CREEPING WYDENISM?

Disclaimer: The following theory is speculative, not reported. But I'm rather curious whether Tom Daschle's ouster could have been good for Ron Wyden's health plan. That's not to set up illusory tension between the two men: They were famous friends, and I was told that Wyden, like many other senators, was devastated by Daschle's unexpected withdrawal.

But without Daschle acting as the administration's central health policy voice, other players are, I'm told, stepping into a more significant role. And some of them are more sympathetic to Wyden's approach. Peter Orszag, for one. Orszag comes at health care from a cost containment perspective. That's different than most health care reformers, who care first for covering the uninsured and only then for cutting costs. And it's a sensibility that has given him some demonstrated affinity for the virtues of Wyden's plan.

Under Orszag, the CBO was uncommonly helpful to Wyden, partnering for the first time with the Joint Committee on Taxation to produce a "preliminary analysis" of his Health Americans Act. Generally, they score legislation at the point of passage. But this time, in order to help Wyden's efforts to attract cosponsors, they gave it a "preliminary" score that allowed Wyden to argue that CBO had judged his plan as saving money. Which he did. Often. "The proposal," CBO said, "would tend to become more than self-financing and thereby would reduce future budget deficits or increase future surpluses." On the day the analysis was released, Orszag came to the Hill to privately brief interested senators on the estimations. "It was extremely valuable for our efforts," Wyden later told me.

Similarly, Ezekiel Emanuel -- brother of Rahm Emanuel -- has been stepping into a more prominent role on health reform. Emanuel is no newcomer to the effort: he was part of the 1994 process and has, in recent years, partnered with Victor Fuchs to push a proposal for health care vouchers that looks rather a lot like Ron Wyden's plan. Indeed, Emanuel's thinking proved so sympathetic to Wyden's approach that the two partnered in early-December to co-write an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

And there are structural reasons that Wyden's plan might prove appealing to the administration. First, it's revenue positive at a time when the federal government faces yawning deficits and Congress might become more stingy. Second, it has demonstrated appeal to Republicans -- there are seven Republican co-sponsors -- at a moment when bipartisanship is in short supply. Which is not to say it doesn't face hurdles. The liberal advocacy community has trouble with some of its provisions -- in particular the slow growth of premium subsidies -- and few think the political system courageous enough to support such a decisive and disruptive break from the employer-based system. It's still unlikely that Wyden's plan will prove the ultimate vehicle for health reform. But his ideas may yet play a large role in shaping whatever does become the ultimate vehicle for health reform.