The Hill has now published that House whip count on a Medicare + 5% public option referred to by Greg Sargent and a couple others yesterday. It would be good to know who leaked this and exactly where they stand on the public option. Because Chris Bowers, citing a source, one we share and one who is more inclined toward the Medicare + 5% public option, says that the whip list is inaccurate.

All of the 12 undecideds, except one (Representative Ann Kirkpatrick), are actually "yes" votes. That brings the total to 200.

Further, two of the "no" votes listed on the document, Eric Massa and Artur Davis, are actually "yes" votes. That makes 202.

Also, after November 3rd, at least one new supporter of the public option will be sworn into the House (the winner of the CA-10 special election). That makes 203.

Yet further, six of the "lean no" votes are actually "lean yes" votes, and that five of the members listed as "no" votes are actually "lean yes" votes. Those 11 "lean yes" votes are Representatives Giffords, Klein, Maffei, Nye, Sanchez, Scott, Lipinski, Scott Murphy, Costa, Cardozza. That would make 214.

Finally, the source argues to me that if the whip count was conducted differently, then the Progressives could probably get over the top. Specifically, instead of asking members if they will vote for a health care bill with Medicare +5% public option, the whip should be asking if a Medicare +5% public option is a dealbreaker for members.

Basically, there are 53 targets, then, for progressives - the 11 "lean yes" and "undecided" votes (Ann Kirkpatrick is undecided), and the 42 Blue Dogs and ConservaDems who have been leaning no. That would be two listed in the "Lean No" category on the public whip doc (Boyd and Halvorson), along with 40 in the No column (everyone but the seven listed above). There will be an all-out effort from the netroots and progressives over the next 36 hours to corner those 53 and ask them whether they would vote against a bill with Medicare + 5% rates. Basically the decision will be made between now and then, and progressives need to flip 15 of those 53, getting the 11 to be hard yes votes and flipping four other no votes.

If you say, as I keep doing, that the bill forces people to buy junk insurance, the response from "progressives" (besides silence, of course) is that the subsidies will take care of it. (It takes GENIUS to frame universal health care as welfare, but our Dems have managed to do that.)

The mandate (the "forces people") part is not budget germane (except to the household budgets of the American people, of course), and so it's going to go through like grass through a goose.

The subsidy (mitigates the "junk insurance" part) is budget germane, so it's going to be hacked and slashed to the lowest possible amount.

Unfortunately, to make that argument, you need to break the ability of the insurance companies to charge their economic rents of thirty cents on every dollar.

That means either single payer or extremely tight regulation a la Germany.

And nobody in Versailles, incuding "progressives," is willing to take that on.

"Instead, the health and human services secretary would be allowed to negotiate rates with providers and the program would be optional for states, the approach preferred by moderates and the one that will be featured in the Senate's version."