The New York Times continues its misuse of news articles to signals its disapproval of the public option, first by characterizing it as the “Next Hurdle in Health Debate,” and then describing it as the “greater obstacle” that is the cause of “deep divisions” in the Democratic Party.

This is sheer fact-free editorial nonsense. Only a small handful of Congressional Democrats (who in another era, would have been Republicans) oppose a public plan. This near consensus reflects that 65 percent of Americans and overwhelming majorities of Democratic voters support the idea, as shown in the most recent New York Times/CBS poll.

Over two hundred Democrats in the House are prepared to vote for a public plan tied to Medicare rates while most of the rest would accept a public plan with negotiated rates. In the Senate, there are likely over 50 votes for a public plan and a majority of Democrats, not including all of its supporters, have already sent Harry Reid a letter asking him to include a public option in the merged bill. The Times can’t recall any of this.

The public option is only “divisive” or a hurdle/obstacle to those in the White House who have for months been trying to strangle the public option without leaving Obama’s fingerprints. But this is his plot and it’s time for him to take responsibility for misleading his supporters for over a year.

The story’s only “news” is that for the umpteenth time, cowardly, anonymous White House officials are telling reporters who have no basis for granting anonymity that they think Rahm Emanuel’s Olympia Snowe’s public option-only-with-a-trigger is a swell idea.

Two senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House looked favorably on the Snowe plan.

. . .

Aides say Mr. Obama has reviewed the alternatives to the public option but has not settled on which, if any, he prefers. And some Democrats say a backlash against insurers is creating renewed interest in a public plan. But in private conversations with Ms. Snowe, Mr. Obama has brought up her idea for a trigger that would create a government-run plan in states where at least 5 percent of residents lacked access to affordable care. One senior White House official called the idea “very reasonable.”

“Not settled on which, if any, he prefers”? What’s the problem here? It’s not as though no one has had time to think through whether there’s any alternative way to provide a meanful choice and competition, a fall-back, a check on insurer behavior. Every other possibility — from co-ops to opt-in’n'outs to triggers — has been thoroughly considered and debunked; all fall well short of what is needed.

Millions of high-risk Americans are going to need a viable safety valve that the government stands behind, because they don’t trust the insurance industry to treat them right, and the insurers are signaling they don’t want to cover these folks. This is not rocket science.

Obama’s claimed indecision is inexcusable dithering or a cover. If he doesn’t know what he wants, then we have a right to ask, what is his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual doing in Harry Reid’s merger meetings? Either tell us what’s been decided, and which faux Democrats are being shielded for their silent filibuster, or send Rahm back to his office.

Following up on Glenn Greenwald’s admonition to hold this Administration accountable, Brad DeLong adds:

I simply do not know what the Obama administration’s desired health-care reform bill looks like, or what steps the Obama administration is taking to make the congressional reform process reach a good end, or what the economic theory is that suggests that these particular reforms are the right thing to do. I am scared of guaranteed issue and community rating without a real mandate to curb adverse selection and a strong public option as a safety valve. I am very scared of a congress that seems to, with every day, seek to bend the curve of health care costs upward by prohibiting things like comparative effectiveness research. And I am very, very scared of a mandate without an adequate subsidy pool.

I want to see real white papers from the administration explaining why whatever is going to emerge from the congress is a good thing–and why it is the best thing that we could have gotten out of congress this year or next year.

To paraphrase DeLong, we’re going to need another Chief of Staff, at least.