In a party line vote of 60-39, the Senate voted Saturday evening to proceed with debate on a health care reform bill. All 58 Democrats and both Independents voted in favor of the motion while Republicans voted against it. Senate Majority Harry Reid closed debate and urged Republicans to support debate of the bill arguing that the framers of the Constitution didn't intend for the rules to limit a healthy debate. Following the vote, Reid said the "finish line is in sight." He added "that while we don't all agree how to get there we all agree something must be done." Reid went on to say that the bill will "save lives, save money and save medicare." Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut), told reporters that "everyone should have the right to quality health care" and that this bill will "move us down the path to health care for all Americans."

Victory For Health Care Choice: Senate Bill Will Let People Leave Their Employers' Plan For Better Option

The purpose of the establishment clause in the First Amendment was to insure that organized religion had no say in the affairs of state. With the Catholic Conference of Bishops having authored the abortion amendment in the House health care bill, its time to say, give up your tax exempt status and your filing for bankruptcy protection or give up your massive lobbying organization in Washington.

On the eve of a vote to move the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to the floor in the Senate, the Obama Administration has released a statement on the bill. Shockingly enough, they support it! The one interesting bit is that the statement of Administration policy specifically cites the public option as an important piece of the bill: "The Administration is pleased that the bill includes a public health insurance option offered in an Exchange. As the President has said throughout this process, a public option that competes with private insurers is one of the best ways to provide the choice and competition that are so badly needed in today’s market."

According to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.), members of the caucus revolted on the grounds that their constituencies weren't allowed sufficient participation in Treasury and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. programs, such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program or FDIC oversight of failed bank assets...The caucus's action wasn't directed at the overhaul, but at the administration's broader response to the economy and job market. It has the practical effect of derailing the effort, at least until after Thanksgiving.

First there was Medicare for all 300 million of us. But that was a non-starter because private insurers and Big Pharma wouldn't hear of it, and Republicans and "centrists" thought it was too much like what they have up in Canada -- which, by the way, cost Canadians only 10 percent of their GDP and covers every Canadian. (Our current system of private for-profit insurers costs 16 percent of GDP and leaves out 45 million people.)--- Our private, for-profit health insurance system, designed to fatten the profits of private health insurers and Big Pharma, is about to be turned over to ... our private, for-profit health care system. Except that now private health insurers and Big Pharma will be getting some 30 million additional customers, paid for by the rest of us. Upbeat policy wonks and political spinners who tend to see only portions of cups that are full will point out some good things: no pre-existing conditions, insurance exchanges, 30 million more Americans covered. But in reality, the cup is 90 percent empty. Most of us will remain stuck with little or no choice -- dependent on private insurers who care only about the bottom line, who deny our claims, who charge us more and more for co-payments and deductibles, who bury us in forms, who don't take our calls.

According to a Human Rights First report released last week, since 2001, over 18,000 refugees and asylum seekers who pose no threat to U.S. security have not received protection from the U.S. government due to the overly broad provisions of Immigration law, and the expansive way that they have been interpreted by Federal Immigration agencies.

Under the House plan, we will gamble as we choose a plan, decide which corporation will be the best for us, hoping we pick one that is not dominated by corporate bureaucrats focused on rationing care to maximize their profits. Imagine real reform, as simple as adding people ages 55 to 65 years old to Medicare in 2010, 35-55 in 2011, and so on until everyone is included by 2013. If the Democrats can't stand up to insurance companies now, it will be even harder in the future when they have billions in more profits from Americans forced to buy their product.

Tom Harkin assured Ed Shultz last night that after a 2 hour closed door meeting, Harry Reid had the 60 votes to break a Republican filibuster and guaranteed there would be a floor vote on the health care reform bill with a public option before the senate recesses for the Thanksgiving holiday.

Neither the House health care reform bill nor the Senate Finance Committee bill eliminates Medicare Advantage, but both would reduce what the government is willing to pay. The boon for private insurers from higher premium subsidies has long been a prime target for budget savings, especially among Democrats in Congress. So – not surprisingly—cuts have turned up in the reform bills.

On Wednesday, November 18th, supporters of immigration reform from all across the country are getting together for a nation-wide dialogue about the steps necessary for immigration reform.

Here's an idea. Let's make pols wear the logos of their corporate sponsors - like NASCAR drivers.

Fox News has reported that Republican lawmakers are planning on holding town hall meetings on health care reform for no other reason than to invite protestors to show up and show their rage.

under the [Senate] health committee proposal, certain standards governing the nature and extent of covered benefits would apply only to policies sold inside the exchanges. All of those factors contribute to the possibility that insurers might offer cheaper, less comprehensive policies outside the exchanges and entice healthier people to leave the new markets. That would leave the exchanges responsible for sicker people who are more expensive to insure. Similarly, outside the exchange, the bill drafted by the Senate Finance Committee would not regulate the marketing of individual coverage, nor would it require that health plans be rated based on quality and price. Even within the exchanges, there could be limits to consumer protections. The health committee bill would not explicitly guarantee consumers the right to an external appeal when a health plan refuses to pay for medical services. The right to an external appeal is a hallmark of the health-benefits program for federal employees, which [supposedly] has served as a model for the proposed exchanges.

Buckling to pressure by the Catholic Conference of Bishbops, Pelosi with Obama's approval, invited the bishops to help craft the language of the anti-abortion amendment in the healthcare reform bill in clear violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

A Goldman Sachs report projects earnings per share and stock values of the five largest insurance companies under four different health care reform scenarios. It is an excellent example of how vampires think, and shows us which facets of the reform proposals are most frightening precisely because they represent true reform. They are: cuts to Medicare Advantage, regulations that disallow exclusions for pre-existing conditions and recision, and finally, the odious public option.

The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee has cultivated a pugnacious persona, but on financial reform he may be fighting for the wrong side.

A grim reality sits behind the joyful press statements from Washington Democrats. To secure passage of health care legislation in the House, the party chose a course that risks the well-being of millions of women for generations to come.

What is the best way to spend $100 billion per year? On health care reform or the surge in Afghanistan? Simple. One pays for itself, the other doesn’t.

Specifically, Dodd's bill takes away the Fed's regulatory power in some key areas. "I really want the Federal Reserve to get back to its core enterprises," Dodd said. "We saw over the last number of years when they took on consumer protection responsibilities and the regulation of bank holding companies, it was an abysmal failure. So the idea that we're going to go back and expand those roles and functions at the expense of the vitality of the core functions that they're designed to perform is going in the wrong way."