Reports are popping up everywhere this morning that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has finished patching together the health insurance reform legislation he intends to bring to the floor in the Senate, and it's to include some form of the public option (yay!), coupled with some form of state-based opt-out (boo!).
So, what does the opt-out actually do? I don't mean functionally, as in what it will or won't do if passed. That we won't even be able to guess until we see the language, but there are plenty of questions about that.
But what I mean is, what does including the opt-out do for the prospects of the bill?
Only Harry Reid knows for sure, but it's still unclear to me just whose votes were put in play with the inclusion of the opt-out. I've heard it said that Olympia Snowe (R-ME) says that the so-called "trigger" is her tipping point. But has anyone ever heard anyone say the name of a Senator known to be a "no" vote on a straight-up public option, but a "yes" vote if you include the opt-out?
Now, by no means does merely knowing who likes the trigger make that particular piece of garbage better than the opt-out.
Most of the salesmanship I've heard for the opt-out is that it's just a glorified procedural ploy, designed to get a bill through the Senate and into conference. A work-around to get, in the end, to a bill with a public option. After that, it's often said, the popularity of the public option takes care of providing the pressure against opting out, or at the very least applies pressure to opt back in for states foolish enough to opt out in the first place.
That's all open to question, of course. But before getting to that question, I'd be interested to know just what we'd be gaining in terms of goal #1: getting the bill past the Senate. Whose votes are we winning? Does anyone know?
We'll find out at 3:15 EDT today with Harry Reid's press conference, if this is the route he has decided to go.