Wherever I may wander.

Voter Registration and Voter Turnout, these are the keys for 2010 for Democrats and the interests of Continued Progress. We are now in the process of giving our majority voters something to vote for, we have to propose excellent candidates in every race, contesting every Republican district that is susceptible, Plouffe is off vacation, so it's time to get all of our ducks in a row. I would hate to see the majority party lose seats just because we didn't turnout our voters, and the GOP turns out 80% of the minority elite. Working people should vote by mail. Every Union and advocate for the Working Poor and Working Middle Class should promote voting by mail, so working people can vote in-between their work.

President Obama considers this blog column from The Atlantic's Ron Brownstein as one of the best summations of and arguments for what we're trying to accomplish with health insurance reform this year.

Nov 21 2009, 11:29 am by Ronald Brownstein

A Milestone in the Health Care Journey

When I reached Jonathan Gruber on Thursday, he was working his way, page by laborious page, through the mammoth health care bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had unveiled just a few hours earlier. Gruber is a leading health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is consulted by politicians in both parties. He was one of almost two dozen top economists who sent President Obama a letter earlier this month insisting that reform won't succeed unless it "bends the curve" in the long-term growth of health care costs. And, on that front, Gruber likes what he sees in the Reid proposal. Actually he likes it a lot.

"I'm sort of a known skeptic on this stuff," Gruber told me. "My summary is it's really hard to figure out how to bend the cost curve, but I can't think of a thing to try that they didn't try. They really make the best effort anyone has ever made. Everything is in here....I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn't have done better than they are doing."

Gruber may be especially effusive. But the Senate blueprint, which faces its first votes tonight, also is winning praise from other leading health reformers like Mark McClellan, the former director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services under George W. Bush and Len Nichols, health policy director at the centrist New America Foundation. "The bottom line," Nichols says, "is the legislation is sending a signal that business as usual [in the medical system] is going to end."

Both the Senate bill's priority on controlling long-term health care costs, and its strategy for doing so, represents a validation for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT). When Baucus released his health reform proposal last September, after finally terminating months of fruitless negotiations with committee Republicans, Democratic liberals excoriated his plan as a dead end. And on several important fronts--such as subsidies for the uninsured, the role of a public competitor to private insurance companies, and the contribution required from employers who don't insure their workers--Reid moved his product away from Baucus toward approaches preferred by liberals.

But the Reid bill's fiscal strategy, and its vision of how to "bend the curve," almost completely follows Baucus' path from September. Baucus' bill was the first to establish the principle that Congress could expand coverage while reducing the federal deficit; now that's the standard not only for the Senate but also the House reform legislation. And, perhaps even more importantly, the Reid bill maintains virtually all of Baucus ideas' for shifting the medical payment system away from today's fee-for-service model toward an approach that more closely links compensation for providers to results for patients. In the Reid bill, there is some backtracking from Baucus' most aggressive reform proposals, but not much. 

Almost everything Baucus proposed to control long-term costs have survived into the final bill. And, with only a few exceptions, that's just about all the systemic reforms analysts from the center to the left have identified as the most promising strategies for changing the economic incentives in the medical system. (The public competitor to private insurance companies championed by the Left would affect who writes the checks in the medical system, but not what the checks are written to pay for.) Most of the other big ideas for controlling costs (such as medical malpractice reform) tend to draw support primarily among Republicans. And since virtually, if not literally, none of them plan to support the final health care bill under any circumstances, the package isn't likely to reflect much of their thinking.

In their November 17 letter to Obama, the group of economists led by Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford University, identified four pillars of fiscally-responsible health care reform. They maintained that the bill needed to include a tax on high-end "Cadillac" insurance plans; to pursue "aggressive" tests of payment reforms that will "provide incentives for physicians and hospitals to focus on quality" and provide "care that is better coordinated"; and establish an independent Medicare commission that can continuously develop and implement "new efforts to improve quality and contain costs." Finally, they said the Congressional Budget Office "must project the bill to be at least deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window and deficit reducing thereafter." 

