While Sen. Harry Reid has 60 votes for tonight's vote, you have to read the fine print to know what it means and doesn't mean. It's not a vote on the health care bill, but only a vote on whether debate can begin on it.

[T]his vote simply says that the Senate is prepared to have a debate on the bill. From here, the bill will be discussed and possibly amended. Then Reid must find another sixty votes to end the debate, and then he'll need at least 51 Senators who want to vote the final product up. Clearly his work is far from over.

CNN: [More...]

McJoan at Daily Kos explains what needs to be fixed in the Senate version of the public option in the health care bill: It's the date on which the states can opt out. First,

There's no requirement of a waiting period before states can opt out, which in this political environment means the battle is taken directly to the states, because insurers will have until 2014 to get state legislatures to pass those laws. That could lead to as much as a third of country being left out, according to CBO estimates [pdf] (h/t Jon Walker).

[More...]

The Wall St. Journal reports the new Senate health care bill imposes a 5% tax on receipients of elective plastic surgery.

The tax would fall on the individuals who undergo the procedures. If they don’t pay it when they’re billed for their surgery, then it falls to the provider who performed the procedure.

Who gets the most plastic surgery? It's not the young.

Then there's the tax on "Cadillac health plans" defined as health care plans with premiums over $8,500 a year. The insurer pays it, but to recoup it, won't they just reduce benefits the plan provides? Anthem already sent out a letter that when renewed, my plan will no longer cover 100% of prescriptions. I bet this tax on Cadillac plans results in the plans becoming Chevys. [More...]

Here's the text of the new Senate Health Care Reform Bill. The Washington Post reports here. Via Huffington Post:

Reid's bill includes a national, government-run insurance plan that would be available to consumers within the health insurance exchanges that the reform effort establishes. States could opt out of the plan.

On abortion: [More...]

The Hill reports:

Senators from both parties on Tuesday put new pressure on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to turn the power to trim entitlement benefits over to an independent commission. Seven members of the Senate Budget Committee threatened during a Tuesday hearing to withhold their support for critical legislation to raise the debt ceiling if the bill calling for the creation of a bipartisan fiscal reform commission were not attached. [. . .] The panel, which has been championed by Conrad and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H), would be tasked with stemming the unsustainable rise in debt.

The panel would [. . .] have the power to craft legislation that would change the tax code and set limits on government spending. The legislation would then be subject to an up-or-down vote; it could not be amended.

(Emphasis supplied.) This seems plainly unconstitutional to me. This is not the creation of an agency to administer laws passed by Congress. This is a commission that would be empowered to write the laws that Congress would vote upon (and the voting rules seem problematic too. They certainly could not bind subsequent Congresses.) Makes you wonder if anyone has actually thought this one through. BTW, if it works, why not use it for health care reform?

Speaking for me only

Mother Jones: Why Stupak is more radical than you think.

The two parts to the Stupak amendment:

The Stupak amendment mandates that no federal funds can be used to pay for an abortion or "cover any part of any health plan" that includes coverage of an abortion, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

Part 1 is just the Hyde Amendment. But, part 2?

Where pro-lifers won big was on the second part, which could significantly limit the availability of private insurance plans that cover the procedure. That’s because Stupak’s amendment doesn’t just apply to the public option—the lower-cost plan to be offered by the government.

[More...]

A child born in the U.S. is an American citizen, even if his or her mother is an undocumented resident. That's a given under the Constitution. Since anti-choicers and those willing to put extra restrictions on health insurance based on gender, like those who voted for the Stupak Amendment, believe life begins at conception, how can they justify a health care bill that denies coverage, particularly pre-natal care and birth benefits, to undocumented or out-of-status pregnant women?

Ideally, the final health care bill should not prevent benefits to the undocumented at all. No human being is illegal. But, since some form of denial is present in both the House and Senate bills, at the very least, an exception should be made in the final bill for those who are pregnant. [More....]

Update: 9:08 pm MT: The Health Care bill passes. With 6 minutes remaining to vote, there are 218 votes in favor. Final vote: 220 yes, 215 no. 39 Dems voted no, 1 Republican voted yes. House adjourns at 9:33 pm.

Now that it's a done deal, people will want to know what's in it, and what it means for them. A good starting place, with lots of links, factsheets and more:

Question: Did the Stupak Amendment save the health care bill? 64 Dems voted for the Stupak amendment. 39 Dems voted against the health care bill. Does that mean the Stupak amendment resulted in 25 yeas for the HCR bill? The HCR bill passed with only 2 votes to spare. Next question: Was the trade-off "wire coat hanger amendment" worth it?

****

While some fool is going on about malicious trial lawyers on the House Floor, we are waiting for the vote on the full health care reform bill, which should take place in the next hour. It's the Affordable Health Care for America Now Act. The Dems need 218 votes. The Dems think they have them. [More...]

Update: Stupak passes, only 1 present vote (Shadegg)because the anti-choicers said they'd score a present vote as a no vote. Final vote: 240 to 194, 1 present. Who are the 64 Dems who voted for the wire coat hanger amendment? The roll call vote is here. Shame on Colorado Rep. John Salazar, brother of former Sen. Ken Salazar.

Update: Reps. Diana DeGette and Louise Slaughter, co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, issue this statement:

“Placing onerous new restrictions on a woman’s right to choose sets a terrible precedent and marks a significant step backwards. This effort will effectively ban abortion coverage in all plans, both private and public – marking a significant scaling back of the options offered under existing laws. Such a terrible, last minute amendment to a critical, historic piece of legislation is a shame. This kind of outrageous interference in health care by the government marks a sad day in this struggle and will result in women across America losing the right to health care.”

Update: If the line is busy when you call, Tweet Your Rep.

The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment, to the health care reform bill (H.R. 3962)is being voted on today. Reportedly, it prevents federal funding of abortion and health insurance plans which include abortion coverage(Hyde Amendment). Supposedly, it will not affect coverage of abortion in non-subsidized health plans, and will not bar anyone from purchasing a supplemental abortion policy with their own funds. [More...]

Planned Parenthood breaks it down. At 2pm (ET), the House just began four more hours of debate on the bill.

The House of Representatives will vote on the health care reform bill Saturday. The Republicans are offering their own bill, which is woefully inadequate:

The [Republican] measure would cover 3 million additional people at a cost of $60 billion through 2019, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Democrats' bill, by comparison, would cover far more -- 36 million additional Americans -- at a much higher cost -- $1.055 trillion through 2019, the CBO has said.

It would also result in more than 52 million uninusred Americans ten years from now. The Democrats' House bill would cover 96% of Americans in ten years. The AARP will announce its support for the House bill Thursday.

Revisions to the bill to rein in health insurance premium hikes have been introduced: [More...]

Recognizing the difficulty that death row inmates have in bringing innocence claims before the court, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) has introduced H.R. 3986, "The Effective Death Penalty Appeals Act." (Received by e-mail from Amnesty International USA , no link yet:)

When a person facing execution has strong evidence of his innocence, he should have ample opportunity to bring those claims back into a court of law. The law as it stands today is flawed in this respect. Rep. Johnson's bill would ensure that death row inmates have the opportunity to present newly discovered evidence of innocence.

Given that 139 people have been wrongfully convicted and sent to death row in the last three decades in the United States, it is especially important that lawmakers take a close look at the flaws in a system that irreversibly takes human life.

This bill would help inmates like Troy Davis, who due to AEDPA, came within hours of being executed because courts said he could not raise his factual innocence claim. In August, the Supreme Court ruled David should be allowed a new hearing to establish his innocence. Legislation is needed to help others in this situation. [More...]