That’s it. Harry Reid just announced that he would include a public option in the health care bill, with an opt-out provision for the states. Reid is sending several different versions of the total legislation to the CBO for scoring. But crucially, he’s ONLY sending the opt-out version of the public option to CBO, not the trigger provision or any other compromise. Reid said that he “feels good” about the consensus reached inside the caucus.
Reid mentioned that he’s always been a strong supporter of the public option, which while not a “silver bullet,” can offer competition and choice. He’s decided that the best way to move forward is to include it (he did not say exactly what version of the public option – one with Medicare rates, negotiated rates, or Chuck Schumer’s “level playing field” version – but I would assume the Schumer version, based on reporting) in the bill, meaning that the opposition would need to muster 60 votes to take it out of the bill. Reid called the opt-out “the fairest way” to press forward, and termed it “important” that the Senate bill have a public option, citing mass public support in addition to support of the caucus.
As far as details, Reid said that states will have “until 2014″ to opt out of the public option for their state. He did not get into the mechanism of how they could opt out – through state legislatures, by gubernatorial decree, or by a vote of the people in a ballot measure. This does not answer the question of whether the public option would be available everywhere for a year before states could close it out, but that doesn’t look likely.
Reid sais, “As soon as we get bill back from CBO, we will have the support of caucus to move to the bill and start legislating.” This means that he feels he will have full Democratic support on a motion to proceed to start the process on the bill. He would need all 60 votes of the caucus, since Olympia Snowe would in all likelihood not vote for the motion to proceed, because of the opt-out provision. Reid said he spoke to Sen. Snowe on Friday, and that she was a no vote on any kind of public option. “We’ll have to move forward without her.” Reid said he was always looking for Republican support on everything they do in the Senate. “It’s just a little hard to find them … We invite the Republicans to come and try to improve this legislation … we want them to work on unemployment extension, FAA extension, highway extension. But there are no more moderates in the Republican caucus. I can count the moderates on two fingers.”
Reid was tight-lipped on most of the other provisions in the bill. He said that he sent CBO a number of alternatives with respect to affordability and coverage subsidies. He did say that the co-op provision from the Senate Finance Committee bill would be included in the final legislation (presumably to keep Kent Conrad on the bill). He said that “this bill is for middle-class families,” responding to labor opposition to the financing mechanism, the excise tax for high-end insurance plans.
Reid said that he has not asked for the White House to make any calls yet to twist arms and get certain Senators on board. “We have 60 people in the caucus. We all hug together and see where we come out.”
UPDATE: Here were the prepared remarks at the beginning of the presser:
The last two weeks have been a great opportunity to work with the White House, Senators Baucus and Dodd, and members of our Caucus on this critical issue of reforming our health insurance system.
We have had productive, meaningful discussions about how to craft the strongest bill that can gain the 60 votes necessary to move forward in the Senate.
I feel good about progress we have made within our caucus and with the White House, and we are all optimistic about reform because of the unprecedented momentum that exists.
I am well aware that the issue of the public option has been a source of great discussion in recent weeks. I have always been a strong supporter of the public option.
While the public option is not a silver bullet, I believe it is an important way to ensure competition and to level the playing field for patients.
As we’ve gone through this process, I’ve concluded, with the support of the White House and Senators Baucus and Dodd, that the best way forward is to include a public option with an opt-out provision for states.
Under this concept, states will be able to determine whether the public option works well for them and will have the ability to opt-out.
I believe that a public option can achieve the goal of bringing meaningful reform to our broken system. It will protect consumers, keep insurers honest and ensure competition and that’s why we intend to include it on the bill that will be submitted to the Senate for consideration.
We have spent countless hours over the last few days in consultation with Senators who have shown a genuine desire to see reform succeed, and I believe there is strong consensus to move forward in this direction.
Today’s developments bring us another step closer to achieving our goal of passing a bill this year that lowers costs, preserves choice, creates competition and improves quality of care.
…Health Care For America Now offers this statement:
“We applaud Majority Leader Reid’s leadership in making sure the Senate bill includes a public health insurance option to lower costs and inject much-needed competition into the health insurance marketplace. We appreciate his recognizing a public health insurance option is key to achieving meaningful reform, protecting consumers, and keeping insurers honest.
