After a marathon, overnight session of Democrats handily defeating dozens of GOP amendments one after the other, the Senate passed the reconciliation bill. However, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a couple of very minor provisions related to Pell Grants (remember this bill covers student loan reform as well) had to be stricken, so the House must pass it again. But this is will be easily done later today so it is no big deal. After that, President Obama will sign it into law as he did the main bill on Tuesday.

After a long debate (and I’m not just talking about today’s crazy floor proceedings given how long this has gone on!), the House of Representatives has passed both the Senate’s health care reform bill, which goes immediately to President Obama to be signed into law, and a reconciliation bill full of fixes that the House wanted. You can read a good summary of the details here. The reconciliation bill would also drastically reform student loan programs by completely removing private lender middlemen from the process. Special kudos go to Speaker Pelosi for getting her caucus together, though the White House also had to promise an executive order to get pro-life Dems in line.

The Senate will take up the reconciliation bill on Tuesday and hopefully pass it this week. If that happens, it will be a historic victory for President Obama and Democrats, and, well, all Americans who desperately needed a change from the status quo of our current health care system.

Republicans, doing their part for health care reform:

Late last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its initial analysis of the health-care reform plan that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner offered as a substitute to the Democratic legislation. CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won’t have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that …17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won’t have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.

But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP’s alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.

Are Republicans secretly in favor of Democratic health care reform?

Kevin Drum’s take on this is the best thing I’ve read today:

There are still plenty of battles to be fought, including those over subsidy levels and the public option, but we basically have on the table a plan that’s budget neutral (or better), covers most of the population, saves a considerable amount of money, and ought to be roughly acceptable even to the most timorous of the centrists. That’s more than anyone’s ever managed to do before. And remember: it took most European countries decades before they had more than 94% of their population covered, but they all got there eventually once they had a starting place. There’s plenty left to do, but as a starting place this isn’t too bad.

Are we really this close to victory? God, but I hope so.

Last month I wrote this about critics of health care reform:

But thanks to lying liars like Krauthammer and McCaughey, progress on this front has probably been set back a good ten or twenty years, all because defeating health care reform justifies any lie, no matter how pernicious or no matter the effect it has on actual, real people. I’m not a Christian, and even if I was I doubt I’d believe in Hell. But if there is one, it is my most sincere and fondest wish that there is a special circle reserved for the likes of Krauthammer and McCaughey, and all those who lie without regard to the impact their lies have on the lives and deaths of real people.

But if this is at all true, one hack in particular is guilty of so much worset:

I have deliberately laid off the Betsy McCaughey theme for the past month-plus. I had my say; she continues to have hers; people can make up their minds.

But revelations late last week by Tim Dickinson, of Rolling Stone, are at face value so important that they deserve to be underscored. It’s worth reading Dickinson’s whole dispatch and studying the on-line scans of the documents he has found. But to me the real news is the evidence that tobacco lobbyists secretly worked with McCaughey to prepare her infamous 1994 New Republic article “No Exit.”

In case that’s blurry, here is what Dickinson says:

“What has not been reported until now is that McCaughey’s writing was influenced by Philip Morris, the world’s largest tobacco company, as part of a secret campaign to scuttle Clinton’s health care reform. (The measure would have been funded by a huge increase in tobacco taxes.) In an internal company memo from March 1994, the tobacco giant detailed its strategy to derail Hillarycare through an alliance with conservative think tanks, front groups and media outlets. Integral to the company’s strategy, the memo observed, was an effort to “work on the development of favorable pieces” with “friendly contacts in the media.” The memo, prepared by a Philip Morris executive, mentions only one author by name:

‘ “Worked off-the-record with Manhattan and writer Betsy McCaughey as part of the input to the three-part exposé in The New Republic on what the Clinton plan means to you. The first part detailed specifics of the plan.” ‘

“McCaughey did not respond to Rolling Stone’s request for an interview.”

Maybe there is another side to this story, but if unrebutted it is damning.

