“But wouldn’t that mean that you might wind up with nothing instead of something?” asked Schieffer. Lieberman responded by saying that supporters of the public option are “stopping us from getting something done” because they’re making the option “the litmus test.” Pressed again by Schieffer, Lieberman admitted that he would prefer “nothing”:

SCHIEFFER: But is what you’re also saying is that nothing is better than a government health insurance, or a health insurance reform that includes a public option? Nothing is better than that?

LIEBERMAN: Well, the truth is that nothing is better than that because I think we ought to follow, if I may, the doctor’s oath in Congress as we deal with health care reform, do no harm.

To support his claim that the public option would do harm, Lieberman said that the Congressional Budget Office found that under the House’s health care plan, premiums for the public option would be higher than the average premium in private plans in the exchange. But as TPMDC’s Brian Beutler reported, this is actually an argument for a more robust public option. Watch it:

In his discussion with Schieffer, Lieberman acted as though the public option was the only thing stopping him from supporting health care reform. But this ignores the fact that Lieberman opposed the Baucus bill last month, which did not contain a public option. Apparently, Lieberman truly just wants “nothing” when it comes to health care reform.

What about the more than 60 percent of state residents that back a government-run insurance option, according to a Quinnipiac University poll last month?

Some of those respondents are confused about what such a plan entails, Lieberman said. And he added, “you can’t make a decision like this based on polling,” he said. Ultimately, he he said he has to do “what I think is right and hope in the end the people of Connecticut will respect me for that.”

Describing how his openness to derailing reform affected his role in the health care debate, Lieberman told the reporters, “I feel relevant.”

Today on ABC’s Top Line, co-host David Chalian asked Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) if he would “opt-out” of the public option for his state if the measure passed. Pawlenty dodged: “Well, I don’t know if we would opt out but I personally would like to opt out because I don’t like government run health care.” But Chalian persisted, and ultimately, Pawlenty said that he would oppose the public option for Minnesota:

CHALIAN: But you would lead a charge in your state to opt out if that was an option available?

PAWLENTY: I think so because I don’t like government run health care.

Watch it:

However, Pawlenty has said that he supports “government run health care” in the past — in fact, just as recently as last September. “I support Medicare and Medicaid,” Pawlenty declared.

Regardless, the Wonk Room’s Igor Voskly notes that the opt out provision won’t lower costs like a stong public option will:

But a state-based approach won’t have the ability to significantly lower health care costs or change delivery patterns. Progressives point to existing state-based employee public options or Medicaid programs that contract out to private insurers and thus don’t provide a meaningful alternative or competition. A state triggered public option, would lead to the same outcome, they argue.

To avoid this scenario, the White House needs to stop sending clarification statements to Sargent and stake out a firm position — they will never find the votes if they don’t whip them. Why not start on higher negotiating ground and embrace the HELP bill’s (relativley) strong public plan.

Pawlenty’s not alone. Unfortunately, Democratic candidate for governor in Virginia, Creigh Deeds, said this week that that as governor, he would “certainly consider opting out” of the public option “if that were available to Virginia.”

QUESTION: Are the negotiations leaning toward or against a public option at this point?

REID: The negotiations are leaning about a public option.

QUESTION: Can you clarify?

REID: He said, are we leaning toward or against the public option. I said we’re leaning toward talking about a public option. No decision’s been made. We had a — not a long discussion last night on public option. I’ve had a number of meetings in my office dealing with Democrats and Republicans on the public option aspect of it.

Reid concluded, “It’s not done yet.” Watch it:

Today, Colorado Sens. Mark Udall (D) and Michael Bennet (D) called on their Senate colleagues to give the public option an up or down vote.

This is the unsustainable path we’re on, and it’s the path the insurers want to keep us on. In fact, the insurance industry is rolling out the big guns and breaking open their massive war chest – to marshal their forces for one last fight to save the status quo. They’re filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads. They’re flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions.  And they’re funding studies designed to mislead the American people. [...]

