As a result of the disaster in Massachusetts, no legislation can pass the senate with 60 votes. This, I believe, will wind up being a very positive thing.
The "ping-pong" gambit is unlikely to fly: The House will most likely balk at passing the Senate's bill as is -- unless the House is offered a quid pro quo: A promise of remedial legislation to be passed by reconciliation over the coming few months to improve the package.
But if we're going to go that route.... there is no reason, no reason at all, none, not to add back in the public option. This is the huge, number 1 difference between the two bills. It's a budgetary item, so it fits the reconciliation process. It has the support of a majority of Senators, the support of the public, and the support of the majority of the House, as well as of the leadership of both chambers. It has the support of the President. It will lower the cost of the health care bill, and will get great marks from the CBO. Once we're in reconciliation territory, it's a no-brainer.
So by credibly threatening to filibuster any health-care bill, Scott Brown almost assures that we will get back the public option.
While we're at it, we could conceivably -- plausibly -- get rid of the filibuster altogether this summer. The Democrats will bring up one piece of legislation after another, and the Republicans will filibuster every one. Each time, there should be a little televised remark by the President highlighting what just happened. Get the outrage building up, make the case to the people that the filibuster is an unconstitutional aberration that is keeping the government from doing the people's business. Then, finally, spring the nuclear option. In rapid succession, pass EFCA, cap-and-trade, financial reform. It's hard to see how any other outcome is possible: Without it, no bill will pass congress for the rest of the year.
Don't get me wrong: I despise Mr. Brown, the tiny teabagging misogynist. But I think he may have just done the country a great service -- by accident.