UPDATE: Politico suggests that Reid doesn't actually have all the votes for the opt out, and that he's basically daring members of his own caucus to block it.

Leadership sources tell me that Reid, who spoke with virtually every member of his 60-member caucus this weekend, currently has between 56 and 57 votes for the opt-in, which is being pushed by Sen. Charles Schumer, according to Democratic aides.

A public option with a delayed "trigger" -- supported by the White House and Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe has between 58 and 59 backers. It could be floated as an alternative if the opt-out measure fails to obtain the 60 votes needed for cloture, sources said.

First, the story confuses the opt out with the opt in. Second, I find it hard to believe that the Majority Leader or the White House would risk a setback on cloture and the loss of momentum that would entail.

And raises a couple other issues/elements:

* The abortion question. This has basically been playing out in the House, where anti-abortion Democrats are threatening to hold up the bill if it "funds abortions," and want to offer an amendment to strip that "funding" out. What these anti-abortion Dems call funding is the subsidies given to low-income people to buy public or private plans on the insurance exchange, some of which could offer reproductive health services in their plans, as 90% of all health plans currently do. In other words, the anti-abortion groups want to dictate to private insurance companies what they can and cannot offer to customers. It would be interesting to see what Reid, a pro-life Dem, would say to such a proposal, and what he offered in the bill he merged for the Senate.

• Immediate benefits. A story in today's Politico quoted Debbie Stabenow and Chris Dodd pushing for some immediate benefits as a result of the bill. Most of the measures don't go into effect until 2013, and Democrats don't want to spend three years telling constituents they have to wait to see anything from the health care bill, as Republicans denounce it all the while. Among the provisions discussed are senior discounts on brand-name drugs, small business tax credits to purchase insurance, and a "high-risk pool" to help cover the uninsured who have been denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. Will any of these make the Senate bill?

• Anti-trust. While the House is reportedly planning to include a repeal of the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption in their base bill, Reid has said he would allow an amendment to come to the floor with that language. Has he changed his mind and included it in the bill, thus negating the need to get 60 votes (which is likely to be required for all amendments)?

• Affordability. The Senate Finance Committee and the HELP Committee took sharply different paths to coverage subsidies for those who qualified for help purchasing insurance. Which version won out in the final bill?

• Mandates. Word has already leaked that the employer mandate will be shelved, with higher penalties for the "free rider" provision from the SFC. Speculation has been that the employer mandate may have been exchanged for the public option. Also at issue is the individual mandate to buy insurance. That was made weaker by the SFC, so one wonders if those provisions will remain.

But Obama himself is unlikely to chime in for several days. He's meeting with his national security team about whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, then heading to Florida for a meeting with troops.

Tonight Obama will headline a Democratic fundraiser where he's likely to continue outlining his administration's accomplishments thus far, reminding activists change doesn't come easy and asking people to keep fighting.

Tomorrow the president does an event related to energy before heading to Virginia for a big campaign rally with gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds.

So that means unless his schedule changes, Obama probably won't be weighing in loudly on health care negotiations until at the earliest Wednesday link

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced what we've been reporting today - the merged health care bill will include a public option allowing states to opt-out.
...
Reid (D-NV) said after "countless hours" of talking to his caucus, there is a "strong consensus" for this plan. He said he will not submit a plan with a triggered public option to the Congressional Budget Office.
...
He also said "there will be a co-op in this bill."
link

I would really like clarification on what exactly Reid means by "there will be a co-op in this bill."

Is the exchange going to include a co-opt as well as an opt out public option or are they going with Carper's interpretation of a public option?

"I think at the end of the day there will be a national plan probably put together not by the federal government but by a non-profit board with some seed money from the federal government that states would initially participate in because of lack of affordability. The question is should there be an opportunity for states to opt out later on and if so, within a year, within two years, within three years?"

How would this plan work? "Among the things that's important," Carper said, "is, one, that this not be a government run, government funded enterprise, two, that there be a level playing field so that this non-profit entity that would be stood up would have to play by same rules basically as for-profit insurance companies--the idea that secretary of Health and Human Services [will be] running or directing the operation of this--no way.

We need to remind the President that we fought to elect him--and now it's time for him to fight for us.

From wisopinion.com:

Baldwin: Robust public option may not have the votes  (10/26/2009)

U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin is still fighting for a strong public insurance option, even as national reports surface that a "robust" option does not have the votes.  Baldwin met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other caucus members Thursday to discuss the legislation; Pelosi determined after the meeting that she couldn't pass the most aggressive version of a public option that House Dems have been considering.

Baldwin said Pelosi is weighing two options. One is called the "robust" option that would compensate at the rate of Medicare plus 5 percent, while the other would negotiate those rates with physicians. The latter option is similar to a plan passed by a Senate committee.

The cost difference in the two plans is about $80 billion over 10 years, Baldwin said.  "If we do not go with the robust option in order to pay for the bill, we have to figure out either other revenue streams or other cuts, and those are very difficult choices," she said.