It’s smoke and mirrors. It’s bogus. And it’s all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, “Take one of these, and call us in a decade.” Well, not this time. The fact is, the insurance industry is making this last-ditch effort to stop reform even as costs continue to rise and our health care dollars continue to be poured into their profits, bonuses, and administrative costs that do nothing to make us healthy – that often actually go toward figuring out how to avoid covering people. And they’re earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exception from our anti-trust laws, a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing.

Watch it:

Of course, the best way to keep insurance companies honest would be to pass a robust public health insurance plan — a provision that Obama did not talk about in his weekly address.

I — speaking only on behalf of myself — suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice to compete alongside private insurers for those Americans eligible to enter the national health insurance exchange, but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates.

The last sentence is key: reimbursing providers who treat the new enrollees at market rates satisfies the provider community and conservative politicians from rural states who argue that their hospitals would close if they were reimbursed at Medicare rates. This scheme preserves the integrity of a single national program and takes advantage of Medicare’s administrative efficiencies to lower costs and spearhead delivery reforms. Still, Ross’ solution will likely save less money than a robust public option that uses Medicare-like rates and leverage.

After cutting a deal with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to increase the public option’s reimbursement rates in August, Ross announced last month that “he will vote against health care legislation if it includes a public option.” “I have been skeptical about the public health insurance option from the beginning and used August to get feedback from you, my constituents,” Ross wrote in a newsletter to constituents. “An overwhelming number of you oppose a government-run health insurance option and it is your feedback that has led me to oppose the public option as well.”

ROMNEY: The right way to have proceeded was to let each state create their own plan, to learn from the laboratories that the states were meant to be, and then adopted the very best in the federal system. But that hasn’t been done. And as a result, you’re seeing Democrats fighting Democrats. And the idea that we’d have — the government get into a — if you will, the public or government option is absolutely death, I think, across this country.

Watch it:

Romney’s hysterical scare tactic has sadly become the norm in the health care debate. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin issued the absurd statement that the House health reform bill would create “death panels” for the nation’s elderly — a claim conservatives advanced with glee despite the fact that it had been thoroughly debunked. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) similarly claimed that reform would “pull the plug on grandma.”

During last night’s segment, Romney touted Massachusetts’ health care system that he helped enact as governor (despite downplaying the plan during his 2008 presidential bid). Romney boasted that the Massachusetts plan is “on budget,” but what he omitted is the fact that when approving the plan, he “deferr[ed] until another day any serious effort to control the state’s runaway health costs” and now “the plan will not be sustainable over the next 5 to 10 years if they do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending.”

The public option of course won’t cause “death” across the country, as Romney claimed, but rather, it would be a key component of bringing down the cost of health care.

Yesterday, MSNBC host host Tamron Hall confronted Landrieu over her opposition to the public option in light of its enormous popularity across the country. Landrieu responded to Hall’s questioning by saying that the reason most people want a public option is because “everybody wants free health care”:

HALL: Do you believe in the polling that says the American people want a public option? Do you believe in that desire from the folks that you and all of the others represent who say that they would like a public option to help offset these costs?

LANDRIEU: I think when people hear “public option” they hear “free health care.” Everybody wants free health care. Everybody wants health care they don’t have to pay for. The problem is, is that we in governments and business have to pick up the tab and as individuals. So I’m not at all surprised that the public option’s been sold as free health care. But there is no free lunch.

Watch it:

Of course, the public option hasn’t been crafted as “free health care.” As the President explained during his health care speech last month, the public option as it is being constructed in Congress will “have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.” What likely makes the public option so popular, however, is the fact that it won’t have to worry about, as the President also explained, “profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries,” which would make it reliable and a “good deal for consumers.”

As the organization Change Congress notes, Landrieu has received more than $1.6 million from health and insurance interests in recent years. While she continues to claim that Americans want a public option only because they’re misinformed, her constituents would benefit tremendously from the choice of a public plan. As of 2008, nearly one in five Louisianans were uninsured.

Weiner insisted that a robust public plan could restore competition to concentrated health care markets and reduce health care costs by an estimated $150 billion. McCaughey, the architect of the false “death panels” myth, continued her scare-mongering campaign against seniors: “The elephant in the room here is that all these bills are devastating care for seniors and the Baucus bill is the deadliest of all!”

