UPDATE 3: Apparently Harry's support is only for a limited sort of public option. It sounds as if he wants a private company running a public risk pool so that the insurance company has no profit incentives. Some here may be disappointed.
I searched and tried to find someone else who mentioned this but I couldn't, so please tell me in the comments if it's already been noted in another diary so I can delete it.
Ezra Klein notes that this Las Vegas Sun article is an interesting report on views Harry Reid conveyed to a group of health care providers, and it contains strong support for a public option. Reid says, "We have a problem in America and it’s called the private insurance industry." He goes on to say that any bill that comes out of Congress must contain a public option. In addition, he has repeatedly suggested that reconciliation is a strong possibility.
This is actually a pretty major breakthrough for progressive politics; it probably shows that Reid knows he can't get a bill through without progressive support, and he can't achieve enough progressive support without including a public option in the bill. Because it is apparently Reid's duty to merge the Senate Finance and HELP bills, we may well start out with a public option from the Senate side instead of having to add it in conference, which dramatically improves the odds of getting a public option in the bill. In other words, this is very good news for those kossacks who believe that a public option is a necessary component of health care reform.
Sorry this diary is kind of short, but it seemed like pretty important news.
UPDATE: some quotes from the article:
Here's where Reid appears to support a public option at the conference:
Reid opened a private meeting of health care providers in Las Vegas on Tuesday by saying, according to one attendee who took notes: "We have a problem in America and it’s called the private insurance industry."
Reid went on to express support for a public option, the proposed government-run insurance plan that he compared to Medicare, saying any meaningful reform legislation would have to include a public component.
He also talked about how hard it was to get the public option through the Senate. But he also brought up reconciliation as a possibility to pass a bill without Republican support now that Kennedy is gone:
Reid also spoke Tuesday of the difficulty of getting the public plan component approved in the Senate, where he hopes to attract Republican support. With the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Reid has 59 senators in his caucus, not the supermajority of 60 often needed to pass significant legislation.
At both the Tuesday meeting and again during a Wednesday luncheon hosted by the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, Reid mentioned the possibility of using the procedure known as reconciliation to pass the health care bill in the Senate with just 51 votes. But he also noted the shortcomings of that approach, explaining to both groups that only part of the bill could be handled with reconciliation, leaving important elements behind.
An interesting note on antitrust exemptions that I'd never really considered:
Reid spoke at both venues about the antitrust exemptions health insurance companies have enjoyed for decades as part of the problem with the industry.
And some conference attendees believe he signaled he wouldn't support tort reform, along with a story that would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous:
At the Tuesday meeting, Reid told health care providers the story about a surgery he needed some years ago on his left foot. As he was in the hospital preparing for the operation, he asked what the markings on his right foot signified.
He was told they marked the foot to be operated on.
Reid told the staff they had marked the wrong foot.
Ginsburg took this to mean Reid had no tolerance for the kinds of tort reform being suggested by some of the doctors in the room as a way to rein in medical costs.
UPDATE 2:
Commenter Loge explains that when Reid discusses anti-trust exemptions, he is referring to the McCarran-Ferguson Act:
After the Supreme Court ruled the business of insurance fell withing Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, the Congress passed an act allowing some federal regulations, but primarily preserving the states' regulatory power.
The act also excempted insurers from most federal antitrust laws, meaning only state antitrust law applies.