There’s a lot of debate today over what President Obama was saying to his supporters last night when he described what he thinks needs to happen with the health reform legislation from here on in.

The point he made that seems to be drawing the most speculation is this passage:

“That’s why I think it’s very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks and then let’s go ahead and make a decision. And it may be that if Congress decides, if Congress decides we’re not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not.”

Greg Sargent speculates that the President is “raising the possibility that health reform may not happen.” Jonathan Chait thinks the President was saying that Congress can’t ignore the bill and “let it die.”

My take on it is simply (and perhaps over simplistically) this: that Obama is telling Congress

1. that once the facts are laid out and discussed in public, Americans will see that the legislation is worthy of passage and

2. if Congress STILL is somehow unable to pass the legislation, they’re going to be held accountable by their voters.

Which is pretty much what we said earlier today.

In the days following last week’s special election in Massachusetts, it wasn’t surprising at all to hear opponents of health reform announcing that America had – loudly and clearly – told Congress to start over on health reform.

But here’s the thing: If the Democrats had barely eked out a win, opponents would have said the same thing. If Brown had lost by 10 points, opponents would have gloated that – even in the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts – voters were giving health reform efforts a big thumbs down. The message would have been the same, regardless of the outcome.

Of course, we’re not buying it. First of all, it was not a national referendum. It was a vote in Massachusetts. Second, there was definitely more on Massachusetts voters’ minds than health reform. Personalities, for instance, were a huge factor.

But more importantly, Americans have, for months, said that they’re ready for health reform. National polls have repeatedly revealed a public that wants health reform. Even a poll of voters for Brown after his election showed that while they wanted Scott Brown, they wanted him to work with the Democrats on health reform.

And groups that have been working with the Obama administration for months STILL want health reform.

Who’s been calling for Democrats to start over on health reform? The same folks who’ve been putting up roadblocks – and not just since the legislation was introduced last year, but for YEARS.

It IS time for our elected proponents of health reform to listen, but not to the pundits who are predicting that the next election will spell their doom. It’s definitely not time to listen to renewed suggestions that less is somehow more. Less is definitely less.

It’s time for legislators to listen to the very words that propelled them to the one-yard line of health reform success, because the rationale they have used for months to support their efforts still holds true: The system is still broken. Millions are still uninsured. People without coverage continue to die every day.

If they do listen to the opposition, we hope they’ll listen closely, because they’ll hear the real message loud and clear:

Starting over will be the beginning of the end of health reform.

Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic said today what a lot of liberals have been saying about the Senate bill. Basically, it’s been stretched and pulled like a gob of saltwater taffy as it morphed into something barely acceptable to barely enough Democrats, but also largely disappointing to a large contingent of other liberals (and completely offensive to most conservatives).

But Cohn also asks the important question, which is whether the bill is still a decent bill – even after a kitchen cram-packed with cooks alternately spiced up and watered down the original recipe until it was, in the eyes of many, not fit for consumption.

So he looked at what the Senate bill would do to families. He took calculations from a pointy headed health care expert from MIT named Jonathan Gruber, who based his calculations on CBO official cost estimates. The result was this nifty chart.

And it doesn’t look … ah … not fit for consumption. In fact, in each of the four scenarios (ranging from 150% of the federal poverty line to 350% of the federal poverty line) examined, the annual premium dropped, the annual out-of-pocket max dropped and the total percentage of income used for health care dropped.

Could it be better? Cohn says, yeah, it could. But should the bill be scrapped, as some liberals have charged? Nope. As Cohn concludes, “we should also recognize the Senate bill for what it is: A measure that will make people’s lives significantly better. Surely that’s worth a little enthusiasm.”

You’ve got our enthusiasm, Jonathan.

Another great question is whether the health reform is ultimately going to look completely different from the proposals President Obama envisioned and talked about during his Presidential campaign. And the answer there, too, is “not so much” (we’re paraphrasing), according to health reform pundit Ezra Klein.

Klein actually says this:

But the basic structure of the proposal is remarkably similar. Here’s how it was described in the campaign’s white paper:

The Obama-Biden plan provides new affordable health insurance options by: (1) guaranteeing eligibility for all health insurance plans; (2) creating a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance; (3) providing new tax credits to families who can’t afford health insurance and to small businesses with a new Small Business Health Tax Credit; (4) requiring all large employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan; (5) requiring all children have health care coverage; (5) expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and (6) allowing flexibility for state health reform plans.

So if we stay with our food analogy, Colonel Obama’s Original Recipe may be a little more crispy, but it’s still basically got the core herbs and spices.

We still don’t know what ultimately is going to end up on our plate. Opponents feel they need to continue to fight until the bitter end in the Senate. And then, if the legislation survives the Senate, there’s still the challenge of merging it with the House bill.

