according to that same article:

In the Senate, officials stressed that no agreement has been reached on a bipartisan measure, and said there is no guarantee of one. They also warned that numerous key issues remain to be settled, including several options to pay for the legislation. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss matters under private negotiations.

[WARNING WARNING WARNING DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER -- Sources refusing to identify themselves are not telling you facts, they're giving you opinions and speculation. Take them seriously at your own risk. This is the one thing Ben Bradlee's WaPo SHOULD have as a legacy!!!]

They said any legislation that emerges from the talks is expected to provide for a non-profit cooperative to sell insurance in competition with private industry, rather than giving the federal government a role in the marketplace. The White House and numerous Democrats in Congress have called for a government option to provide competition to private companies and hold down costs.

Officials also said a bipartisan compromise would not subject companies to a penalty if they declined to offer coverage to their workers. These businesses would be required to reimburse the government for part or all of any federal subsidies designed to help lower-income employees obtain insurance on their own.

Lazy reportage at best -- are those saying penalties would not ensue the same as those saying no guarantee of a plan exists?

This is not a done deal anyway. Time to call, write, fax or if you live within reach, visit your Senators and Reps with your objections to this. Like Lloyd Doggett said, it won't happen if we don't ask for it. In big numbers. You've got to overcome the built-in advantages the big corporations have: full-time on-scene paid advocates is just the first one.

This is not the time to make nice. This is the time to make your voices heard, advocate passionately for your positions, and ensure your elected legislators understand that you'll take away their jobs, including all their lovely perks, if they don't represent you.

We're at a crossroads. We can default to cynicism and negativity, throw up our hands and cry defeat, or we can push through the resistance toward a better tomorrow.

From the NASDAQ link:

Democrats rushed out a press release trumpeting the finding, claiming the CBO analysis confirms that the bill would accomplish President Barack Obama's desire to keep employer-sponsored health plans intact.

But some health-care analysts are casting doubt on the CBO's prediction. "CBO is using very over-simplified assumptions," said Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute. He said the Lewin Group analysis is "more realistic" in its assumption that a much larger number of employers will drop coverage once government-subsidized health benefits through an exchange become available.

EBRI is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research group funded by private companies.

The main reason for the glaring disparity between the CBO and Lewin Group estimates is that the CBO assumes workers at firms with more than 50 employees won't have access to the health-insurance exchange. The Lewin Group assumes that all firms, regardless of size, will be allowed to drop coverage and send their workers to find health care through the exchange.

The House bill leaves it ultimately up to the commissioner of the new exchange to decide which employers would have access.

But even if participation in the exchange is limited to firms with 20 or fewer employees, the Lewin Group said 21.9 million will shift from employer-based health coverage to the exchange - still more than twice what the CBO predicted at a 50-employee cap.

Further down that page I found this:

John Sheils, who coauthored the Lewin Group study, said that if the goal of the House legislation is to restrain health-care costs as much as possible, eligibility for the exchange must be extended to large firms as well.

Outside the public plan, "there's nothing in this bill that saves money for anyone. If [large firms] don't get access to the public plan, they get zero cost containment," he said.

Firms that currently offer health insurance would save on average $437 per worker a year under the House bill, according to the Lewin Group analysis. That assumes that the exchange and public option would be available to all workers, regardless of firm size.

Firms that don't now offer coverage would see costs increase by $862 a worker a year under the House bill, the Lewin Group said.

The House health-care legislation creates a new public health-care plan that would be offered to eligible Americans through an exchange that would also include offerings from private insurance companies. The bill would mandate that all but the smallest employers offer affordable health coverage to their workers, or face a penalty of up to 8% of payroll.

It would also mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, or face a 2.5% income-tax penalty.

It sure looks like it would be to corporations' advantage to opt in, doesn't it?

Adding a "public option" and "employer mandate" to the Baucus bill will be the big fight in the Village. Never mind that the public option is so weak it's likely not viable and even likelier to be watered down in the "fight" to get it into Baucus' bill. That will now define "progressive" victory. Simply getting some form - no matter how weak - of a public option through the Senate along with an employer mandate (which will likely have even less quality protections than the House bill does now).

The senators involved in the negotiations are all members of the Senate Finance Committee, and include Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the senior Republican. Others participating are Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and Republicans Snowe and Mike Enzi of Wyoming.

Co-ops will be their hook; may their political careers hang from it.

It looks like Teddy will not be able to rise from his sick bed (dear FSM, he must be terribly ill to not make appearances to push for some of his cherished goals for health care -- I hope he makes a recovery. Please.) to bring some balance to these senators. Alas.

done deal since prior to Obama's presser last week:

Everyone in America (including every journalist except Lou Dubose of The Washington Spectator) seems to have missed these all-important sentences in President Obama's press conference on July 22, 2009. Please, please pay attention.

"Tonight I want to answer those questions. Because even though Congress is still working through a few key issues, we already have agreement on the following areas:"....

"If you don't have health insurance, or are a small business looking to cover your employees, you'll be able to choose a quality, affordable health plan through a health insurance exchange – a marketplace that promotes choice and competition Finally, no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition."

The operative words here are "Health Insurance Exchange" and "already have agreement".

This quote came toward the beginning of the press conference when he was outlining what congress has agreed upon and, incidentally, just 10 minutes after President Obama walked out of a meeting with Max Baucus (D-MT), lead visable Big Insurance shill.

This is from the telepromted part of his presser, when the words were carefully vetted -- and he did not mention the public option as one of the sacrosanct principles of his requirements for health insurance legislation. That's what jumped out at me when he was speaking that evening.

She also links to this explanation of what it will take to get these exchanges up and running.

The negotiation points will now be on the employer mandates, exit the "pubic option". The employer mandates will happen in some form, the pub opt is gone, I think. We'll get more people on Medicaid, but as in MA, we'll lose federal funds for free care at safety net hospitals. Could be wrong, but that's what I think we'll see.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said during the day, ''I don't believe that the president has come down (on) one versus the other in terms of denoting co-ops equal to or above public option.''