I agree with Katie that Harry Reid's announcement that he will bring a health-care reform bill with a public option to the Senate floor "is a win for progressives."

This is a very big deal, and I say that as someone who last summer told people to pipe down about the public option. At that time, I was worried that pressure for a public option would derail health-care reform. Because that's no longer a problem, now is the time to focus on the importance of choice and competition in keeping costs down.

Harry Reid's decision to opt for "opt-out" is significant, even potentially historic if opt-out is included in the final bill.

Katie says, "It's unclear why Reid decided on this model, over an opt-in model or a trigger." Here's why he did that: The problem with the weaker alternative—a "trigger"—is that it's more mañana-ism. Any bill that puts off something until it is triggered risks being emasculated later on. If a trigger were enacted, the health-insurance lobby would get to work immediately trying to weaken the terms under which the trigger was pulled. With the country's attention elsewhere, they would likely succeed. Opt-out requires states to say they have no interest in a public option. When it starts working in states that like it, few states will be able to opt out, even conservative ones.

Reid's move is also good news for the Democratic Party. The worst thing that could happen to Democrats would be for Obama to sign a bill that results in higher premiums for people forced to buy insurance. The best antidote to that is a public option, which will, in theory at least, hold premiums down. The majority leader just helped his party navigate past an iceberg.