The cooks aren’t done tinkering with health reform. It could end up a little spicier. It could end up a little more bland. But for now, at least, we haven’t lost our appetite for change.

Anyone who thought passage of a health reform bill in 2009 would be easy, given the Democratic majority in Congress, was deluded. To think that all of Congressional Democrats – and the Independents they court – would vote in lock step was just plain fantasy.

But even Democrats who knew reform legislation would be all about compromise seem to be completely flattened by this week’s impasse with Sen. Joe Lieberman, who just last week forced Democrats to push aside dreams of a robust public option and drove them to create a “Grand Compromise.” Now that compromise, too, is a non-starter for Lieberman, who promised to vote against the bill if it included an expansion of Medicare.

Progressive Democrats and reform proponents are pretty ticked at Lieberman (one blogger calling him the “Worst Person in History of Universe”) who yesterday said that he was optimistic about an even more stripped-down version of the legislation. “Put me down as encouraged in the direction these discussions are going,” he said. No public option? Great. No expanded Medicare? Even better.

Now, Democrats – who seem more and more like the hapless residents of Whoville – appear ready to roll with the latest punch from Joe and to move on with their ravaged bill, worrying out loud that no bill by Christmas could mean no reform bill at all. Not in during this administration, at least.

The question is whether Lieberman is finished – as Ezra Klein said yesterday – “torturing Liberals.” But it’s also, who will torture the Liberals next? If Lieberman finally steps aside, will Sen. Ben Nelson step in?

I guess, in the spirit of the holidays, what we’re really asking here is:

Will the REAL Grinch please stand up?

One of the things that has bugged us for months and months is health care opponents’ preoccupation with the number of pages in the health care bills that have been introduced in the House and Senate. The most recent bill to emerge is the Senate bill unveiled by Harry Reid yesterday and SURPRISE … it’s 2,074 pages.

As Politico points out, the bill “runs more pages than War and Peace, and has nearly five times as many words as the Torah.” Transcript of whiny health care opponents, please:

“While Americans have been clear about their opposition to thousand-page bills for new government programs, it’s now abundantly clear that Democrats haven’t been listening,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

McConnell is undoubtedly railing against ANY bill Democrats might introduce, but he mentions that it’s a “thousand-page” bill. And our question is, “So what?”

Are the kind folks who demand good government (and less government) saying that a bill with such far-reaching implications – a bill that stands to affect virtually every American – would be better if it was simply shorter?

I suppose their argument might be that a shorter bill would mean there are fewer proposed changes to the health care system, and if that’s their point, too bad. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. health care system has been broken for a long, long time – and when proponents of change sat down to craft legislation, they had a lot to fix.

If the health care industry had historically responded to a legislative tweak here and there by implementing significant consumer-friendly improvements all along, we wouldn’t be looking at a tome that rivals the Encyclopedia Britannica. But here we are, decades into the history of health insurance and we’re having to talk about issues like denial based on pre-existing conditions – issues that should have been tackled decades ago.

We think opponents of the legislation should stop carping and look on the bright side: the legislation is extensive and explicit. It’s good news that the bill’s authors are being thorough. And honestly, if the legislation was shorter, wouldn’t opponents be lobbing accusations that Democrats aren’t spelling out everything that’s in the bill? Uh huh.

So enough about the number of pages. We read through the first House bill – and we’ll take a run at this Senate version. It will surely cause eye strain and likely some nodding off.

But we think our pain and suffering will be worth it in the end. After all, health reform has been a long, long time coming.

There are plenty of stories out there about the nightmares already faced in the nation’s existing health care system. But folks really want to know how coverage will look after health reform legislation is passed. (We’re assuming it will be.)

That why we liked this story, which examines what the current legislative proposals would mean to both the uninsured and those already insured. Max Baucus should be pleased with the coverage of The Missoulian, which provided a look at five Montanans and how his legislation would affect them if passed.

There’s a sense of optimism about expanded coverage balanced with against deep concern about how long it would take for health reform provisions to actually kick in. And that’s OK, because we’re concerned, too.

When the House passed its version of health reform legislation last week, the development may have sent chills down the spines of those who oppose the Democrats’ proposed solutions. But a quick read-through of Suzy Khimm’s piece in The Treatment yesterday should be equally chilling to folks who think the battle over health reform is anywhere close to being over.

Khimm’s piece should serve as an eye opener to anyone who might suggest that Harry Reid is padding his schedule when he says a Senate bill won’t pass until Christmas – at the earliest. (Other Dems are saying even that is optimistic.)

