Update below.

If you were hoping for meaningful healthcare reform this year, the chances just diminished, a lot.

This NYT article depicts Congressional Democrats working on healthcare reform as leaderless and in near panic over how easily the Republicans conned them on the CBO cost analysis and how quickly the Republicans misrepresented that incomplete analysis to disparage the entire health reform effort.

Was it Casey Stengel who said, "Doesn’t anyone know how to play this game?"

The article is bad news from end to end. But you have to read through to the end to discover that HHS Secretary Sebelius wasn’t off on her own when she told the AP that Obama was open to compromising the public health insurance option that, if robust enough, could have held most of his reform priciples together. Obama is saying the same thing Sebelius said, and in the process, he almost threw the Kennedy plan under the bus:

White House officials pointed out that the health committee bill was just one of several proposals and sought to keep the focus on President Obama’s larger goals.

Mr. Obama, moving aggressively on the issue, sent out an e-mail message to supporters to raise money for a grass-roots campaign in support of the health care legislation. And in an interview with CNBC and The New York Times, Mr. Obama expressed a willingness to compromise on his call for a new public insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

“We’re open-minded,” Mr. Obama said. “If, for example, the cooperative idea that Kent Conrad has put forward, if that is a better way to reduce costs and help families and businesses with their health care, I’m more than happy to accept those good ideas.”

Now, maybe Obama is just stating his usual "I’ll listen to any good ideas" mantra. But he didn’t say, "the co-op idea needs to be vetted; we need to know that it would meet the following principles and actually work, and those questions [e.g., these] need to be answered before I accept that as a viable concept, let alone a substitute for a robust public option." Instead, he sent a signal to Congress, intended or not, that this is the compromise he’s leaning towards.

So what does this mean? As I noted here, the most informed public plan proponents, like UC Prof. Jacob Hacker, have patiently explained that the co-op concept doesn’t achieve the President’s objectives, because it can’t impose genuine competition on the health insurance industry. Without either effective competition or strong government oversight and prodding, features that Conrad’s proposal explicitly withholds, there’s little chance that efficiency, cost-cutting, or health care improvements will occur. But apparently the White House doesn’t agree, or doesn’t get it.

And Ezra Klein, who’s initial take was that Conrad’s proposal "might work," explains it’s not a public plan. He observes that accepting the co-op concept as a substitute for a robust public option is already compromising in the wrong ballpark:

As Rep. Lynn Woolsey argued to me last week, to liberals, a public plan along Rockefeller’s lines is a compromise from single payer. And a public plan along Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) lines would be a compromise from Rockefeller. And a co-op plan along Conrad’s lines would be a compromise from Schumer.

In other words, the co-op idea, whatever its many merits, is not a compromise between liberals and conservatives. It is a compromise between, on the one side, conservatives who don’t want any nonprofit competition for insurers, and on the other side, Schumer’s proposal, which is already a compromise of a compromise of a compromise.

I spent 20 years in another life crafting/shepherding economic regulations through approval, and sometimes companion legislation, and I know you eventually get to where you have to swallow hard and make tough compromises. But we weren’t there yet, not even close.

This could have been, and perhaps could still be, a good fight, a worthwhile struggle to improve health care in America, reduce the outrageous behavior of private insurance companies, and extend decent health care to everyone. There are legions of us ready to make that effort.

But the White House and leading Democrats seem unwilling or unable to lead that fight, despite having overwhelming public support for a public option and government action to control private insurance behavior. I can’t think of any reason why we should support their misguided efforts unless/until we see signs that someone in DC actually gives a damn.

Update: Jane reports that we can’t even get the public plan into Kennedy’s HELP Committee bill — another brilliant strategy leaving it out of the draft — because Senators Bingaman [Update: per Jane, Bingman's office says he supports strong public plan] and Hagan have bought off on the Conrad co-op idea, while the WH looks on.

More:
HuffPo’s Bob Cesca compiles all the polls showing strong support for the public option; and read the bear ripped off my face but my insurer won’t cover me story!