Last Monday was Harry Reid’s supposed day in the sun, and the Senate majority leader’s omnibus health-care proposal reflected his personality as well as his perilous political standing — a milquetoast offering designed to play both ends against the middle. Yes, a so-called “public option” was included, but accompanied by a provision allowing states to “opt out” if they so desire.

On Thursday, it was Nancy Pelosi’s turn, and, like Mr. Reid’s, the legislation she presented mirrored her mien and style — 1,990 pages of precocious liberalism, chock-a-block with mandates, taxes (a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on “the rich”), Medicare cuts, a mind-blowing expansion of Medicaid, and, predictably, a more robust “public option” (though not as robust as some liberals, who want it tied to Medicare rates, might like).

The question, of course, is whether either of these bills can pass. Or if these Democratic leaders are fooling anyone with all their talk of a “historic moment.”

Reaction to Mr. Reid’s plan among Senate moderates was swift and incisive. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., vowed to join Republicans in a filibuster. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., called the push for a “public option” a “wasted effort.” And Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., spoke for his ilk when he said, “If it was a public option that was just kind of a stalking horse for government-run health care, I don’t think that would have a very good chance.”

On the House side, a confidential Democratic Party whip count, leaked to Greg Sargent of The Plum Line blog, shows 47 Democrats opposed to a public option, with another eight leaning that way. If these numbers are accurate, the math does not favor Mrs. Pelosi. She needs 218 votes, meaning she can withstand but 38 defections in her 256-seat majority. Let the arm-twisting begin.

With congressional support apparently waning and the public becoming more and more educated on the issue — now may be the time for Republicans atop Capitol Hill to sally forth with yet another alternative measure.

The alleged “Party of No” has been ripped, unfairly, for naysaying rather than legislating. Not true. No less than six GOP health-care bills have been introduced, and summarily dismissed. Hill speculation has it that they may approach the hopper yet again with a common-sense proposal built on the twin pillars of marketplace reform (ending state health insurance monopolies would be a start) and tort relief.

That, in our opinion, would be worth a try, considering Congress’ currently fluid state and America’s heightened skepticism with a “reform” effort that looks suddenly “same old-same old.”

Look at it this way: Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupting us? Well, let’s expand these programs, essentially to include everyone. That’s the anti-remedy.

Or, as The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger wrote Thursday in his “Wonderland” column, “[I]t’s more than the fact that Congress looks old. The health-care bill is big, complex, incomprehensible and coercive — all the things people hate nowadays.”