Oh, if only those words could become literally true. One would think that upon this revelation, Betsy McCaughey would be utterly disgraced, and too ashamed to show her face in the media. But that would imply that McCaughey has any decency or grace to be dispossessed of. Since it is not presently illegal to sell your soul to companies who profit off of the deaths of people, we shall have to merely wait and hope that divine justice is presented to her most directly upon her death.

Congress is actually passing stuff again! Though still not health care.

The House of Representatives voted for the biggest overhaul of federal student loan programs since their creation; the measure ends subsidies for private lenders, boosts Pell Grants for needy students and creates grant programs to improve community colleges and college graduation rates. The House also passed a resolution of disapproval for Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during President Obama’s speech to Congress.

The Senate passed a big boost in spending for housing and transportation projects, and to allow guns on Amtrak.

And, yeah, both houses voted to defund ACORN to appease paranoid conservatives.

I borrow the title of Al Franken’s book for this post because, as is usually the case when dealing with right-wing pundits, it is apt. This is inspired by Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s exchange with lying liar Betsy McCaughey, who would like to reprise her fifteen minutes of fame by playing a critical role in sinking not one, but two health care reform packages in her lifetime. First, watch some of the exchange, via James Fallows (it’s thirteen minutes total between the two segments so I forgive you for not watching the whole thing; you don’t need to for the purposes of this post anyway.) Now, observe this excerpt from Fallows’ post:

That is: when McCaughey admits that there is no literal “death panel” provision in the new health care provision, she goes on to say something similar to what other conservatives, most recently Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post today, contend: that the very act of reimbursing doctors for a discussion about “living wills” and end-of-life care will have a subtle bias in favor of an euthanasia-like outcome.

On the merits of this claim, I vehemently disagree. Having had, along with my siblings, first-hand, extended, and very painful experience with this process during my own father’s decline and death last year, I would put reimbursement schemes for living-will discussions at the very bottom of the list of factors that make such decisions so wrenching for everyone involved.

This is the article by lying liar Krauthammer that Fallows is referring to, wherein Krauthammer concludes that it is “obvious” that it’s better to rely upon the wishes of family and friends then some “form” somebody checked off “some fine summer’s day years before being stricken.” Really? Terri Schiavo might beg to differ.

It is simply a lie to say that mere discussions about late stage health care and end-of-life decisions will influence people (subtly or otherwise) to die early against their will (or be “euthanized”, which isn’t even legal in any state in the nation.) I’m not even going to assume for the purposes of argument, like Fallows does, that there might be such an effect because there isn’t. And it is a pernicious and malicious lie at that, because this lie-whose primary goal is to scare idiots and the uninformed into being afraid of health care reform-will also have the incidental effect of encouraging people to avoid not only getting medical powers of attorney or advanced directives (also known as “living wills”) but to avoid even talking about how much treatment they want before they die. It would not surprise me in the least to find out that there are literally thousands of people who, thanks to the casual but malicious lying of people like Krauthammer and McCaughey, will now delay or avoid having discussions about end of life care with their doctors or their family members, for fear that they might be giving somebody permission to stick a needle in them and send them off to the great beyond earlier than they might like. So what will they get instead? They will get family members arguing over how “grandma” wants to die (and sometimes going to court about it, a la Schiavo) or if they are alone, they will have anonymous doctors or hospital administrators or courts make the decision for them. Some of them will die in agony, when had someone spent fifteen minutes talking to them about it, they might have decided to die another way. Perhaps even some will be disconnected from life support because their family “knows” it’s how they want to die (and anyway, best to get to probating grandma’s estate so they can get her china) when in fact that person would have preferred to hang on until even machines couldn’t keep them alive.

I guess a bunch of screaming nutballs at these “town hall” meetings are having the desired effect:

The White House, facing increasing skepticism over President Obama’s call for a public insurance plan to compete with the private sector, signaled Sunday that it was willing to compromise and would consider a proposal for a nonprofit health cooperative being developed in the Senate.

The “public option,” a new government insurance program akin to Medicare, has been a central component of Mr. Obama’s agenda for overhauling the health care system, but it has also emerged as a flashpoint for anger and opposition. Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, said the public option was “not the essential element” for reform and raised the idea of the co-op during an interview on CNN.

[...]

