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.

There were squeals of joy and howls of rage when Olympia Snowe crossed the aisle (or as Republicans would say “went over to the Dark Side”) yesterday to vote for the Senate Finance Committee’s version of a health reform bill. But now that it’s done, both sides might be rethinking their outbursts.

The Right could well rejoice in the fact that Snowe was asked to ostensibly stand up as a witness for the marriage of the Finance and HELP bills. The Left’s reason to whine? That Snowe won’t be just the witness; she’ll be giving away the bride – the Finance bill – to an undeserving groom – the HELP bill.

It looks like Snowe will fill that protective parent role, and naturally, she’ll have plenty to say about the groom’s intentions regarding what she sees as her baby. Most of the folks on the groom’s (liberal) side of the aisle are already concerned about whether Snowe forced some sort of pre-nup … and why she’s been invited to even watch the proceedings (since the Democrats had expected that this whole marriage would end up in Las Vegas, where they wouldn’t have to hear the whining of the bride’s parents).

Of course, the Left side of the church is just praying that IF the Reverend Harry Reid can convince the groom and the bride that they can get along, that some unruly wedding guest (we’re thinking Joe Lieberman) won’t stand up and object when the two finally meet for the nuptial blessing at the altar of the Senate.

If their prayers are answered, a successful marriage would inevitably lead to a steamy romance involving House and Senate bills. And then? Naturally, the delivery of adorable, living, breathing health reform legislation by none other than our trusted family physician.

Dr. Obama? Paging Dr. Obama?

A column by Thomas Frank in the Wall Street Journal made us pause and scratch our heads this week because it prompted one of those questions that we think lots of Americans must be asking themselves. The question is simply this:

Are President Obama and his Democratic Party up to no good in this health reform battle?

[Conservatives: Insert "Obviously!" here.]

The question, more specifically, might be “Is President Obama trying to turn the government into a predator?” or “Would the passage of a public option be a predatory move by government?”

[Conservatives: You can again insert "Obviously!" here.]

Phrase it however you like. As the WSJ column points out, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) – who has been up to his hip waders in the health reform battle – said last week that a public option turns the government into a predator. And Sen. John Thune, (R-SD), has apparently agreed.

‘I know you are but what am I?’

The WSJ’s Frank thinks those two legislators have it backwards. Could be he right?

After all, what seems more predatory? A government insurance option, the stated purpose of which is to increase competition with private industry to drive insurance costs down for all consumers? or “actuarial-minded hardliners of the insurance biz, the ones who deny your claim or cancel your policy?”

We understand the concept of a “predatory government.” It’s a government that stands back and watches as the foxes of private industry feed on the hen house of American citizenry. We’ve seen it happen when corporations sucked the economic lifeblood of the nation through no-bid defense contracts. And we’ve seen it happen when, as Frank points out, the government used a prescription drug benefit to herd millions of Americans into the waiting arms of the pharmaceutical industry.

The “predator state,” Frank writes, materializes “when consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, and policing against fraud are handed over to lobbyists. And when health care is run for the benefit of private insurance companies, whose business model . . . is to target coverage on the healthy and delay payments to the sick.”

Keys to the hen house?

So is a public option “predatory?” We don’t think so. But we agree with Frank that without a public option, Congress may be putting its efforts into getting all of our hens in one hen house – and then committing the most predatory act imaginable: handing the foxes the keys.

Fundraising scorecard

Political contributions from the health industry:
Grassley: $2.9 million (despite the fact Iowans support a public option)
Thune: $1.2 million

Okay, we know that it’s the conservative members of the House that are called “Blue Dogs” (not members of the Senate), but what a perfect visual for the actions of the North Dakota Democratic-NPL party’s put-down of its own senator, Kent Conrad (D-ND).

The party’s members recently reaffirmed a commitment to an even much more progressive health reform idea – single payer – but support a public option as a fallback. And in a letter to its three-member congressional delegation, it put its disagreement with Conrad out for all to see.

