TPMDC is discussing it:
As Senate leaders begin work on a Democrat-only health care bill, they're finding themselves confronted with an unexpected irony: Though the caucus has reached an uneasy consensus around a public option that's modeled in many ways after a private insurer, it may be necessary to make the public option more liberal, and thus, more politically radioactive, if it's to overcome a number of unique procedural hurdles.
Interesting. What do they mean?
"A very robust public option that scores significant savings would presumably be easy to justify doing through reconciliation," says a Senate Democratic aide. "But it is still being studied whether other, more moderate versions of a public option could pass parliamentary muster."
According to Martin Paone, a legislative expert who's helping Democrats map out legislative strategy, a more robust public option--one that sets low prices, and provides cheap, subsidized insurance to low- and middle-class consumers--would have an easier time surviving the procedural demands of the so-called reconciliation process. However, he cautions that the cost of subsidies "will have to be offset and if [the health care plan] loses money beyond 2014...it will have to be sunsetted."
True. But here's the "unexpected irony" I see: The plan "that scores significant savings" and is much more aggressive in limiting government exposure on outlays to fund the plan by setting low prices is... too liberal, and "politically radioactive."
Thanks, framing guys!
The basic premise is right, in that the clearer and more aggressive the plan is about scoring savings and limiting outlays by keeping prices down, the easier it is to get through reconciliation. But because we live on the other side of the looking glass, the more aggressive the plan is about saving money, the less comfortable conservative-leaning Democrats (who are "fiscally responsible," after all) will be in voting for it.