Congress Daily reports on yet another potential public option compromise being worked on by Tom Carper, who’s fast becoming the go-to Senator for these things.

In states where private insurers fail to offer affordable coverage, Carper said the alternative would permit them to set up a non-profit board, likely appointed by the president, to offer insurance.

“That kind of approach might come close to hitting a sweet spot for a lot of people,” said Carper, noting the approach “addresses concerns about government-owned, government-run.”

I think it would certainly hit the sweet spot for the insurance industry. Jon Walker explains that this combination of the trigger and a state-based rather than a national concept, with an independent board presiding almost like a co-op, grinds the public option into such fine dust that it’s hard to find any of it afterwards.

Does that sound familiar to anyone? It should because that is nearly identical to Conrad’s co-ops idea, which the CBO already labeled as worthless. Conrad’s idea was for the government to help set up state-based, non-profit, non-government entities to sell health insurance. Except, Conrad’s co-ops would be available right away without a trigger. Olympia Snowe voted for Conrad’s co-ops idea in committee, so it should also be able to get 60 votes if liberal senators stay on board.

What Carper did was take the two worst aspects of the two most worthless ideas (a trigger and zero government oversight), and combine them into one super-awful proposal. The entity created is not national, would not be large enough to negotiate low rates, would not be available on day one, and would not answer to Congress. Carper has created a “trigger for co-ops” proposal in an attempt to get 60 votes, but, not only would the idea do nothing to help control costs, but it needlessly weakens two worthless ideas Snowe already supports.

We also see in this proposal the value of Democratic aides who understand the meaning of the word “secret” as opposed to those who don’t:

The Democratic aide said staffers have tried to keep Carper’s alternative quiet due to concerns that publicity could draw attacks from liberal activists, which could complicate efforts to line up support from the full Democratic caucus.

Er, liberal activists sometimes have access to the National Journal. So good job keeping that under wraps.

All of these endless compromises designed to get something through the Senate side neglect the fact that the House really cannot pass a bill without a public option, one that doesn’t include opt-outs or triggers. This is true because, far from needing 41 votes to block it, progressives need at most 18, if not less:

By my count two months ago, there were 20-25 Democrats who would vote against any health care bill no matter what was in it. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that their political survival in 2010 means they have to cast a “no” vote. According to Jim Clyburn’s own count, the Stupak amendment only bought them 10 votes. There were 40 Democratic “no” votes on the final bill.

So they threw the biggest piece of red meat culture-war social conservatism issue at the ConservaDems, and still only picked up 10 votes. This is after PhRMA has spread so much money around the Democratic caucus that they’ve lured just about everybody over to the “pro” side they possibly could. If they tossed the public option out, MAYBE — just MAYBE — they could pick up another 10 votes. And that’s really, really optimistic.

But let’s say they could. That leaves them at 30 “no” votes no matter what. We’ll even give them Massa and Kucinich, maybe enough can be done for them in the interim that they would come over. Don’t think so, but let’s give them every benefit of the doubt, which means they’re at 28. Which means any 11 Democrats can kill the bill. And maybe Eric Cantor doesn’t make good on his threat to lure Joseph Cao back to the GOP, so it would take 12.

That means, at the absolute outside, there are 12 Democratic votes needed to kill a bill without a public option. At the outside. I put the total at more like 5, because the GOP is going to go straight at everyone who is vulnerable between now and then, and will probably be able to recruit strong challengers to many in the post November election period, which is when that kind of thing starts to happen. Which should scare off some of the freshmen, and probably some sophomores too.

My count has that 23 Democrats voted yes on the Stupak amendment and no on the final bill. Those members are not reachable, period. I don’t think a trigger or opt-out or any other compromise reaches them. They are no votes on health care. And Jane lays out the rest of the numbers.

There’s the equal but opposite consequence, where Joe Lieberman and now Ben Nelson are talking about blocking any health care bill with a public option. In the spaces in between, that’s basically where a deal can fall apart. But the threats are equally credible. There clearly weren’t 65 votes to block a bill without a robust public option, as progressives claimed at one point, but I wouldn’t deny that there are 12-15 votes to block a bill without even the vestiges of one.

So at some point, these compromise measures get a bit silly. Either people can be brought around on a legitimate public option, or not. Considering there are 55 votes that wouldn’t filibuster in the Senate, and a clear path through reconciliation to get a deficit-reducer like the public option into law, common sense shows that’s the likelier play. But progressives remain disrespected in Washington, and until they use their power that will continue.

UPDATE: Sen. Reid’s office declined to comment on the story about the new Carper proposal.