Throughout the interview, McCaughey was constantly on the defensive, complaining that she was being shut out of the debate. “Anthony, you are ignorant about health insurance,” she said, before insisting to Ratigan that “this will go down in history as one of the most browbeating interviews in television history.” “I hope that it does,” Ratigan replied. “And maybe you’ll learn at that point then to answer questions as opposed to go on television and cast accusations.” Watch a compilation:

After repeatedly refusing to explain how she would reduce health care spending, McCaughey finally proposed “inching up the eligibility age [for Medicare] one month a year until 2043 when the eligibility age reaches 70.” That could “put Medicare on a firm footing without cutting care for Medicare recipients.”

“That was a solid answer to your question,” Weiner exclaimed facetiously. “Take away 100% of Medicare for people 65 to 70.” According to the Congressional Budget Office, which McCaughey credited with the idea, eliminating “younger beneficiaries” from the Medicare program would do little to control costs. “Outlays for Medicare would [still] rise to 7.7 percent of GDP by 2050,” the CBO concluded.

Weiner pounced on McCaughey’s solution, which could cut as many as 11.3 million seniors from Medicare. “You want to gut Medicare,” Weiner told McCaughey. “You just said on this show you wanted to cut Medicare for everyone 65 to 70, isn’t that right?”

– “…Finance Committee passed a quasi, state-based public option sponsored by Sen. Maria Cantwell…” [Politico, 10/1/2009]

– “…the committee voted in favor of a proposal by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to enable states to form their own public options.” [The Hill, 10/1/2009]

– “The Senate Finance Committee narrowly passed an amendment Thursday from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) that moves the conservative panel as close as it will likely get to a public health insurance option.” [Huffington Post, 10/1/2009]

Under Cantwell’s proposal, states would use their purchasing power to negotiate for more affordable coverage options, improve efficiencies, and even lower the health care costs within the Exchange (by shifting lower income and disproportionately sicker individuals into the Basic Health Plan), but they would have to contract with private insurers. Cantwell herself “declined to liken her proposal to a controversial public option, which has become a major sticking point in health care reform.” “I think we’ve hit the sweet spot,” she said. “Everybody says they want to have private providers and we’re saying fine.”

Shares of companies that operate private health plans turned higher or trimmed losses in afternoon trading Tuesday after a Senate committee rejected an amendment that would have created a government-run insurance option. Humana Inc. (HUM) shares, which had been down earlier, were recently up 1% at $38.41. UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH) shares gained 3 cents to $25.83.

Private health insurers have bitterly fought the creation of a public insurance option, fearing that such an option would cut into their profits. Yesterday, Life And Health Insurance News reported that the insurance industry has responded positively to the defeat of the public option amendments. “We are pleased by the rejection of both the Rockefeller and Schumer amendments,” said Tom Currey, president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors. Janet Trautwein, president of the National Association of Health Underwriters, also told the press that her organization is pleased by the failure of the Schumer and Rockefeller amendments.

Meanwhile, disgraced former CEO of Columbia/HCA Healthcare Rick Scott, who heads the anti-reform front group Conservatives for Patients Rights, released a video where he called yesterday’s vote “a great day.”

If anyone knows how the insurance industry feels about protecting its profits from the introduction of a new public plan, it’s whistleblower Wendell Potter, who left Cigna last year over its opposition to health care reform. Potter appeared on Democracy Now! this morning and told host Amy Goodman that the Finance Committee advancing legislation without a public option marks the “first time” that a health reform bill has been put together that the industry supports:

POTTER: Yeah, this is the first time that the insurance industry has really seen great opportunity in healthcare reform, with an individual mandate, which would require all of us to buy insurance if we are not eligible for a public, government-run program, which, fortunately, many people are. We would have to buy it in the private market from insurance companies, many of whom—many of which are for-profit companies. … So billions and billions of taxpayers’ dollars will flow right into the treasuries of these big for-profit insurance companies. So we will be essentially paying a tax that will help support these insurance companies. It will be an enormous bailout of the health insurance industry.

Watch it:

Potter also told Goodman that while numerous members of Congress sought out his advice as they crafted health care legislation, “not once” did he ever hear from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’s (D-MT) office. He ended the interview by saying that there should be a debate about single-payer health care in the United States, and that he thinks “it will eventually take a social movement to get the kind of healthcare that we need in this country.”

