder line? Force people to prove citizenship in emergency rooms? That’s illegal, for good reason. Make verification requirements so onerous that not a single illegal immigrant slips through? Very expensive, and not smart. It would be highly likely to snag deserving citizens — like old people who don’t have their original birth certificates. And besides, we’ve tried that: A House oversight committee reviewed six state Medicaid programs in 2007 and found that verification rules had cost the federal government an additional $8.3 million. They caught exactly eight illegal immigrants.

In the case of an epidemic, like swine flu, should illegal immigrants go untreated so they can infect legal residents and American citizens?

Hard-line Republicans insist that they will fight for citizenship verification. They could, in theory, get the country to spend whatever it takes to do that and proudly report back to their voters. But there is a line beyond which antipathy to the undocumented can be damaging to those voters’ health, not to mention the federal budget. Mr. Wilson and his admirers seem to have crossed it.

Not to mention the fact that buckling to these demands will not get one Republican vote on any health care bill.

This is the Senate Finance bill, not the overall bill. But Democrats are so wishy-washy when it comes to, well, anything, that we actually could see this rotten, xenophobic, piss-poor policy in a bill supposedly designed to expand access to health care.

I know a lot of money has been flowing to Joe Wilson's opponent in 2010, but a far better use of those dollars would be to funnel them toward primary opponents for Kent Conrad and Max Baucus.

UPDATE: Conrad is now clarifying that there would be no federal subsidies, and requiring proof of citizenship would just be used to determine qualification for government assistance. Of course, you end up with the same problem, then; those without proper proof of ID would have trouble getting subsidies that could be available to them. The larger point is that there was no need to react to a teabagger yelling and screaming. This was already implicit in the bill, and allowed for the HHS Secretary to determine a best practice. This blunt instrument is not the way to do it, and makes Democrats look weak (but that's redundant).

UPDATE II: As this GAO report notes, checkpoint systems like Baucus and Conrad want were implemented under the Bush Administration to ensure undocumenteds didn't get on Medicaid, and for every $100 they spent, 14 CENTS in Medicaid savings were achieved. It's wasteful and spiteful!

(h/t Heather.)

Krugman wonders why the Obama administration keeps taking the wrong turn - the right turn, as it were:

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1937. “We know now that it is bad economics.” And last year we learned that lesson all over again.

Or did we? The astonishing thing about the current political scene is the extent to which nothing has changed.

The debate over the public option has, as I said, been depressing in its inanity. Opponents of the option — not just Republicans, but Democrats like Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Ben Nelson — have offered no coherent arguments against it. Mr. Nelson has warned ominously that if the option were available, Americans would choose it over private insurance — which he treats as a self-evidently bad thing, rather than as what should happen if the government plan was, in fact, better than what private insurers offer.

But it’s much the same on other fronts. Efforts to strengthen bank regulation appear to be losing steam, as opponents of reform declare that more regulation would lead to less financial innovation — this just months after the wonders of innovation brought our financial system to the edge of collapse, a collapse that was averted only with huge infusions of taxpayer funds.

So why won’t these zombie ideas die?

Part of the answer is that there’s a lot of money behind them. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something,” said Upton Sinclair, “when his salary” — or, I would add, his campaign contributions — “depend upon his not understanding it.” In particular, vast amounts of insurance industry money have been flowing to obstructionist Democrats like Mr. Nelson and Senator Max Baucus, whose Gang of Six negotiations have been a crucial roadblock to legislation.

Now, if Robert Reich is right, and Obama wanted the decisions on health care reform to rest with Baucus and his cronies, that pretty clearly indicates to me that Obama's commitment to real reform is cosmetic only. (As Glenn Greenwald pointed out last week.) That's why Krugman shouldn't be surprised:

But some of the blame also must rest with President Obama, who famously praised Reagan during the Democratic primary, and hasn’t used the bully pulpit to confront government-is-bad fundamentalism. That’s ironic, in a way, since a large part of what made Reagan so effective, for better or for worse, was the fact that he sought to change America’s thinking as well as its tax code.

How will this all work out? I don’t know. But it’s hard to avoid the sense that a crucial opportunity is being missed, that we’re at what should be a turning point but are failing to make the turn.

As someone recently said, what planet do they live on? Chuck Grassley and Ken Conrad fall all over themselves praising their co-op proposal, while Howard Dean, the Last Semi-Honest Man, calls it out as the political theater it is.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty tired of these expedient political solutions to real-life problems. After reading Matt Taibbi's latest Rolling Stone piece on health care reform (no link yet), I now understand just how thoroughly the Blue Dogs screwed us on the public option and I would cry no tears if it disappeared in its present form:

(CBS) Former Vermont Governor and doctor, Howard Dean said the health care co-operative proposal is purely for political strategy and has not worked in the past on "Face the Nation" Sunday.

"That proposal is a political compromise, not a policy compromise," Dean said. "No one knows what it would look like and when it has been tried in the past it mostly hasn’t worked."

