The phrase "weighing in" has changed over time to mean something along the lines of "adding the weight of your opinion to the discussion." But it's really more apt to look at it from the perspective of boxing, in this case. The weighing-in before a big fight is literally where the two fighters step on the scales so everyone can see what they weigh. Now, before I get in trouble for suggesting an image of the rather diminutive Nancy Pelosi on a scale to your minds, in this metaphor the legislation which Speaker Pelosi just released is what is actually on the scale. Pelosi, in this mental image, is the promoter in the background talking up the virtues of the prizefighter on the scales.

The news today from Capitol Hill was, of course, Nancy Pelosi weighing in with her version of a healthcare reform bill. Harry Reid weighed in earlier in the week, although it was more of a virtual weighing-in, because now he is leaking that it may take a few more weeks... possibly after Thanksgiving... before he actually shows anyone a written bill. Since he appears to be taking a strong stance with this bill, we will gloss over his snail-like pace (for now).

But now the five bills from the respective congressional committees have been morphed into two, at least in broad outline (still waiting, Harry...). From these two, it now becomes possible to begin deducing what will wind up in the final bill, and what will actually pass. These two bills, I remind everyone, will still have to go through brutal floor debates in both chambers, be successfully voted on, and then head to conference committee to be merged into one. The conference committee is always where the biggest action is, but if we make some assumptions about what the bills from the Senate and the House will have in them, we can at least attempt to figure out what may come out the other side. Previously, this had not been possible, due to too many variables being tossed around by different players.

So, one item at a time, here is my take on what could (not should, mind you, but could) make it into a final piece of legislation.

Public option

The public option, in one form or another, has good odds for survival in the final bill. Of course, that "one form or another" covers a multitude of sins, so to speak. As things stand, the House version will contain what is being called a "weak public option" or a "level playing field public option." There will be a nationwide public option, but it will not make payments based on Medicare rates (as the "strong" public option would have), but rather have to make deals with the hospitals and doctors themselves, just like the insurance companies do (the so-called "level playing field"). Pelosi reportedly pushed hard for the strong public option, but in the end did not have enough votes to support it, and so went to her backup plan, the weak public option. Which assumes that there is support for this to pass the House. Over in the Senate, Harry Reid has said that he's going for a nationwide public option (no mention of strong or weak, meaning it'll probably be weak), but with an "opt out" option for the individual states. It is not certain he has the votes to do so, however. Reid's fallback position also is reported not to have the votes, either. Reid's "Plan B" is to go the Olympia Snowe route, and have a state or regional public plan that is "triggered" later -- which some progressive senators have flat-out said is not good enough. But for the sake of argument here, let's assume that Reid does somehow cajole his caucus into passing the national public option with an opt out.

It's pretty easy to reconcile the two houses on this, it seems. The result would likely be a combination, with a national (as opposed to state-by-state or regional) plan, a level-playing field (instead of tying it to Medicare rates), and an opt-out for each state. The trigger may sneak back in during the conference committee, as it apparently has a big fan or two in the White House, but this remains to be seen (it'll happen at the last minute if it does, that's my guess).

How to pay for it?

The biggest fight coming, which hasn't gotten nearly the attention it should (and soon will) is the differences on how to pay for it all. At some point, someone's going to have to get taxed. The question is, who? The Senate version will likely raise this money from what has been framed as the "Cadillac health insurance plans" -- which is a real framing disaster for the Left, who should have early-on gotten out in front of this and started calling it (in unison) the "union tax." In the House, the approach is much more direct: tax the rich. The House version minutely raises taxes on individuals making over $500,000 per year, and couples making more than a cool million bucks every year.

The question is, which will survive? This one is harder to compromise on, because they are two very different schemes. But by moving the numbers around, they may be able to do both, in a way. My guess is that they'll tax the truly obscene health insurance plans that only CEOs actually use -- possibly even with some sort of union exemption or something to protect high-risk workers in high-price insurance jobs (coal miners, cops, pilots, etc.). But the bar will be set a lot higher than the Senate is currently proposing, so that middle-class workers who happen to have what used to be called "good insurance" won't get hit (or get hit a lot less). The House's idea may survive, but will also be scaled back -- perhaps to taxing any single person making over a million dollars (two million for couples). By setting both these bars higher, they each take in less revenue, but perhaps there is some way to compromise which would be acceptable to both sides.

The stuff everyone agrees upon

I guess that should be "the stuff all the Democrats agree upon," but with the Republicans having decided they are irrelevant to the process, it's always easy to forget they exist in this discussion, isn't it? Ahem.

The final bill will have all the good things which have been the selling point for this legislation all along. Insurance companies will no longer be able to refuse people for "pre-existing conditions," and they will no longer be able to "cap" what they pay out for any one person. This will solve a lot of the abuses currently institutionalized in our healthcare system.

But, in exchange, there will be a mandate saying everyone will have to buy health insurance, or be fined. This has been largely sidelined in the whole debate, but eventually the public's going to wake up and realize how this is going to change a few people's lives. There will be subsidies for lower-income people, but the subsidies have always been the easiest way to "cut the price of the bill a bit" and have suffered as a result. It will be interesting to see what form both the subsidies take and what the actual fine will be for not having health insurance, in the final bill. But both will be there in one form or another.

Remaining questions

One thing in the House version which may not make it through the Senate is a mandate for employers (above a certain number of employees) to either provide health insurance for their workers or pay a fine. If any version of this makes it through the Senate, it will likely be far weaker than what the House started out with.

And finally, yanking the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemption (taking away their ability to operate as monopolies) may or may not make it into the final bill. Democrats had a lot of fun making smoke and noise about this, and it is in the House version, but it's one of those things that may quietly be taken out later -- my guess is it'll get very very quietly dropped from the conference committee.

Well, that's about it for my rundown. I still remain fairly confident that something which will be labeled "healthcare reform" will be signed into law this year (OK, maybe in January, this may go into "extra innings"... still waiting, Harry...). How watered-down it will be, and how sweeping in scope, remains to be seen. One senator can still derail the whole train, pretty much at any time until the very end. But the closer they get to that end, the harder and harder it is going to be to stop the momentum. Sometimes politicians in Washington go through the motions. Sometimes they wage epic battles on the floor to make a point and delight their base, even though they know nothing's going to pass.

This doesn't feel like that. This feels like it's going to happen. We'll see what's in that final bill, but I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't pretty close to what I've described.

-- Chris Weigant