As we move forward, it is essential that Senate legislation addresses all of our key concerns including making sure health care is truly affordable, ensuring employer responsibility, generating revenue through fair financing rather than taxing higher-cost plans, and implementing a strong public health insurance option.
We now call on all Senators to stand with leadership and vote to begin debate on the floor. We are closer now than ever before to achieving a true guarantee of good, affordable health care for all. With 47 million people uninsured, tens of millions underinsured, and businesses and families throughout the country struggling with rising costs, there can be no excuse for blocking a full and fair Senate debate on health care reform.”
Not unqualified support, but not a full rejection, either.
74 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Advanced search
wtf was that comment about coops about.
Any politician opting out is downright stupid.
Dats a fact jack
It’s in addition, not necessarily as an alternative. On their own it’s kind of harmless. CBO sez nobody will bother to set one up, anyway.
It is nice to see that President Snowe was specifically told to take a flying fuck here. I don’t think that wins Harry any happy phone calls from the White House, but no doubt pleased a number of Dems in the Senate getting tired of Snowe’s bullshit.
What will be interesting to watch is whether Snowe moves her own goalposts to keep her toe in the water. If she’s a no on cloture while a cloture vote passes, and then votes against the bill when it reaches a pre-conference up-and-down, she will have taken herself out of impacting Conference. We all know she wanted to ride it that far, and Rahm badly wanted her along for the ride to help reign in Nancy and the House Progressives.
John
I aspire to, one of these days, understand all of these options and what they actually mean. But it seems, at this point, that having a grasp of the facts in the morning doesn’t mean that by that night, everything won’t have changed.
Any politician opting out is downright stupid.
Helloooo, red states !!
Shit – I still don’t even know when Reid’s PO is supposed to kick in.
I might be eligible for Medicaire by then for all I know.
If I understand this (maybe) probably no one will set up a co-op, the state politicians will die a slow death if they go for opting-out, so we are left with a PO. Right?
Snowe can taking flying leap.
Perhaps throwing some face-saving to Baucus? Regardless, it was startling to hear that mentioned, and should be watched.
There are a few Blue states, well at least one that comes to mind – Minnesota, that has a stupid governor.
The next fight is to have as much good stuff as possible in effect before the 2010 election. The public needs to see a real win, otherwise the Republicans will run on fear.
By the way, the answer that the WH has been behind this all the way (opt-out vs. trigger) is nothing but happytalk, imo. Bygones. We’re all looking forward now!
Yeah, I was explaining some of the health care stuff to a friend earlier. I mentioned the opt-out and that it seemed likely only the Republican controlled states would do that. He leans Republican/Libertarian and his first response was “What? Are they stupid? If those states that opt-out are controlled by Republicans, then they need to get voted out next elections, that’s just plain dumb.”
Congrats to Senator Reid. And thanks to Jane and all the firepups – without her leadership we would not be where we are today.
But the war is not over by any means. We must keep up the pressure until the Pres actually signs a bill into law with a strong public option.
Yep–good point imo.
has the opt-out mechanism been defined?
I can’t imagine putting a bill forward which would allow one person making the decision on behalf of an entire state.
hallelujah. somebody finally woke up and smelled the coffee.
Working on that.
junk legislation We want single payer. Now!!
To paraphrase a US Senator, from when he was an activist after serving in Vietnam, “Who will be the last person to die before we have
single payer?”.
Unfortunately MN doesn’t have a monoply on stupid govs.
How would this work?
Let’s recognize taht the insurance lobby is strong in Indiana and Indiana “opts out” of the public option. Will rates for all in Indiana be higher than in other states? Or will it just again be a case where the poor who don’t vote for the GOP suffer?
Outside of helping the poor, which won’t cut any mustard in Indiana, why should Indiana NOT “opt out?”
I don’t think Reid released any specific info yet. I would guess the opt-out clause will not have any use. That would be political suicide.
Most likely medicare will be the option, it exist, everyone knows how to use it and it would be the lowest cost option.
It’s all Dems from here on folks, Blue Dogs will not kill this bill and the Rethugs have been shown to be toothless. They are low in the polls, low in power and left praying that the economy tanks further so they can regain power in 2010.
It should be interesting to see how this plays out, going forward, with Obama’s legislative agenda .
“We’ll have to move forward without her.”
Well, duh.