For as much as talking heads keep pointing out that Reid needs 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster, what hasn’t been talked about much is the fact that Reid needs 60 votes at least three times in this process: 1) for a “motion to proceed” (a vote that could happen as early as Tuesday) 2) for a vote to move past a Republican “point of order,” and 3) for a final vote on passage of the bill.

That final vote happens only after debate on the bill’s amendments – and there are likely to be many introduced by Republicans. But that’s just the beginning of opposition stall tactics that could well include the reading of the entire bill aloud on the floor, as threatened already.

Reid’s work, Khimm points out, will be “heavy lifting.” We think that’s putting it lightly.

We think Reid’s going to need some steroids.

We’re happy to hear folks asking this question: If Democrats succeed in passing health reform legislation with an opt-out public option as included in Harry Reid’s Senate bill, would any states actually opt out?

Conservatives seem to like the idea that states could take a pass on a public option provision they dread. But really, Andrew Sullivan asks in the Atlantic Monthly, will Republicans at the state level really feel like having a discussion that ends with the state removing a potentially less expensive health coverage alternative for its constituents?

Sullivan says he can actually see the public option “becoming the equivalent of Medicare” – the public program that voters have been screaming about all summer. (”Hands off my Medicare!” and also “Medicare sucks!”)

But apparently, the answer may be “yes” for at least SOME of the state officials and wannabe officials. TPMDC polled a few of them here.

Problem is, Sullivan notes that opting out likely won’t be a snap for states that ARE committed.

And will opting out even be a hot issue when the states finally HAVE the option? (As Ezra Klein points out, states wouldn’t be able to opt out until 2014 – and heck, who knows what we’ll be worrying about five years from now.)

Will Democrats unite to allow an up-or-down vote on health reform legislation? Robert Creamer explained on the Huffington Post this morning why he thinks it’s in Democratic legislators’ best interests to pull together. Creamer’s reasons include, briefly:

• That Americans have already swung overwhelmingly in support of the public option.
• A vote to defeat the filibuster isn’t a vote for the public option: it’s simply a vote to NOT give the opposition the power to thwart the will of the majority.
• Legislators who allow the filibuster risk the resentment of the majority party.
• The defeat of this legislation could threaten the election-year prospects of Democratic legislators in the next election cycle.
• More importantly, Creamer suggests, a defeat on this legislation could threaten the majority status of the Democrats and damage the political standing of President Obama.

The bottom line, Creamer says: the party has spoken in support of the public option. Now, members of the party need to stand back and make way for progress. As CBS News notes, the clock is ticking.

For a political proposal that appeared ready to be staked in the heart by its opponents just weeks ago, the public option looked surprisingly perky this week. In fact, the only thing that now sounds optional about the proposed reform initiative is the abundance of public option options being floated.

The perkiness is due, of course, to the latest poll from ABC and the Washington Post, which showed that 57 percent of American surveyed supported a government-sponsored insurance option. The news could hardly have been better for proponents, unless you consider that even MORE Americans – 76 percent of those polled – said they’d support the idea if it would be limited to folks who can’t get affordable private health insurance.

Sensing that the tide of public opinion is turning, advocates of a public option have turned up the volume on demands that it be included in the bill that will be voted on by the full Senate. Sen. Harry Reid, who’s working behind closed doors to marry the Senate Finance and HELP Committee versions of reform legislation, indicated that he WOULD include a public option in the bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged ardently that a “robust public option” is still on the table for the House of Representatives, at least.

Some media also reported that the White House, feeling the heat from the red-hot poll results, finally signaled that it would support a public option – with an opt-out clause. But other media say the White House hasn’t drawn any lines in the sand just yet.

Who in Congress has pledged their support or opposition to the public option or versions of  a public option so far? Here’s a snapshot.

• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, vocally.
• Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Florida) says all states need a public option.
• Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) says, “I’m not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be.”
• Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Florida), the sole Republican to cross the aisle and vote for the Senate Finance bill, says she’ll vote again a public option and could support a filibuster. She’s also said she’d consider an option only if it had a trigger mechanism.
• Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) wants Sen. Harry Reid to include a public option in legislation and force opponents to strip it out.
• Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) says he opposes a public option “right now.”
• Yesterday, Rep. John Larson (D-Connecticut), said the House had the votes to pass a robust public option.
• Sen. Roland Burris (D-Illinois) says he’ll oppose any health reform bill that does NOT include a public option.
• Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) says she’s “ruled out a government-funded and a government-operated plan.”
• Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana), says the option is still ‘alive’ but said a “pure option” may not get the 60 votes it needs to survive the Senate floor.
• Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), says “it depends on what the public option is.”
• These 55 Republicans strongly oppose a public option (though they have their own “public option.” )
• Sen. Tom Harken said last week that he had counted 52 Democratic Senators who supported the public option and five who did not.