All this work for one person's vote

For the record, I like Olympia Snowe. I don't have much against her. As Republicans go, she's not so bad.

But she is a Republican. And for the life of me, I don't understand why the Democrats, including President Obama, have spent so much time courting her one vote on health care reform.

Shortly after the Senate Finance Committee voted 14-9 in favor of Sen. Max Baucus's so-called "moderate" reform bill, President Obama quickly heaped praise on the sole Republican who gave the Democrats' proposal the much coveted label of bipartisanship.

"In particular, Sen. Snowe has been extraordinarily diligent in working together so that we can reduce costs of health care (and) make sure that people who don't have it are covered," the president told reporters at the White House.

Never mind all the Democrats who have been laboring in the trenches for years to get health care reform, it's all about Snowe. The president didn't single out Jay Rockefeller or the late Ted Kennedy. He focused on the senator from Maine.

How did one senator from a state smaller than the size of my New York City area code become so powerful? By being the only one.

Almost every other Republican has shown little or no interest in compromise. Even the GOP members of the infamous "gang of six" weren't serious about compromise. All but one of them voted against the bill they spent all summer helping to craft.

The so-called moderate Democrats who were determined to win the votes of Republicans before they could vote for a bill from their own party had a goal of bipartisanship, and technically they got it on Tuesday. They got one vote from one Republican on one committee for one time. Nothing else. "My vote today is my vote today," Snowe said. "It doesn't foretell what my vote will be tomorrow."

I can't be mad at Sen. Snowe. She played her cards masterfully and has made herself the most relevant player in Congress. But the Democrats who courted her got snowed. What did they give up in return for her vote? Most importantly, the public option, a simple but important device to lower the cost of health insurance and provide consumers with choice that is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Instead, Baucus and his committee cohort, Sen. Kent Conrad, want us to believe we can actually cut costs with a largely untested plan of new nonprofit cooperatives that would allow consumers to purchase insurance from them. Will it work? Maybe, but there's not a lot of evidence to back it up.

But we do have evidence that a public option will work in reducing costs by forcing insurance companies to compete. Why do you think the insuranc
Keith Boykin is editor of The Daily Voice and a CNBC contributor.