Outside of helping the poor, which won’t cut any mustard in Indiana,…
“the poor” in Indiana have a mostly uninterrupted record of voting against themselves.
One major exception being that Obama ended up carrying the state in 2008, by about a tenth of a per-cent.
It will always take a *major* mobilization effort to protect Indiana from itself.
Well, duh.
Better really, really, ridiculously and unaccountably late, than never?
Lets kill this and demand a better bill we have Leverage Obama fails to pass this he knows he ends up being compared to Bill Clinton on Healthcare and Rahm still has nightmares about that.
If the PO is restricted to those at 200% or 400% there will be plenty who will rage against it as socialism and there will be states that opt out, especially if it there isn’t a window when it’s available first. That’s why Rockefeller talks about no opt-out unless it’s at least two years into the program. Got to hand it to him for understanding this.
Savor the moment!
While there can be disappointment about the opt-out provision, the fact is there’s a public option in the Senate bill. That is a huge hurdle crossed, the argument now is what kind of public option instead of whether or not there will be one. How many times has it been written off as dead? I’m frankly pleasantly surprised we’re at this stage, considering the odds against a public option.
True dat.
Is the 2014 opt-out date is intended partly to give the citizens in states likely to opt-out time to pressure their pols to stay in the program?
I am guessing that even self-described conservative voters who currently oppose a PO will not be willing to deny themselves a benefit afforded to most other states… after it becomes law.
Could someone tell me why on Intrade the public option is less than 20 percent and after the speech went down? The markets often have predicted elections quite well. If Liberman plans to screw the plan last minute, he would have told at least a few of his buddies. Am I just being paranoid?
More fuel for the fire: Reuters says waste in the U.S. health care “system” is almost $800B annually. LINK.
The PO has dodged a bullet but still has a long way to go to be effective. If the Medicare +5 stands up from the House version, we may have some building blocks to work with. The 2013 start up date is already in some ways a trigger. We need faster enactment. We also need it to be fully available to all. I don’t think that Obama will do this willingly, but deteriorating economic conditions in 2011 could push both him and the Congress to action.
Jane should be on tv tonight to talk about how effective the progressive are ! Think about all those phone calls, e-mails, etc – those worked a lot of magic, I think.
It is a real sign of the times that anyone would even describe Snow as a “moderate.” She might be less insanely conservative than most in her party but she is still insane and still conservative.
I too am glad that they’ve finally decided to jettison this bipartisan bs. Obama promised to change the culture of Washington and to make a strong public health insurance option a reality. I for one could care less about how vitriolic and moronic Republicans can be.
Anyway, I’m trying to figure out what we’ve lost, what Reid had to take out of some other parts of the bill, in order to get support for a public option. Anyone know?
Almost seems as if the old pugilist told Rahmy to take a flying fuck as well. I don’t ever want to be too giddy where Mr. Reid is concerned, having been disappointed many times in the past with regard to truly progressive legislation, but he certainly seems to have navigated some tricky waters to get to this point. And where is this point? It appears to be angling towards legislation that most of the country would support/needs and most of the corportate interest/lobbyists abhor, such that it is politically VERY tricky to go against the flow as Mr. Reid has set the course. The Republicans will, of course, because sledgehammer politics is all they know and that only works when you have inertia. They had inertia for too long.
The media mentions from time to time the push made by the liberal base for a public option. They should speak about it more often and in more detail.
I agree, once it has taken effect it will be harder to get rid of. Pushing it back until 2013 gives insurance companies and their lapdogs too much time to attempt to abort it.
Kill the Bill get a new better one the half a loaf is better than none thing don’t work if the bread is moldy. We either pass this now the right way or it won’t get passed unless the people are ready to revolt.
However if we pass a bad bill now all the GOP Presidential Candidates will run on killing this moldy half loaf.
Absolutely. And once the final bill is scored, it may be pretty damn difficult for even red states (where need is great) to try to opt out. There could be a pretty steep political price for doing that, even in solid red.
nobody is mentioning the odious mandates, which are the real poison in the pill.
the thinnest, molecular layer of sweetener – some paltry, defective by design hodgepodge called a PO -seems to be enough to get so many ‘progressives’ to swallow this terrible medicine.
One thing that will need to be protected, regardless of outcome, is the progressive role in this. Some will want to view this entire thing as beltway political genius. Some will view this as confirmation of Obama’s 9-dimensional chess.
