Option Out: Last Best Chance at Health Care Deal

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Why travel all that way to collect a Nobel Prize — there’s more than enough peace (and war) to go around at home.

We’ll know soon enough whether peace is indeed at hand over health care — as defined by a deal that can get 60 actual Senate votes behind an actual piece of legislation (to say nothing of the situation in the House). We’ve seen neither the votes nor the legislation yet. We’ve seen previous purported deals collapse inside the time it takes to get a score from the Congressional Budget Office. But part of what makes this breakthrough stand out is that it builds on fresh ideas in a debate where it seemed everything had been said — and seems to be disliked just enough by all the relevant parties. If it works, it’s going to mean balancing the constituencies all over again — convincing liberals that this is almost as good as a full-on public option, convincing moderates that it’s not as bad as one, then maybe even bringing a Republican or two on board for good measure. As for balance — next up, Norway, for a president who has claimed ownership of a war since being named the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Plus — TARP gets a new lease on life, for new purposes that are sort of like the old ones.
In the meantime, if this health care deal is the real deal, take a bow, Harry Reid.

If not, Washington isn’t so bad over Christmas (and what’s wrong with a little hope in a State of the Union speech, anyway?).

The trigger he gets to pull exactly once: “In announcing the agreement, Mr. Reid was apparently trying to create a sense of momentum for the health care legislation, which has been on the Senate floor for nine days, with no immediate end in sight,” The New York Times’ Robert Pear and David M. Herszenhorn report. “The majority leader has not briefed the 60-member Senate Democratic caucus on the agreement, and liberals may have reservations.”

“Under the deal, the government plan preferred by liberals would be replaced with a program that would create several national insurance policies administered by private companies but negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for federal workers,” Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery write in The Washington Post. “According to a Democrat briefed on the talks, the deal represents only an agreement among the 10 negotiators to send the new package to congressional budget analysts, not an agreement to support its elements.”

“It’s not a public option, but Democrats say it’s close,” ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported on “Good Morning America” Wednesday.

“The deal might remove one of the biggest stumbling blocks to passage,” The Boston Globe’s Lisa Wangsness reports.

Or might not (and this from one of the senators who was in the room): “While I appreciate the willingness of all parties to engage in good-faith discussions, I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach,” Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said in a statement.

“Unlikely prospect”: “The senators embraced a more limited proposal that would empower the government’s Office of Personnel Management to put in place a new low-cost national health plan,” Greg Hitt and Janet Adamy write in The Wall Street Journal. “The new national plan would be run by nonprofit entities set up by the private sector, and would be available to the public on the new insurance exchanges that would be created under the bill. If no private insurers sign up with the Office of Personnel Management to offer a national plan, the office would be authorized to implement a direct government-run plan, an unlikely prospect, aides said.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.: “That’s an interesting idea.”

Miles to go: “Several officials stressed that so far, Democrats had technically agreed only on submitting proposals to the Congressional Budget Office for their impact on the bill’s cost and other analysis,” per the AP’s David Espo.

Brian Beutler, at Talking Points Memo: “Now it’s a question of what the CBO says, and then: will Joe Lieberman object to the trigger? This trigger seems awfully hard to pull. But he’s said he’d object to any kind of government insurance option–even triggered–in the past. And if he’s out, what will Olympia Snowe do?”

A Reid adviser, to the Los Angeles Times’ Janet Hook and Noam Levey: “By and large, it’s not a public option, but I think the liberals felt so strongly about getting a bill that allows for comprehensive coverage and meaningful reform, it was worth accepting this. No one believes this is going to be the last word.”

Just because the abortion amendment failed in the Senate — you didn’t think this was going away, did you?

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., in a New York Times op-ed: “What My Amendment Won’t Do”: “I would like to set the record straight: Our amendment maintains current law, which says that there should be no federal financing for abortion. … Some opponents of the amendment have tried to argue that it would effectively end health insurance coverage of abortion in both the private and public sectors. This argument is nothing more than a scare tactic.”

For the talking-point files: “Buried among proposed programs for the uninsured are dozens of lesser-known provisions — from work breaks for breastfeeding moms to a requirement that chain restaurants disclose how many calories are in the fries,” USA Today’s John Fritze reports.

New polling numbers: It’s one thing to hate on Gallup — but what does Robert Gibbs think of Quinnipiac now?

“American voters give President Barack Obama a split 46 – 44 percent job approval, his lowest ever, and both the health care reform package that he wants Congress to pass and his personal rating on handling health care now win support from less than four in 10 Americans, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.”

“Voters disapprove 52 – 38 percent of the health care reform proposal under consideration in Congress, and they disapprove 56 – 38 percent of President Obama’s handling of health care, down from 53 – 41 percent in a November 19 survey.”

A boost of sorts — in a mixed bag of a poll: “A Bloomberg National Poll conducted Dec. 3-7 gives Obama a 54 percent overall job-approval rating. Yet Americans have a negative view of his efforts on the economy, health care, the financial crisis and the federal budget deficit,” per Bloomberg News’ Heidi Przybyla and Nicholas Johnston. Worth touting, with the president headed abroad again: “The only area where he earns high ratings is foreign policy, with 59 percent of Americans saying they approve of the way he manages relations with other countries, and 62 percent who support his plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, though opinion is divided about setting a deadline for withdrawal,” they write.

Since health care is solved and all — get ready for the long plane ride.

