The power in the health care debate has unquestionably swung to the right wing of the Democratic Party. That's good for legislators who campaign using the label "centrist." But it likely spells trouble for the American people.

Last night, some details of the long-anticipated bipartisan plan being forged in the Sen. Max Baucus' Senate Finance Committee were leaked to the press. It seems the "Gang of Six" senators -- who collectively represent about 2.74 percent of the U.S. population -- have already dropped two major Democratic proposals from the package: a public option and an employer mandate.

The first was expected, given Sen. Kent Conrad's enthusiasm for regional, non-profit cooperatives.   As Ezra Klein explained, Conrad's argument is that "the co-ops preserve the central feature of the public plan -- they're a competitor to the traditional insurance industry -- but are free from the baggage of government control."

The lack of an employer mandate comes as a larger surprise. The AP story suggests that that there might still be a penalty if businesses fail to provide coverage. In short, they would be required to reimburse the government for part or all of any federal subsidies that lower-income employees would qualify for using the private market. Those details aren't flushed out yet, however. In a post summarizing the bill, Nate Silver observes that this plan looks awfully similar to the plan the Congressional Budget Office scored quite poorly last month and which moderate and conservative lawmakers blasted:

Does this look familiar to anyone?

-- No employer mandate
-- No public option
-- But yes, an individual mandate

It should -- because this particular permutation on health care reform looks an awful lot like the incomplete draft of the HELP Committee's bill that the CBO scored last month, which also lacked an employer mandate and a public option but contained an individual mandate. That bill, the CBO estimated, would cost about $1.0 trillion -- but would only cover a net of about 16 million people. In contrast, the revised version of the HELP Committee's bill, which did include both a public option and an employer mandate, would cost about the same amount but cover a net of 37 million people.

A similar dynamic is playing out in the House. Conservative Democrats skittish about expanding Medicaid and paying for insurance subsidies to middle and low-income Americans with small tax hikes on the wealthy are making demands that actually increase the cost of reform while limiting access. Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, fed up with the machinations of her colleagues,  issued this tough accusation in an interview with Politico:

"Perhaps their bottom line is that they don’t want a bill," said Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a leading progressive. "Some of us feel this has become a constantly moving target."

"I’ve listened carefully to what they want, and I have yet to hear how money will be saved," she added.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote yesterday that he wasn't yet convinced centrist Democrats are out to kill Obama's reform effort. Still, it's time that they stop undercutting the reforms their party was voted into power to enact. We'll have to see if Illinois moderates Dan Lipinski, Jerry Costello, Bill Foster, and Melissa Bean ultimately get behind a plan that would extend insurance to an estimated 1.3 million Illinoisans. If not, they will have a lot of explaining to do.

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user wallyg.