It will be important to clearly understand that this is a step forward for liberal wing–regardless of what happens from here forward.
I don’t think it matters. I can’t recall a time when the Republicans didn’t run on fear.
I consider myself a progressive, and I ain’t swallowing.
An opt-out always has been available, since it’s a 100% opt-in to begin with. Anybody could opt-out at any time, by not purchasing it. No damned need for an opt-out.
I find it awfully funny that it’s bad when the government limits your choice of Doctor’s, but apparently it’s ok for the government to limit your choice of insurance.
Anyone who believed Snowe was for real wasn’t paying attention. This state opt-out plan will be a disaster, and that’s why you don’t start with a compromise. Obama should’ve gone for the Single Payer from the getgo and work backward from that. With an opt-out to this woefully poor plan, just think of what the health insurance companies and drug companies and their lobbyists can do with TV ads in states that don’t opt out! Why, they can bring all their power to bear on the minds of this dumbed down society and soon the Public Option will disappear altogether all across the land, and we’ll be right back where we started except real reform will have had its chance, failed, and will never be tried again. Feeling betrayed out there, Obama supporters? Yep, me too!
Well, it’s a step in the right direction. I’m just wondering what the “public option” will actually be when all is said and done.
OFG – I was referring to the individual mandates, in which all Americans are required to purchase insurance from the cartel, and whatever rates they see fit.
as Matt Tabibi notes:
ffs, it is a terrible deal. ‘Progressives’ settle for a botched PO, the insurance cartel gets a vast, captive population, forced to by their products.
You may be right, but the fat lady isn’t singing yet and it ain’t over ’til it’s over. The amazing thing is that all the heavy lifting Jane has been doing and the pushing from the left has gotten us this far. There is no reason to assume that we cannot continue to meet with success if we keep it up.
As Hugh says the p.o. must be available to anyone who wants it and the reforms need to happen sooner than currently planned. I agree with you that we need to watch all the other provisions very very carefully — especially the mandates, but I’m more hopeful than I have been that we can keep pushing things in a better direction.
Yeah, with the exception of texas, maybe, i dont know what poltician will “opt out” 4 years from now.
I hope you’re right, but I’m just not sure it’s a step in the right direction, especially if the PO is garbage (Hacker’s original is the only one worth a crap IMO) and with this opt-out cop-out in it.
Do you know what’s going to happen now that the insurance companies are forced to cover things they didn’t cover before, like pre-existing conditions, etc. and there’s no strong competition to keep prices down? I’ve got an idea. Premiums are going to skyrocket. And with an individual mandate, millions of Americans will be forced to pay those skyrocketing premiums to the lying, thieving, murdering insurance companies instead of to a public plan with this opt-out in place. I can see many, many possibilities as to how it could be worse than no bill at all. IMO. YMMV.
Can an opt-out be considered a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? Would insurance companies be required to not engage in interstate commerce?
If this bill increases the Medicaid rolls, which states are required to share costs for with the federal government, and states have constitutional requirements to balance their budgets, wouldn’t a state have no choice but to opt out or raise taxes?
If they are smart, they will use Medicare’s existing infrastructure and kick in that PO ASAP. If they think people who were willing to fight this hard for a public option are going to wait years to get it, they’re crazy. This isn’t a promised tax break, it’s peoples’ health. Every election that goes by without people seeing real change in their ability to protect themselves and their children will be a disaster.
I was just commenting on the bill itself. I can envision several ways that this bill could be worse than no bill. And as far as individual mandates are concerned, I still believe they’re unconstitutional. One thing I can guarantee; once an individual mandate becomes law, it’s going to be challenged on those grounds, probably in all 50 states.
And it wouldn’t surprise me a little bit if in one of those instances a plaintif finds a sympathetic enough judge to place some sort of an injuction on the mandate until it’s constitutionality is determined. Can you say delay, delay, delay?