“When President Obama travels to Norway to accept his prize on Thursday, he faces a far different challenge than those who have gone before him: He is a wartime leader, accepting a medal that is a commendation to peace, which even he insists he does not yet deserve,” Jeff Zeleny writes in The New York Times. 

David Axelrod: “There is one very pregnant question. … How do you reconcile your role as a commander in chief with your aspirations to promote a more peaceful world at a time of war? That’s a question that he’s going to explore in some detail.”

“Administration officials say the speech, which the president is drafting himself, will address the irony of receiving a peace prize a week after ratcheting up the war in Afghanistan, and the need for continued leadership on nuclear disarmament,” Elizabeth Williamson writes in The Wall Street Journal. “It will also test his humility — an element speechwriters across the political spectrum say is important for countering critics who say the prize is based more on his rock-star persona than his achievements.”

ABC’s Karen Travers: “Obama will walk a delicate line in his acceptance speech and the White House said he will acknowledge that he accepts the peace prize as a war president. Aides said he will address Afghanistan and the decision to add troops there and present it in the overall context of the award he is accepting.”

This may not even be his toughest trip to the region this month: “It will be almost impossible for Obama not to disappoint the world when he arrives here next week — in large part because the world keeps ratcheting up the expectations on him,” Politico’s Lisa Lerer writes from Copenhagen.

“When Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that it was declaring global warming a danger to human health, the administration might have hoped it was merely providing a catalyst — a sense of U.S. commitment — on the first day of two weeks of talks here. But leaders from the United Nations and the European Union insist that the EPA endangerment finding is something bigger — proof positive that Obama must have another rabbit to pull from his hat.”

New goal? “Who needs a binding global climate treaty? That was essentially the message delivered by Jonathan Pershing, the Obama administration’s deputy special climate change envoy, when he held an off-the-record briefing for US nongovernmental outfits at the Copenhagen climate summit on Tuesday,” David Corn writes for Mother Jones. “Speaking to about 200 people from various environmental groups, Pershing made the case that a non-binding political agreement — in which the world’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases would pledge to take various actions to reduce their own emissions — would be more effective than a treaty establishing firm and legally enforceable commitments.” 

Advice he’s not going to take, from someone he generally doesn’t take advice from — in the wake of “Climate-gate”: “This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics,” former Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, writes in a Washington Post op-ed. “Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.”

Surely there won’t be anyone criticizing the president while he’s on foreign soil… “House Republicans are preparing for a trip to Copenhagen and looking to derail Democratic efforts to negotiate an international climate agreement,” Politico’s Jake Sherman writes. “About a half-dozen Republicans will make the trip to Denmark to oppose plans for cap-and-trade legislation, express their discontent with the scientific community that researches climate change and call for the United Nations to halt any negotiations until the academic scandal known as ‘Climategate’ is resolved.”

On jobs — stretching TARP: “ABC News has learned that [Wednesday] the Obama administration is expected to announce it is extending the controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, until October 2010, with the purpose of using it to free up credit for small businesses to expand and for homeowners to secure their mortgages through the Obama administration housing program,” ABC’s Jake Tapper, Charles Herman, and Matt Jaffe report.

The pushback: “It’s a huge shell game to try to give political cover to the fact that he wants to create a new stimulus program of about $200 billion,” Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said on ABC’s “Top Line” Tuesday. “All you’re doing is borrowing more money.”

Not convinced — The Washington Post editorial board: “The fundamental question is how much job-creation ‘bang’ Mr. Obama can hope to get for the additional borrowed bucks. Unfortunately, it’s hard to know, because he offered no dollar amounts and relatively few programmatic specifics.”

Politics Daily’s Jill Lawrence: “Presumably financing will be Topic A or at least B at the White House on Wednesday, when congressional leaders are scheduled to meet with the president to discuss jobs.”

Where it matters: “Obama gave a shot of momentum to congressional efforts to move a package quickly, though it remains unclear when a Senate bogged down with the healthcare debate will take action,” The Hill’s Sam Youngman and Walter Alarkon write.

Going out from the White House Wednesday: “Today President Obama announced nearly $600 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) awards to support major construction and renovation projects at 85 community health centers nationwide and help networks of health centers adopt Electronic Health Records (EHR) and other Health Information Technology (HIT) systems.”

It’s Coakley in the Kennedy seat — and it wasn’t even close: “Attorney General Martha Coakley easi ly captured the Democratic nomination for the US Senate last night and took a giant step toward smashing the state’s political glass ceiling, as she parlayed her straightforward style and strong appeal among women into an overwhelming victory against a trio of male opponents,” The Boston Globe’s Matt Viser and Frank Phillips write.

“Rolling up large margins in nearly every community in the state, Coakley, 56, became the first woman nominated by a major party for the US Senate in Massachusetts. She will face state Senator Scott P. Brown, who won the Republican Party’s nomination yesterday, in a Jan. 19 special election to fill the seat held for 47 years by the late Edward M. Kennedy.”

“Many of those Democrats who were thought to have been waiting for the chance to run for the Senate declined to enter the race, paving the way for Coakley, the only statewide-elected official in the contest,” Jonathan Martin and Josh Kraushaar write for Politico. “Coakley won nearly every municipality across the state, though narrowly trailed Capuano in the city of Boston. Capuano also carried the academic hubs of Cambridge and Amherst and his home base of Somerville.”

The Kicker:

“If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG I’d visit my doctor… I’m sure a six-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that.” — White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

“I think the doctor might ask him what’s going on in his life that would cause his EKG to be fluctuating so much.” — Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor-in-chief, in response.

For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/