Mr. Obama himself sought to play down the significance of the public option at a town-hall-style meeting on Saturday in Grand Junction, Colo., when a university student challenged him on how private insurers could compete with the government.

After strongly defending the public plan, the president suggested that he, too, viewed it as only a small piece of a broader initiative intended to control costs, expand coverage, protect consumers and make the delivery of health care more efficient.

“The public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform,” Mr. Obama said. “This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it.”

Of course the administration would like to have its cake and eat it too:

An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius “misspoke” when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option “is not an essential part” of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president’s view, the most important element of the reform package.

A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.

“Nothing has changed,” she said. “The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals.”

A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn’t misspeak. “The media misplayed it,” the third official said.

Always the media with these folks. I’m trying to understand how Sibelius’ “is not an essential part” is any different from “the public option is the best way”, but not the only way, to achieve the goals of reducing health care costs and expanding coverage of the uninsured. Doesn’t seem all that different from me.

Howard Dean at least isn’t having any of it:

Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, a leading figure in the liberal wing of his party, said Monday he doubts there can be meaningful health care reform without a direct government role.

Dean urged the Obama administration to stand by statements made early on in the debate in which it steadfastly insisted that such a public option was indispensable to genuine change, saying that Medicare and the Veterans Administration are “two very good programs that have been around for a long time.”

Dean, a physician, argued that a public option is fair and said there must be such a choice in any genuine shake up of the existing system.

“You can’t really do health reform without it,” he said. Dean maintained that the health insurance industry has “put enormous pressure on patients and doctors” in recent years.

He called a direct government role “the entirety of health care reform. It isn’t the entirety of insurance reform … We shouldn’t spend $60 billion a year subsidizing the insurance industry.”

Agreed. Health care reform without a public option is insufficient.

The more things change, the more they…well, you know where I’m going with this:

It was the latest in a series of emotional public meetings on the health-care issue that have prompted Obama and Democratic leaders to complain of a campaign by opponents to drown out the debate with unruly disruptions.

At one point, Specter shouted into his microphone that demonstrators disrupting the proceedings would be thrown out.

“We’re not going to tolerate any demonstrations or any booing,” he said after one audience member shoved another making an unsolicited speech. “So it’s up to you.”

Many in the crowd identified themselves as conservative Republicans, with one man noting they had voted Specter to Congress before the senator changed parties earlier this year.

A woman prompted a standing ovation by telling Specter: “I don’t believe this is just health care. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country. … I don’t want this country turning into Russia, turning into a socialized country. What are you going to do to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution?”

Cue Richard Hofstadter:

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date for the apocalypse.

The date in this case being the day comprehensive health care reform passes both in the House and the Senate I suppose. It takes a smarter man than I to know why people cling to such apocalyptic and clearly lunatic beliefs (a man like Bob Altemeyer, for one.) What I do know, is that I’m tired of the fate of our nation being completely hijacked by the stupidest, most reactionary and paranoid among us. Marc Ambinder senses that the conservatives have already lost, but it’s hard to tell when they’re screaming so loud.

(h/t to Sadly, No! for general inspiration.)

Congress quickly adopted legislation that adds $7 billion to the highway trust fund, replenishes the federal unemployment insurance trust fund and gives new lending authority to Federal Housing Administration programs that play a large role in providing low-interest housing loans.

The House of Representatives passed $2 billion in emergency funds to keep the CARS or “cash for clunkers” program going and and unanticipated amount of people rushed to take advantage of it (the Senate will likely vote on it next week). The House also passed a bill restrict Wall Street pay and passed a far-reaching food safety bill requiring more government inspections and imposing new penalties on those who violate the law. Additionally, the House passed a defense appropriations bill, cutting the F-22 but not other programs the Obama administration and Pentagon want cut, but differences will need to be worked out with the Senate. Oh, and House members unanimously approved a resolution that in part recognizes President Barack Obama as being born in Hawaii which the Senate joined.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to send Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the full Senate, which will take up confirmation on Tuesday (there’s no firm date for a vote yet). Sen. Lindsey Graham was, sadly, the only Republican on the committee to vote in favor.

Unfortunately, a full House vote and a Senate Finance Committee vote on health care reform have both been put off until September.