First, there is the fact that Nancy Pelosi is standing strongly behind the public option, saying no health care reform bill will pass the House without it. Not just that, but she told the press quite emphatically today that a triggered public option is not acceptable:

Pelosi (D-Calif.) rejected the idea of a “trigger” for a public option. That means that the government-run healthcare plan would be a fallback option, enacted only if other reforms didn’t make healthcare more accessible.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who is being courted by the Obama administration as their best hope for getting a Republican to sign on to President Barack Obama’s healthcare initiative, supports a trigger. But Pelosi does not.

“I don’t even want to talk about a trigger,” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. She said the “attitude” of her fellow Democrats is that “a trigger is an excuse for not doing anything.”

Never say never, but it does look at the moment like the Democratic majority is prepared to stand up for what’s right (emphasis is in original):

A Pelosi aide sends over a transcript from her presser today:

QUESTION: What is your feeling about a trigger for the public option as a potential compromise, and what is the feeling of the caucus about a trigger?

PELOSI: We’re thinking and deciding about it. And the evidence seems to point, at this caucus that I just went to, that a trigger is an excuse for not doing anything. But everybody is open to listening to what people have to say. The point was made over and over again that for one reason or another the trigger was not effective in the Medicare Part D bill.

Pelosi appears to be saying that at caucus meetings of House Dems this week, the sentiment was overwhelmingly that a trigger is a phony solution, and that she agrees.
This is pretty strong stuff, because the trigger is the solution preferred by Olympia Snowe, and even possibly those who want to win her over, such as the White House.

And yet Pelosi sharply dismissed that emerging compromise solution. It’s hard to see how she could support it later if she believes it’s tantamount to doing nothing.

Another surprising development is the news reported by Ryan Grim that Blue Dog opposition to a public option is softening (emphasis is mine):

For the first time since they formed in 1995, the Blue Dogs have been out-organized by their liberal counterparts. The Congressional Progressive Caucus completed its first survey and began whipping back in the spring. They launched a final whip count last week that will be finished by Wednesday evening.

The whip count builds on an earlier letter that 60 members of the progressive caucus signed, pledging to oppose any health care bill without a “robust public option.”
[…]
The count comes in advance of a critical House Democratic caucus meeting Thursday morning in the Capitol, where leadership will take their own whip count. The fate of the public option in the House will be largely determined by the parallel whip efforts — and how aggressive each bloc is in pushing for its priorities. In other words, it comes down to which pack wants it more, the Blue Dogs or the progressives.
[…]
Blue Dogs were alarmed when Pelosi said that a sizable number of their crew in fact back a public option. So they resolved to find out.

“It’s just confusing to a lot of people when the Speaker says that, you know, there might be 18 or 20 Blue Dogs that might vote for a strong public option,” said Blue Dog Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.). “We don’t know if those numbers are there or not. That’s the kind of thing they’re trying to figure out.”
[…]
One Blue Dog they can’t count on is Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

“I’m for a robust public option and I filled out my survey to say I was,” Harman told the Huffington Post.
[…]
CPC leaders said that the emphasis on cost-savings, and Obama’s decision to push the bill down to $900 billion over ten years, makes the public option all the more attractive. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a government-run plan could save $65-100 billion over that time period.

“It is beyond me, when they’re the ones that are all about cost savings, that they don’t get that the more robust the public option, based on an established rate system like Medicare, the more we save,” said CPC Co-Chair Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).

That argument resonates with Harman, who said that a “number” of other Blue Dogs agree with her. The lack of forceful opposition to the public option from Blue Dogs can be explained: The idea has polled well in Blue Dog districts and the coalition has pushed for more spending on rural hospitals. Including a public option is one way to pay for that.

“I see it as a market-forcing mechanism to keep costs down. I think it will correct what is presently a market failure, where in some states there’s only one insurance option,” Harman said. “So if I’m right, a robust public option — if I’m right — fulfills the core Blue Dog mission, which is fiscal discipline.”

After being told that Woolsey wanted to speak with her when the interview was over, Harman ventured: “She wants to make sure I’m not going to cave.”

She walked over to Woolsey, put her hand on her shoulder, and looked her in the eye. “I’m not going to cave,” Harman told her. It was that kind of support, Woolsey responded, that would carry the public option through.

Kathy Kattenburg

PAST CONTRIBUTOR.