Conrad has been a nattering nabob of negativity when it comes to the public option – and as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, he’s used his position to try to euthanize. As far as the public option is concerned, several conservative Dems on the finance committee have essentially been their own  death panel for the proposal.

The Democratic party in Nebraska is also wielding a rolled-up newspaper. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) is another example of an elected official stubbornly pulling back on the leash while his masters are trying to walk forward.

Looks like the winter temperatures in these Midwestern states are going to be more frigid than ever for these two senators, bringing to mind the old Warner Bros. cartoons where the shivering dog looks longingly through the window while Sylvester lies curled up by a roaring fire.

That ain’t dog food

Political contributions from the health industry:
Conrad: $1.6 million
Nelson: $2 million

Hmmmm. A CBS/New York Times poll says 81 percent of Democrats favor a public option; yet five Democratic senators on the Senate Finance Committee vote against it. Strange.

Go to the raw story, for the full scoop!

This week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus did a head count of its members to see whether House liberals still strongly opposed any health reform bill that would not include a public option. Word from the Hill Thursday indicated that opposition is still plenty strong. Not so strong? Blue Dog opposition to a public option, apparently.

Huffington Post reports that when the Blue Dog Caucus did its own head count this week to determine whether opposition to the public option was Job One, it found that it wasn’t even Job Two … or Three … or Four. Apparently, the Blue Dogs’ bark – and bite – aren’t as bad as expected when considering a public option.

Four priorities kept emerging, focusing mostly on dollars-and-cents issues, but the public option was not among them says Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD). (TIME magazine highlighted Sandlin in a 2008 piece called The Hotshots: Democrats to Watch.)

That means the door could still be open to negotiations on the public option, though Sandlin says Blue Dogs would only consider including it if it was “structured to ensure a level playing field, negotiated rates and [be] subject to a trigger.”

In 1974, President Nixon tried to put one right down the middle for health care reform. Now, 35 years later, President Obama seeks those same modest but important reforms.

Students of history may get a chuckle when they hear Republicans define Obama’s health care plan as “socialism.”  If we look to the past, we see Obama’s plan is pretty much in line with Republican President Richard M. Nixon’s failed efforts in 1974.

Like Nixon, Obama seeks to tweak America’s existing private health care system, rather than replace. Like Obama, Nixon sought to simply make access universal, put more emphasis on preventative care, limit out-of-pocket expenditures and ensure that Americans would not go bankrupt because of a catastrophic illness.

Read Nixon’s plan for health reform, in his own words and you’ll see that opposition to Obama’s similar plan, if any, should be coming from his own party and not the Republicans. In fact, some of it is: Democratic House members have been threatening to not support any health care reform that does not include a public option.

The so-called public option is, Obama says, but a sliver of his overall health care plan; only five percent of the population would have access to it, and only a subset of that would choose it. Obama has readily telegraphed his willingness to drop it in exchange for bipartisan support.

The Republican opposition to Obama’s modest health reforms appears to be more politics than true opposition to the plan’s elements. After the losses it experienced in the last election, the only way the party out of power can see to regain strength is to deny the President any victories. As Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has famously said “If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” The Republicans risk being seen as cynical, as polls show most Americans believe they are not making a good faith effort to work with Obama on health care.

By not over-reaching on health care, the young President seeks to move America one step closer to a country where no one dies because of lack of access to health care, and no one goes broke because they get sick.

The old saying goes that “only Nixon could go to China.” Perhaps health care will be Obama’s China.

RELATED: See this YouTube clip on Nixon’s and Ted Kennedy’s competing health care plans in 1974.

It’s hard enough trying to convince Americans that it’s time for drastic health reform measures when that reform is being fought tooth and nail by the health insurance industry, which today launched a seven-figure advertising campaign to put pressure on moderate Congressional Democrats. The pressure, of course, is to urge them to help kill momentum health reform legislation that has been moving swiftly through Congressional committees and is on track for approval by the time Congress takes its August/September recess.

