On this specific policy option, the official says, "the White House did not state a position either way."

which indicates that the Politico story is wrong.

Mr. Obama asked questions, but did not express a preference at the meeting, a White House official said.

Here's my basic feeling on this. There has been demonstrated value in going apesh!t on every unsubstantiated rumor with regard to health care. It has made Democratic politicians, from the House to the White House, "work the yo-yo" and immediately deny their comments. But this intense focus on one comment or another does to a certain extent serve powerful interests.

Whether consciously or unconsciously, the media and politicians figured out during the 2008 campaign that leaking anonymous tips or highlighting "X said Y" didn't just rouse traditional media. It kept its consumers in the blogosphere busy as well. And that model has survived to this health care debate. A White House source leaks something to Politico or some other outlet, and everybody chases the soccer ball. This government by trial balloon is very seductive, it's easy to get people talking about them and it fills up the day. But it's a sad example of the cautiousness of this White House, as well as the link-chasing and traffic-chasing that has started to define at least a corner of new media.

They can work the yo-yo all they want, but sooner or later, someone in government will have to make a decision on all this. And when they do, they cannot hide behind an anonymous source. House and Senate leaders and the President should know by now that they will be judged by their actions, and people will respond accordingly. In the meantime, those activists who have prospered by backing their representatives into a corner based on anonymous leaks and tips should probably keep doing it. That's a vital part of activism in this digital era, and without it a real crappy health care bill would probably be on its way to the President for signage. There's a balance, however. And everybody chasing the soccer ball often leaves the goal mouth uncovered.

"I think at the end of the day there will be a national plan probably put together not by the federal government but by a non-profit board with some seed money from the federal government that states would initially participate in because of lack of affordability. The question is should there be an opportunity for states to opt out later on and if so, within a year, within two years, within three years?"

How would this plan work? "Among the things that's important," Carper said, "is, one, that this not be a government run, government funded enterprise, two, that there be a level playing field so that this non-profit entity that would be stood up would have to play by same rules basically as for-profit insurance companies--the idea that secretary of Health and Human Services [will be] running or directing the operation of this--no way. link

Many thanks to the selfless gang at the Bobblespeak Translations stay on top of the action so I don't have to. (I forget where I first found the link but it's a keeper.)