I’ll bet you could get some Republicans who want to hedge their bets to go along with a Wyden amendment. If the bill is going to pass anyway, they can at least tell their constituents that they got their talking point of selling insurance across state lines taken care of in some fashion.
thanks for the thoughtful response.
from my point of view, though, you are fighting about the amount of sugar in a poisonous, malignant piece of medicine the Democrats in Congress and the WH are preparing to administer.
who knows what the threshold is, that is vague and in flux, but it seems if you achieve the proper coating of sugar, you and FDL and the ‘progressive’, activist sector of the (D) constituencies will get behind the bill and help Obama celebrate his ’success.’
but, if the “must-have requirement(s) for the insurance industry” go through, many people will be so adversely affected by this terrible reform that they will seek to extract political retribution on those who passed it.
the Democratic Party, across the board, obviously, and the ‘progressive’ wing, as well, if you choose to lash yourselves to the sinking ship.
even JH and Digby have noted that passing an individual mandate could have adverse consequences politically for their beloved Democratic Party.
the thin layer of sugar simply will not matter, is what I’m sayin’.
Citizen tosh:
You are a very smart citizen, Brother tosh, and we indeed do hafta watch with some glee as Snowe and a lotta others start scarmblin’ ta get or remain “relevant”…but one thing we do know is that Rahm is NOT the “Decider” in this White House and that the real decider doesn’t have his ego in the end game here. Obama has made it clear that he would not be tagged with ownership of this legislation before everyone chose up sides but he would NOT get in the way of progressives in the fight for the heart of this legislation either.
ARE WE HAVIN’ FUN YET FIREPUPS???!!!
I haven’t heard from the Stalinists and Mutant Ninja Naderites…how stupid and cowardly is Obama again?
ok, good point. but many who are affected by these mandates, even if briefly, will be mad.
Perhaps, but I think we will have our hands full dragging Dems kicking and screaming in the direction of real reform. And I should be clear, I think we are a long way from where we need to be, but getting Reid to put the p.o. in the bill is a real success for progressive activism. At the moment, it is the only success I can recall after debacles like the PAA, FAA, supplemental etc. where we got punked. We have made real strides in getting out in front on an issue and forcing Congress and the WH to pay attention to us. So while I remain pessimistic about how much reform we may ultimately get out of Congress, I am delighted that we have gotten their attention for a change.
Hell yes, and even madder if there’s no public option to turn to. I’d be one of ‘em.
I think I’d feel like Charlton Heston, you want to take my money and give it to those bastards??? You’ll have to take it from my cold dead hands! lol
The worry is the Rahm still has a seat at the table in Conference, and we know he’ll be representing the ConservaDems and the Blue Dogs (and of course Big Health).
Good sign that Harry didn’t back down here, or more likely was stiffened up by enough members of his caucus that were willing to walk without a PO. Now if Nancy gets the same support (which seems *more* likely), we’ve got a pair of leaders along with probably a few other confrees (such as Waxy if we’re lucky) who won’t roll over for Rahm.
John
And as far as individual mandates are concerned, I still believe they’re unconstitutional.
Interesting question.
The default counter-argument is that all drivers must be insured. But that is (and I heard Obama say ti, come to think of it) false equivalence. Driving is a privilege; merely being a living human being is a right.
Citizen sporkovat:
You are indeed a courageous nincompoop, Citizen sporkovat…not real smart but courageous. The final legislation is a long way from accomplished but the fight is now on the people’s ground and if you can’t see that politically Obama can NOT sign or support any legislation that increases insurance company profits and reinforces private healthcare delivery, then Citizen you suffer from terminal stupidity.
I do think we have the Dems boxed in now. If they retreat they are going to have a real fight on their hands from across the country. Obama looks fairly welled boxed in also.
Well driving is a privilege, but if one is going to drive, one argument is it’s in the public interest (?) for drivers to be insured. Could there be some logic for requiring insurance for all and arguing that we need to insure everyone so that everyone will indeed go see a doctor for various ailments etc?
I’m not saying I endorse the mandate, just offering up an argument for it. Fire away.
Yeah, no one is forced to buy auto insurance. You can choose to not own a car and use public trans, walk, bike, etc.
It is a false equivalence.
I’ve asked others here but haven’t gotten a response. If this is constitutional, would that mean that if the beef industry successfully lobbied Congress and the White House to pass an individual mandate that every American had to purchase XX pounds of beef per year, would that be constitutional??? Cause it sure doesn’t seem like it to me, not when you’re forcing them to purchase something from another private entity. But IANAL, and it’s only my opinion, and YMMV.
I think we agree here. You are right, if in the end all we get is a sugarcoated poison pill, then it would be better to kill the bill than pass it. However, part of my optimism is based on the idea that no Dem wants to lose their seat over doing something spectacularly unpopular.
