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.

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!

Rep. Kline wants you to pay more for health care.

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), newly appointed as ranking minority member of the House Education and Labor Committee, is giving Rep. Michelle Bachmann a run-for-her-money as the looniest representative from the land of 10,000 lakes.

Interviewed on Minnesota Public Radio, Kline says as far as he’s concerned, a  health reform bill with a public option is a no-go. His reasoning is that it would be … too successful.

Private plan too good

“Because it is cheaper and designed to save money, (a) government run program has some clear advantages,” Kline says, adding that he fears that it could drive private insurance companies out of business and lead to an eventual single payer plan.

Kline prefers tax dollars forever?

Kline further complains that the public plan might be subsidized for three years while it gets up-and-running – but in the same breath strongly endorses the government giving money to low income families so they can purchase insurance … presumably forever?

So … he doesn’t want to give working people access to less expensive health insurance so they have to keep buying from private insurance companies. And he wants to keep poor people on the dole presumably forever so they can purchase insurance from … private health insurance companies.

Is there a disturbing pattern emerging here?

Check this Congressman’s bank account

Looking at the last election cycle, Kline received more than $100,000 for his campaign and his Leadership PAC from insurance interests, pharmaceutical companies and health professionals.

By the way, these Leadership PACs can be a mechanism to shift industry money around to fellow partisans while obscuring the source. Heads of Leadership PACs can also use them to ensure loyalty from their peers while climbing the leadership ladder. Or for votes.

How much funding does your Representative or Senator receive from anti-health care reform interests? You can began your investigation at opensecrets.org. Remember, it may be difficult to determine as money shifts and slips and slides through various Leadership PACs and similar mechanisms.

We thought our elected officials represented people – not corporations – but we could be wrong.

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.