Is the Public Health Care Option Dead?

Senator Conrad (D-ND) says it is. Secretary Sebelius says it's not an essential element for Obamacare.

Conrad we can trust, probably. Sebilius, not so much. But it looks like we are moving into the face-saving phase of Obamacare, wherein Obama takes what he can get and proclaims himself the winner, except the Leftists will scream and the Right will spew liquids through their nostils in derision. The question is whether Obama can walk it back without Jim Demint blasting "Waterloo" over the Senate sound system. Obama will certainly try, and the media will undoubtedly help him.

No one will want Gibbs job, that's for sure. Another win for Sarah Palin? I vote yes.

The real issue now is what smaller damages the Dems can do to health care... I mean, what measures they can craft to try to save something from this debacle. It's questionable whether they can salvage enough to save 50 seats in the House, and who knows how many Senate seats.

Are there acceptable compromises?

1. Remove restrictions on selling health insurance across state lines. Figure this one out: the federal government can use the Interstate Commerce clause to fight hate crimes, which was NOT the purpose of the Interstate Commerce clause, but they won't open up a normal economic transaction like the sale of insurance, which WAS the purpose of the Interstate Commerce clause. (And no, I don't think crime is a good thing. I just think we need to prostitute the Constitution to achieve some social goal. And why isn't a crime just a crime?)

2. Something needs to be done about preexisting conditions. A family has insurance, someone changes jobs, and neither the old or new insurance companies have to pay for medical treatment for serious illnesses. If a person paid for insurance with their old job, they need to be covered for catastrophic illnesses. No, I don't know how it should be worked out, I just know that it should be worked out.

3. Restrictions on medical lawsuits. Lawyers should not be able to treat medical care like Vegas. Get the right case, get the right jury, and get rich. If you want proof that this is a bad system, I give you John Edwards. (While we are on this subject, why should any aspect of our national life be subject to throw of the judicial dice? Legal representation should not be a crap shoot wherein a lawyer can gamble on your claim to get rich. I read that the ACLU is basically self-funding via lawsuits. Is that correct?)

What about co-ops? The idea is that the federal government can manage insurance for people who aren't doing it themselves. If this is bad on a large scale, doing it on a small scale does not suddenly infuse it with wisdom and virtue. It's just another dumb socialist idea. Co-ops looks like another wedge in the system, similar to SCHIP. As long as we agree that the government is responsible for some part of health care, they can take over the whole thing, assuming that they have the votes. We need to make it

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."