But then there are the opposition legislators, who are marching in lockstep, hammering away on scare-tactic phrases like “rationing” and “socialism” and “spend-and-tax Democrats.” This week, those legislators are being whipped into a feeding frenzy by the aforementioned advertising and by encouragement from guys like Bill Kristol, who says Republicans need to “go for the kill.”

We expect this opposition. But what is completely mind numbing is media reaction to the opposition. Since last week, when the Congressional Budget Office said that health spending would continue to increase under current reform proposals, the supposedly liberal media has taken on the persona of Chicken Little, screaming in headlines that the sky is falling on health reform.

This week, ABC News blared “Facing Tepid Support on Health Care, Obama Makes Renewed Push on Bill Before Congressional Recess.” “Tepid support?” Do they mean tepid as in the American Medical Association’s support of the House bill? or tepid as in the fact that the industry has come to the bargaining table, finally agreeing that it’s time to stop denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions?

The Washington Post reports “Poll Shows Obama Slipping on Key Issues,” noting that public approval of Obama’s handling of health reform has dropped below 50 percent. Wow. That low? And his approval rating overall has fallen under 60 percent? Remind us again where Americans rate the Republicans on performance. Wait. Here it is.

Can the media be that suggestible – that it’s swallowing opposition message points? Is its memory so short that it can’t recall how badly Americans wanted change back in November?

Or (and we’re dreaming here) are the media as frightened of political remission as we are and – in a shrewdly calculated and vast left-wing conspiracy – trying to help put the fire under President Obama? Are they hoping, as we are, that the big gun that gets pulled in this fight is our Top Gun, the President himself?

We’re less than certain that the media is that savvy. And if they’re not, we’d suggest they review the progress made thus far on reform, and perhaps spend a little more air time reporting (as Ezra Klein helps point out) that “the sky is just fine.”

Since the health insurance industry stonewalled the Clinton Administration’s attempts to drastically overhaul our trainwreck of a health care system, Americans have been waiting.

We’ve been waiting for something nearly miraculous: a convergence of conditions that would include a frightening global economic climate; a national realization that our system is an ineffective, unfair mess; and the election of a Congress and President with enough votes to change that system.

Guess what. That miracle is here.

But recent news points to a completely baffling reality: that some members of the Democratic party – which effectively won the equivalent of Willy Wonka’s Golden Ticket in the 2008 elections – are now willing to watch that ticket flutter away in the wind. But why?

When the Democrats were swept into a majority in the House and Senate and Barack Obama took the Presidency, what did those elected officials think? That their constituents voted them in because we wanted Democrats to sit back and let Congress do business as usual?

When voters handed Democrats the rare and awesome ability to override the Congressional stall tactics that have hamstrung health care reform in the past, did those legislators believe voters were urging them to accept industry-driven counterproposals as though they had no choice?

Why, when 76 percent of the American public says they would at least consider the Democrat’s proposed public plan, would any Democrat begin backing away from that plan? After all, when we voted them into office, we gave Democrats the votes to do what they have always said they would do: to make life better for every American. And a public plan could do that.

So why would Democrats rip up their Golden Ticket? We strong suspect it’s about industry money, and these numbers support that notion.

We understand why the industry opposes a public plan; it threatens the pocketbooks of private insurance. But we don’t understand why any Democrat pulled into Washington with the Obama tide would allow industry contributions to affect their ability to really make historic change.

In a recent speech to the American Medical Association, President Obama assured the medical community that he trusted that they became doctors because they wanted to heal – and not because they were driven by a desire to become rich. It’s sad to think that the President would be forced to deliver the same speech to members of his own party.

Democrats: This is your moment. It is a moment for greatness, a David-and-Goliath moment – a moment to affect every single American living and generations of Americans to come.

Democrats: Americans are watching you. We have given you a Golden Ticket and our expectations are high. And you can trust that you will hear our voices this summer as we call your offices, sign petitions, and write letters to our newspapers.

Do not let us down.