The title of a recently released Fox News article is "Fate of Government-Run Insurance May Rest in Obama's Hands", but here's a key question: if key Senate committees don't pass the president's proposals, what can Mr. Obama possibly do? This bill may never reach his desk.

The sub-title is "Once touted by the president in "keeping insurance companies honest", the so-called "public option" was blasted by Senate Republicans and moderate Democrats in the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday". The key phrases are "Once touted" (which means this isn't being "touted" anymore) and "was blasted by Senate Republicans (this is expected) and moderate Democrats"(this is not good).

The second sentence is critical: "Liberal Democrats (including Obama) failed twice on Tuesday to include a government-run insurance option in the legislation before the committee, the last of five congressional panels completing work on the president's top domestic priority". This is huge because with 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on this committee, this essentially means that at least 13 senators voted against this proposal, INCLUDING SOME DEMOCRATS, which is a HUGE blow for the president.

So. what went on politically? Where's the political banter? "The first amendment, proposed by Sen. John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia, was REJECTED 15-8". This is almost a 2-1 margin. Also, "rejected" does not sound good at all (i.e. that word has very negative connotations).

"The second, penned by Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, was defeated 13-10", which is not as bad as the 8-15 margin that Sen. Rockefeller's proposal was defeated by and "defeated" sounds much better than "rejected", but it's STILL BAD. Come on, we're talking about Obama here, not George W. Bush. Obama is not supposed to get defeated like this.

In a Colorado town hall meeting back on August 15, the president said, "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF health care reform. THIS IS JUST ONE SLIVER OF IT, ONE ASPECT OF IT". Well, Mr. Obama seems to have been campaigning pretty hard for the public option and it would benefit many low-income and recently laid-off workers, so, Mr. President, why suddenly the change in rhetoric? Is this only to appease the people on the other side of the aisle? In other words, is this change in rhetoric PURELY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was the last to comment: "I BELIEVE WE WILL have a public option in our bill". Madame Speaker, perhaps you are overconfident?

However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid obviously doesn't think so. According to Fox, "But senior Democratic aides told Fox News that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., WILL NOT include a public option he will create once the Finance Committee completes its action this week". What does this mean? THERE ARE STILL differences between the Senate and House versions of the health care overhaul proposal that must be ironed out and REPUBLICANS ARE WINNING, at least right now, because, even though they are now the minority party on Capitol Hill, AS LONG AS THE HEAVILY PARTISAN BATTLE OVER HEALTH CARE REFORM IS RAGING ON UNABATED, HEALTH CARE WILL REMAIN PRIVATE.