I suspect Dems are genuinely starting to fret over their prospects in 2010 and 2012 if they don’t start to deliver on their campaign promises. The possibility that this reform bill might be accurately described in the next election cycle as just another corporate bailout like TARP will put them in a real bind. So I think they will be motivated to pass better legislation than what they have been willing to consider thus far.
They’ve painted themselves into a corner… To be seen as successful they have to pass health care reform. They have staked their reputations on it. But, if it turns out to be just another corporate handout at the public’s expense, they will get creamed at the polls.
Now we just have to focus their attention on better legislation. I think they may finally be ready to consider it, even if their pet lobbyists threaten to huff and puff and and scream at the top of their lungs. Let ‘em scream, in the end it is the voters who hold our Representatives’ and Senators’ fate in our hands.
No shit. You’re preaching to the chior on that one.
But it’s October 2009, not November 2008. The Single Payer ship sailed. It frankly wasn’t a part of Obama’s campaign, so there was little expectation he would go that route.
On a scale of 1-100, with Single Payer being out beloved 100 and 0 being no bill at all… we were down around 5 in early August: it highly likely we were going to have a horrific giveaway bill simply to have a “win” and avoid that 0 of no bill.
After the Baucus Bill, which the White House was pefectly happy with, we might have been up to 15:
* The Baucus Bill was the 5 we were worried about, especially if it got further hammered to the right by amendments
* on the other hand, there was quick red flags raised about the worst elements of the bill, and it was clear that they wouldn’t survive conference
So the likely bill was perhaps a 15: not a good bill at all, with lots of giveaways in it.
We’re far from that now. I don’t know if we’re up to 50 as the likely result. But closer to that than even a month ago. If this passes, we have time to work to drift it further towards what the House is likely to come in with… which is already stronger than it looked in August when doom was setting in.
I don’t see how we can’t feel so positive about today. The Opt-Out is still a problem, and the Level Playing Field is one as well. But:
Opt-Out > Opt-In > No PO
Level Playing Field > No PO
Not where we want to be, but the change in the narrative for us this far. Work out asses off to get to the next step. And hopefully at that point we have the White House making the final push on as strong of a bill as we can get Nancy to push through.
John
good analysis and no sense crying over spilled single payer when there’s more work to be done to keep the pressure on.
Although this is not how I envisioned us getting the public option, I am psyched about this. Medicare originally had an opt-out and today all 50 states have kept it. Just imagine if a governor tried to take away his constituent’s medicare benefits!
I think the O administration beautifully played all those talking heads and media in general regarding the trigger talk from The White House.
Obama has popularity to burn, while Reed is in a bit of trouble, so they set him up perfectly to look strong.
Set up or not…Go Reed GO !
It’s gonna be fun to watch Chucky Boy Todd try to act like he knows anything. HA!
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/reid-the-public-option-wi_n_334284.html
I agree with both Hugh and ThingsComeUndone. Now is not the time for celebrating. We need to be cautious and make the consequences of bait-and-switch tactics clear to our lawmakers.
Just calling something “public” and an “Option” is not enough for me. I expect to have very robust public insurance available by the next election. Otherwise I will be a very angry elector.
I conceded as much as I was ever ready to when Single Payer was replaced by this Public Option. If the so-called public option includes the “level-playing field” provisions that prevent significant cost reductions, if it remains unavailable for years to come, and if it is not available to every American that wants to sign up, then Democratic incumbents will have failed to deliver.
Good reply, John, but if there’s an opt-out in any plan Reid/Pelosi can push through, the President needs to opt-out with a veto. The opt-out by the states diffuses the whole idea of radical change, defeats the bill, and will make political mischief for the states to enter into to further muddy the waters of healthcare reform permanently.
Robspierre@72 is exactly right. I’m afraid I don’t see this turning out well. It appears the White House cut a deal with Big PhrMA and the insurance industry. I think they’ll try to have a fig-leaf public option to placate the public, one that is unworkable or of limited coverage. The fight isn’t over and in fact just got trickier. The final product may be unworthy of support. Nevertheless, I think a moment of celebration is in order since if Reid’s bill hadn’t had a public option, the fight would have been over today. Thanks to progressives and pressure from the likes of FDL, there is still something to fight for.