Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as the current bill provides? “The answer is no,” he says in an interview from his Senate office. “I feel very strongly about this.” How about a trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a provision saying it won’t be used unless private insurance plans aren’t spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.

So any version of a public option will compel Mr. Lieberman to vote against bringing a bill to a final vote? “Correct,” he says.

Consequently, we’re left with 41 senators likely to oppose cloture for a bill with a public option, meaning that unless one of these senators changes his or her stance, there’s no way such a bill can win the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster and receive a final up-or-down vote.

Either someone’s going to have to budge, or we’ll see a revised bill that lacks a public option (but might contain a trigger or another mechanism to pressure insurance companies to contain costs) — or Democrats could attempt to pass a public option through the budget reconciliation process, which requires a simple majority.

Keep checking the Senate Public Option Scoreboard for the latest updates.

The senator has yet to announce a date, but with the health reform debate likely to occupy the upper chamber for most of December, scheduling the hearing this year would be a tricky proposition.

Last week, 22 senators representing both sides of the aisle had written to Harkin and Sen. Michael Enzi (Wyo.), the senior Republican on the HELP panel, urging the committee to examine the new mammogram guidelines, which recommend that women get screenings less frequently and later in life — an overhaul of existing protocols.

In the House, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who heads the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, has already announced his intention to hold a December hearing on the new mammogram recommendations. From a scheduling standpoint, Pallone has the advantage: the House has already passed its version of the health reform bill.

There is something you can do right now…you will find attached an invitation to an event scheduled for Dec. 5, featuring Joe Arpaio, “America’s Toughest Sheriff.” “Sheriff Joe” has very graciously agreed to raise funds for the “Freedom In Truth Trust.” The FIT Trust is the fund that was established to help us satisfy legal debts incurred during the 2006 campaign. You can read more about it at http://www.jdhayworth.com/fit-trust.html

You may not live in Arizona…but no matter where you call home, would you respond to the attached invitation and please send a contribution to the FIT Trust?

That would certainly be a factor in the decision we will make at the “Hayworth Hacienda!”

The irony of using the Spanish word in an appeal for a possible immigration-focused Senate bid is really something.

“These recommendations, which have been widely criticized by patients and doctors alike, could prove devastating for women at risk of breast cancer,” the lawmakers wrote to Sens. Tom Harkin (D- Iowa) and Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.), the leaders of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Breast cancer screenings and advances in technology have reduced the mortality rate of patients who develop this devastating disease, but early detection of breast cancer is absolutely critical. To alter these recommendations, and to contradict the advice provided by countless doctors, will only serve to cause confusion and alter the behavior of patients, may (sic) of whom may be at a high risk of contracting breast cancer.

Spearheaded by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the Nov. 20 letter was also signed by GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe (Maine), David Vitter (La.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Jim Risch (Idaho), Jim Inhofe (Okla.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), John Ensign (Nev.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Pat Roberts (Ks.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.); the Democratic co-signers were Sens. Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Ben Cardin (Md.),  Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) and Patrick Leahy (Vt.).

No word yet about Harkin’s plans, but Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce health subpanel, has already said that he’ll hold a hearing on the topic early next month.

Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to analyze the future effects of the Democrats’ tax increase. Specifically, Grassley is wondering why the proposed hike isn’t indexed to inflation, leaving more and more Americans to fall subject to the increase each year.

“The unintended consequences could be significant,” Grassley warned.

If that scenario sounds familiar, it’s because the Alternative Minimum Tax — designed decades ago to target just a tiny sliver of high-income households — was similarly not indexed to inflation. As incomes have risen over the years, more and more upper-middle-class families have fallen into the bracket under which they have to pay the AMT. Some liberals don’t see a problem with that. But Congress, fearing a backlash at the polls, has stepped in each year with the so-called AMT patch, providing billions of (borrowed) dollars to prevent the tax from hitting those families.

The Democrats’ motivations are easy to surmise: Had they indexed the tax to inflation they would have generated much less revenue to pay for their health-care reform bill. And the proposed payroll tax increase is much less than the AMT. Still, it’s not too far a stretch to imagine that the lawmakers of the 2030s, also wanting to appease the voters, would also find it tempting to come up with the Medicare-payroll patch.

With Congress out of town for the Thanksgiving break, there’s been little to distract Washington’s prognosticators from offering their predictions over the public plan’s fate. Truth is, no one is quite sure how this saga is going to play out. Based on comments from several of the four moderates since Saturday’s vote, it’s tempting to argue that Democratic leaders will at the very least have to scale back the public plan to pass the larger bill. Then again, the way Landrieu melted Saturday at the chance to secure millions of federal dollars for Louisiana indicates that there’s much more at play here than mere principle.

With all of that in mind, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) offered his own optimistic take on how the drama over the public option will end, telling CNN yesterday that the historical significance of the reform vote will ultimately be enough to sway the four moderates in favor of the bill.

In the end, I don’t want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the country, when the public option has this much support, that it’s not going to be in it. [...]

I don’t think they want to be on the wrong side of history. I don’t think they want to go back and say, you know, on a procedural vote, I killed the most important bill in my political career. I don’t think they want to be there on that. So I think in the end, we get them.

Let’s be clear: the task force’s recommendation will have absolutely no impact on the bills we in the Senate write, debate or vote on.  [HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] has also assured me there that nothing in Medicare or Medicaid will change as a result of the recommendation, and that’s the way it should be.

Yet the Senate bill says explicitly that, as a part of newly proposed minimum benefits requirements, every insurer  ”shall provide coverage for … evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force.” The House bill contains a nearly identical provision.

The task force guideline recommending that women between ages 50 and 74 receive biennial routine mammograms, instead of annual checkups, received a “B” rating.

That in no way means that women wouldn’t have access to annual mammograms. Again, the essential benefits package represents the minimum coverage insurers would have to offer. The task force is clear that the ultimate decision on the frequency of screenings should be made by women and their doctors.

Still, there’s also the fear that private insurers will lean on the task force recommendations to justify a scaling back of coverage for routine mammograms. Julius Hobson, former lobbyist for the American Medical Association and now a senior policy analyst at the Washington law firm Bryan Cave, said it’s “inevitable” that private insurance companies will look at those guidelines, and may change their coverage policies based on what they see. Certainly, they would like the potential cost savings if women were getting routine mammograms every two years instead of every one.

“It’s almost inevitable that that’s going to happen,” Hobson said last week. “The government doesn’t move that fast, but the health insurers do.”

That has some members of Congress concerned about the threat to women’s health. As Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a phone interview last week, “Cancers can progress very far in two years.”

“I have no idea,” said Fiorina. “You’ll have to ask Sarah Palin. She’s on a mega book tour right now — that’s exciting to see. I share Sarah Palin’s values, and I suspect, I hope, that Sarah Palin thinks it’s important to win. That’s up to her.”

Audio is here, if the link below does not work.

Paul’s father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), is one of the very few Republicans pushing for the closure of Gitmo. The Rand Paul press release was pointed out to me by a supporter of the elder Paul, who’s furious that libertarian-minded donors are flocking to the younger Paul.

It’s a surprising poll because only 24 percent of state Republicans have a negative view of McCain. He’s suffering from a backlash against everyone currently in Washington. And it’s been two years since McCain broke with the GOP base and backed comprehensive immigration reform. If that comes up again in 2010, as many expect it to, McCain could face real problems with Arizona voters.