Dean, a strong advocate for the public insurance option, said people need the choice of a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. He argued that because private insurance companies are investor-owned, they are spending less money on health services and more on equity.

Medicare, Dean said, "is by nature much more efficient" because currently seniors can move, leave their job and get sick without having their coverage discontinued.

"Everybody over 65 has it and the question is 'Why don't we open up that program,'" he said.

[...] Dean said "we are getting pretty mixed signals from Senator Grassley. … I think the Republicans owe it to this country to give us a clearer sense of what they will and will not support."

Senators Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, appeared earlier on "Face the Nation," saying that the public option plan would not find enough support in the Senate. The co-op solution, they said, would be the only hope for a bipartisan agreement.

Dean also said the $600 billion dollar House price tag on health care is "reasonable" because it is less than we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kent Conrad's co-op plan reminded me of the WaPo's failed "Mouthpiece Theater": It's about as insipid as humanly possible. The House of Lords really is more concerned with its members' campaign contributions than they are for the American people. Let's check to see how much jack Conrad has received from the insurance industry, shall we?

Conrad, Kent (D-ND) $828,787

Not a bad haul, eh?

If Conrad was trying to woo Republicans with his co-op plan that cannot work, guess again.

A key member of Republican leadership in the Senate declared on Tuesday that a cooperative approach to health insurance was merely a "Trojan horse" for a government-run system.

In a conference call with reporters, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said that while some progressives view the co-op proposal as an unacceptably watered-down alternative to a public insurance option, Republicans think it's still too similar. He indicated that both he and the party would oppose them.

"On the co-op... as Democrats have said, it doesn't matter what you call it, they want it to accomplish something that Republicans are opposed to," Kyl told reporters. "That is the step towards government-run health care in the country. The president himself said you can imagine a cooperative meeting that definition of a public option." Republicans see Trojans everywhere but they believe in abstinence only. Everyone knows a few of them are big teases but in the end they will just say no.

"It is [a public plan] by another name. It is a Trojan horse. And therefore no, I don't believe Republicans will be inclined to support a bill," he said.

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My! What Jon Kyl is really saying is: Trojans and Horses and Socialists, Oh, My!

Hullabaloo:

Kent Conrad, the perpetual whiner who has been pushing this silly co-op nonsense for months now, set co-ops up from the get as a prophylactic for his fellow Democratic corporate lackeys. It has nothing to do with Republicans. Never did. It would be best if everyone just abstained from pretending that bipartisanship was ever on the table and faced the real problem: STDs (Supine Two-faced Democrats.)

Howard Dean on Morning Joe this morning:

"The president knows very well that you aren't really going to have health care reform without a public option. But he also knows he has to get this out of the Senate," Dean said on "Morning Joe." "He's got a very important member of the Finance Committee, Kent Conrad, who doesn't want to vote for this bill if it's got a public option in it. And he knows he's not going to get any Republican votes, of any kind. So at the end of this day, this bill is going to be written by Democrats. It's got to get out of the Senate. And you only need a few Democrats to take out the public option."

He added that with Republicans unlikely to support any version of health care legislation, he had no doubt that the final reform bill would be passed with the help of reconciliation, which means Democrats need only to muster 50 votes in the Senate rather than the usual 60.

Dean told RCP earlier this year that a health care reform bill without a strong public option was pointless. "If it doesn't, all we have is the same old stuff, and I don't think it's worth spending $634 billion on what we've already got," he said.

I've been reading the coverage about the public option remarks yesterday, and I think I understand the likely scenario now.

First of all, don't panic. Believe it or not, Sebelius is right: The public option is not the only way to get accountability into the health care system. And a rose by any other name smells as sweet.

That said, President Obama is still claiming to back the public option.

Linda Douglass (comm director for White House Office of Health Reform): "Nothing has changed,” said Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform. “The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.”

More:

Jim Messina (White House deputy chief of staff): "Nothing has changed. POTUS [President of the United States] has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."

But those quotes yesterday weren't accidental; that isn't how this game is played. So this quote from Chuck Todd seems right:

The White House has been hinting at this for weeks if not months. When Kent Conrad … came out with that co-op idea, I can tell you, insiders at the White House said: ‘Boy, this is going to gain a lot of traction.’ And those conservative Democrats -- this is not about getting a bipartisan bill out of the Senate, Lester. This is about getting folks like Ben Nelson in Nebraska; Joe Lieberman in Connecticut; Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor of Arkansas -- getting them on board. And a full-fledged public option was making them hesitant. Co-op will be the option that probably gets ‘em done. And that’s why the White House is allowing themselves wiggle room.

Seems to me this is more of a re-branding than an actual surrender. These senators are hesitant about the public option but will almost certainly embrace something that sounds more voter friendly.

Remember, the person to watch is Howard Dean. I know he's explained why co-ops don't work, and I think the newest version will be called a "co-op" - but that doesn't mean it works the same way.

So I'm waiting to see what Dr. Dean thinks of the finished product.