The Public Option: Un-Un-Undead?

Tons of news about health care right now.

There's the "bipartisan health care summit" on February 25th; people are wondering if there's going to be a scaled-back version of the bill released by the White House; everybody wants to know if the leadership will use reconciliation; Are we going to have state-based or national exchanges? Do the Democrats need to peel off a Republican? The list goes on-and-on.

I say this with sheer confidence: Try not to make predictions anymore. You're probably not going to be right. I sure as hell wasn't. Health care reform has taken so many twists-and-turns that I don't know anybody who would have expected half the shit that's happened since last Spring.

The newest top health care story is the Bennet Letter. Basically, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) wrote a letter urging Harry Reid to put the public option back into the bill using a reconciliation sidecar. The interesting side-note about all of this is that Bennet is pretty moderate. Nobody would hold him anywhere near Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown, for instance. Isn't it beautiful what a primary will do to a person?

Since that letter, 17 co-sponsors have jumped on board -- including Sen. Chuck Schumer, who plays a pretty major role in the leadership. So, now the big question is, "Is the public option back?"

I have no idea. Seriously, no idea. I'm trying really hard to stick by this whole "not-making-predictions" thing.

Why the hell are you reading this, then, if I don't have a prediction? First, because I'm skeptical. Second, because I don't know if these co-sponsors (or the sponsor) had the right [ultimate] motive for this letter. And, third, because, if this somehow worked, it would be very good -- and very exciting.

So, I'm skeptical. I'm worried and skeptical, because of how fragile the process is right now. You technically need 60 votes to pass this bill with all the bells and whistles -- and the Democrats only have 59. It's even delicate using reconciliation. Many senators will pull out because of their rejection of the process, and others will because they don't like what's in the package. Losing ten senators isn't out of the question if you're not careful.

I could see losing Landreiu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Pyror, Nelson [Ben], Bayh, Conrad, Webb, Baucus, Tester and Begich if they're not cautious. And those are just off the top of my head. The combination of a very controversial health care provision, a somewhat contentious legislative process, and a very bad year for Democrats could make even rational people do crazy things.

Secondly, seeing as how Michael Bennet has a challenger from his left, it makes sense that he would propose something like this, just to gain credit with his primary voters. And it's entirely possible that he didn't see this going very far when he wrote it. He could have been "The Senator That Almost Saved The Public Option!" How could his primary opponent beat that?

Then, the other 17 senators thought, "Man, now that this letter is out there, if I don't sign it, my supporters are going to hate me."

This could all be happening while completely ignoring the fact that the call for a public option is now back in the progressive base. The progressive base that [arguably] just got over losing the public option -- and would have been at least somewhat satisfied with passing a bill without one, and moving on to other things. (And it certainly doesn't help when Sebelius is telling Rachel Maddow that Obama would be open to the idea if Reid is.) But, if this continues, the public option fire will burn hotter and their voice will grow louder. And if they're let down by their party again, I would be very scared if I were a Democrat running for office in 2010.

But since I shouldn't be a pessimistic jerk the whole time, there are obvious upsides to if this public option push actually works. And, don't get me wrong from before, I believe it very-well could work; it's just very, very fragile. It would require Reid and Obama doing some serious tip-toeing.

If the leadership is careful, however, this does only require 50 votes to do. It's not impossible.

And think of the base enthusiasm. I don't think it would match conservatives', but Democrats would likely start to remember why they voted for Democrats -- which is something that a lot of them are surely wondering at this point -- and turn out in 2010.

This is all without mentioning, of course, the upside to the policy. The public option is good policy. And it's also friggin' popular.

Passing a public option would, without a doubt, be good for Democrats -- and good for the country. However, waving a public option in front of peoples' faces and stripping it away for the third time is not good for the Democrats -- or the country.

We'll all have to see!

(Again, I'm going to have to end every post here with a writing apology, because I spend most of my time writing at Lehigh Valley Independent and I don't have much time to spend blogging on here, anymore -- which includes not having much time to make sure my thoughts are well-laid out and coherent.)