How Possible is It to Pass a Bill Without the Public Option?

On everyone writing obituaries for the public option, Jane Hamsher points out that there are more who refuse to vote for a bill without one than there are those who refuse to with a public option included.

If [Dem Rep. Sen. Kent] Conrad could set aside his "More About Me" world view for a moment and do some second grade math, he'd see that there aren't enough votes for a health care bill without a public option in the House

There are 435 seats on the House. Of those, 257 are filled by Democrats and 178 by Republicans. Which means a majority is 218. The Republicans have vowed to vote against health care, period. The Democrats can pass health care on their own, but if they lose 40 of their own, they only have 217 votes.

There are 57 Democrats who signed the July 30 letter saying that they "simply cannot vote" for a bill that "at minimum" does not have a public plan (PDF). There are 7 more not listed on the letter who have pledged to vote against any bill that does not have a robust public plan. That makes 64 Democrats who won't vote for the "co-ops" that both Kathleen Sibelius and Robert Gibbs say the White House is "open" to.

Do the math: 257 - 64 = 193. They need 218 to pass the bill.

So what we've got here is a Mexican standoff. We know Obama wants a public option -- he just wants a bill to sign more. If he'd put a little weight on the right side of this fight, he'd probably get what he wanted out of the senate. And, as I've already pointed out, the inclusion of a public option in the senate's bill is not essential to getting a public option on the president's desk.

In short, the public option is as alive as the president and pro-reform Democrats want it to be.

CORRECTION: It's Sen. Kent Conrad, not Rep. A case of my typing fingers getting ahead of my brain. Sorry.