During this morning’s debate over Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-WV) public plan amendment, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) challenged Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) claim that the public option would lead to single payer health care. The exchange flustered Grassley. He admitted that Medicare is part of the “social fabric” of America and praised the competition between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage, but then said moments later that the government is a “predator.” “So you don’t want Medicare?” Schumer asked. Grassley concluded, “Medicare is part of the social fabric of America, and I think there’s a lot wrong with it.” Watch it:

According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Rockefeller’s amendment — which establishes a plan that reimburses providers at 5% above Medicare rates for the first two years — the public option would save the government an estimated $50 billion. Only eight million Americans would sign-up for the program, leaving the overwhelming majority of Americans to private coverage. Rockefeller’s amendment ultimately failed by a vote of 15-8.

“I have polled senators, and the vast majority of Democrats — maybe approaching 50 — support a public option,” Harkin said told the liberal Bill Press Radio Show. “So why shouldn’t we have a public option? We have the votes.”

“I believe we’ll have the 60 votes, now that we have the new senator from Massachusetts, to at least get it on the Senate floor,” Harkin later added. “But once we cross that hurdle, we only need 51 votes for the public option. And I believe there are, comfortably, 51 votes for a public option.”

Though a version of the public option isn’t expected to make it out of the Finance Committee, supporters such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) say that “the Senate floor is more favorable to the public option than the Finance Committee, and [negotiations with the House are] more favorable than the Senate floor.” ”

GOLDBERG: Bill, Bill, don’t shoot the messenger. Right? I’m your friend. I’m telling you this as a friend. You also said, “If the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.” Now, I know what you meant by that.

O’REILLY: But I clarified it: private hands.

GOLDBERG: You did. You absolute — you absolutely did. But you’re a big prize for the left. But they can get… What I’m saying is when — when you say — when you say if the government can cobble…

O’REILLY: I clarified. I know what you’re saying, but it’s just drives me crazy that you can’t have an honest dialogue in this country anymore.

Watch it:

Looks like “liars” have found a “safe haven” on cable television.

NINA OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don’t necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O’REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don’t like their health insurance, if it’s too expensive, they can’t afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.

Watch it:

As recently as last month, O’Reilly was still saying that progressives want “the government to run the nation’s health care system. That’s because the Feds can then redistribute income much easier, shifting resources to the poor and away from corporations and the affluent. … It’s not really about health care. It’s about socialism.”

OBAMA: After debating this issue for the better part of a year, there’s now agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what needs to be done. Four out of five committees in Congress have completed their work. Yesterday, the Finance Committee, under the leadership of Max Baucus, put out its own bill. [Scattered boos]

Jed Lewinson notes that minutes later, when Obama reiterated his call for a public health insurance option, the crowd cheered wildly. Watch a compilation:

As Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV) has argued, the Baucus plan is insufficient because, among other things, co-ops won’t work, employers are not required to provide coverage, children could lose benefits, coverage may not be affordable for too many, and insurers could pass on higher costs to beneficiaries. Despite having compromised on many elements of reform that Republicans demanded, Baucus was still unable to muster any bipartisan support.

Nearly three-quarters of doctors want some form of a public plan — 63 percent favor public/private competition while 10 percent want a single-payer system. NPR notes that, “when compared to their patients, doctors are bigger supporters of a public option.” Nevertheless, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) has taken the public option off the table because he says it “cannot pass the Senate.”

LIEBERMAN: The question is, are people going to continue to fight for elements that are not attainable or are they going to try to find common ground?

MITCHELL: You mean — you mean the public option? You mean the public option is not attainable?

LIEBERMAN: I mean — yes, I mean a government-run health insurance plan. The public doesn’t support it. They know that, ultimately, taxpayers will pay for it. They don’t want us to add to the debt. They feel that the existing system, private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, does pretty well.

Watch it:

Lieberman is wrong when he says that “the public doesn’t support” a public option. In fact, numerous polls have found strong support for such an option, including a recent SurveyUSA study that found 77 percent of Americans feel it is important to have a “choice” between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage. Andrew Sullivan notes that independents support it 57-33.