As reported here last night, Harry Reid will meet with the Democratic caucus at 5:00 ET this afternoon to unveil the health care bill. There will be some press releases and Q&A sessions shortly thereafter; hopefully we’ll see some language or at least a summary of what’s in the bill tonight.

Reid’s office is “very pleased” with the final score they got from the CBO, but Jon Cohn correctly views that with skepticism:

Most of Washington seems to think a low CBO score is automatically a good CBO score. But a low CBO score means a bill that doesn’t involve a lot of federal outlays. And without a lot of federal outlays, you can’t insure as many people or provide them with as much protection.

Still, the bill will have a public insurance option, which is something nobody expected as recently as a few weeks ago. And the political reality of the Senate remains what it’s always been: Reid needs to hold 60 votes to break the inevitable Republican filibusters. That’s no minor challenge.

We know the schedule for health care, with a motion to proceed coming as soon as possible, although Max Baucus’ absence due to a family emergency may complicate matters. This suggests that Democrats would need all 60 votes to proceed to debate; Olympia Snowe cannot be expected to move the bill to the floor.

And on this motion to proceed, the New York Times labels Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln as the biggest impediments to passage of the motion to proceed. White House leaders, including former colleagues Ken Salazar (the current Secretary of the Interior) and Vice President Biden were dispatched to the Senate today to persuade moderate members on this point. Joe Lieberman is missing from this list because he’s agreed to vote for a motion to proceed – one hurdle at a time. Reid called himself “cautiously optimistic” that he could get the bill to the floor. And he touted the strengths of his bill:

“I am going to have a bill that’s fiscally responsible,” he told reporters. “Of all the bills we’ve seen, it’ll be the best: saves more money, is more protective of Medicare, is a bill that’s good for the American people.”

What’s going to be in this bill? Based on early reports and Sen. Reid’s cheerleading, we can expect the public option. We can expect that the excise tax on high-end insurance plans will be scaled back, replaced with a Medicare payroll tax increase on high-wage earners, despite a letter from top economists stressing the importance of the excise tax, along with other cost reducers like delivery system reforms and an independent, beefed-up “MedPAC” commission that can make changes to Medicare structures. With respect to the excise tax, Reid is constrained between economists and fiscal conservatives who prefer the tax, and the labor leaders he is counting on for support in his re-election campaign who detest it.

On the public option, despite the fretting from conservative Dems who want that provision killed, just as many members have pushed in the other direction, vowing not to vote for a bill without it. Ron Wyden joined that bloc yesterday.

Another Democrat, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, said his support for proceeding is in doubt unless the government-run insurance program, or public option, is included in the plan.

“I’m not going to support a bill that’s a competition-free zone,” Wyden told reporters yesterday.

The bill will also reportedly contain a federal long-term care insurance program initially proposed by the late Ted Kennedy:

A Senate aide familiar with Reid’s final bill said one proposal the legislation is likely to include would be the creation of a federally run long-term care insurance plan dubbed the “Class Act” by its original sponsors, the late Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, and former Senator Michael DeWine, an Ohio Republican.

Under the plan, participating employers would let workers pay premiums into the program, which would offer a cash benefit of between $50 and $75 per day that could be used to pay for adult day care or assisted living expenses. Workers would pay into the plan for five years before receiving benefits.

Most people close to the process agree that the Stupak amendment language will not be embedded in the bill, and would have to come up as an amendment.