As OMB Director Peter Orszag noted in an interview, the Reid bill met all those tests. The CBO projected that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $130 billion over its first decade and by as much as $650 billion in its second. (Conservatives, of course, consider those projections unrealistic, but CBO is the only umpire in the game, and Republicans have been happy to trumpet its analyses critical of the Democratic plans.)  "Let's use the metric of that letter," said Orszag, who helped shape the health reform debate for years from his earlier posts at CBO and the Brookings Institution. "Deficit neutral; got that. Deficit-reducing second decade, got that. Excise tax: That was retained. Third is the Medicare commission: has that. Fourth is delivery system reforms, bundling payments, hospital acquired infections, readmission rates. It has that. If you go down the checklist of what they said was necessary for a fiscally responsible bill that will move us towards the health care system of the future, this passes the bar."

McClellan, the former Bush official and current director of the Engleberg Center for Health Care Reform at the Brookings Institution, was one of the economists who signed the November letter. McClellan has some very practical ideas for improving the Reid bill (more on those below), but generally he echoes Orszag's assessment of it. "It has got all four of those elements in it," McClellan said in an interview. "They kept a lot of the key elements of the Finance bill that I like. It would be good if more could be done, but this is the right direction to go."

Reid gave ground on one Baucus proposal that the economists identified as a priority-taxing high-end insurance plans. Like many health reformers, the economists who wrote Obama argue that such a tax "will help curtail the growth of private health insurance premiums by creating incentives to limit the costs of plans to a tax-free amount." Amid intense opposition from unions, Reid raised the thresholds at which family plans would face that excise tax from $21,000 to $23,000. But given all the pressure from labor, the more striking thing may have been that Reid didn't increase the thresholds even more; the CBO calculated the proposal, which the House excluded from its bill, would still raise $35 billion annually by 2019. "They held pretty strong," said one administration health care expert. "It's not like unions haven't been making the case that it shouldn't have been a much higher number."

On delivery reform, Reid stayed even closer to the Baucus blueprint. The Finance bill laid out a series of measures to change the way providers are paid for delivering care to Medicare recipients; the hope was that once Medicare instituted these reforms, private insurers would also adopt many of them. "The goal here is that the things we do in Medicare will translate over into the private sector, and there is quite a bit of historical precedence for that," said one Democratic aide involved in drafting the package.

The Baucus delivery reform ideas revolved around two central aims. One was to reward Medicare providers who deliver care more efficiently and penalize those that don't. The Reid bill upholds the major proposals Baucus offered to advance that goal. For instance, hospitals under current law must report on their performance in treating patients for common conditions like heart problems and pneumonia; under the bill, their Medicare payments, for the first time, would be affected by their ranking on those reports. Hospitals would also be penalized if they readmit too many patients after surgery or allow too many to acquire infections while in the hospital itself. Another provision would begin the process of applying such "value-based purchasing" toward other providers like hospice providers and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

With physicians, the Reid plan takes a step back from the Finance Committee bill but still a long step beyond current law. The Finance Bill proposed automatic reimbursement reductions for doctors who order up the most care for Medicare recipients with similar medical and demographic characteristics. That was meant to respond to the research showing big disparities in spending on medical services for similarly-situated patients in different communities. But, Democratic sources say, that proposal ran into charges that it would promote rationing-and even function as "a death panel by proxy"-by compelling doctors to arbitrarily reduce care. So the final bill takes a less direct route toward a similar end. It requires Medicare to begin studying the utilization patterns of doctors participating in the program. And then it establishes a "values based payment modifier" that would, in a budget-neutral manner, increase reimbursements for physicians found to deliver high-quality care at lower cost, and reduce them for physicians at the other end of that spectrum. "It will, we believe, have the same net effect [as the original proposal]," said the Democratic aide. "It should change behavior around that threshold."

The other set of Baucus proposals were intended to promote more coordination among providers. These have survived almost verbatim into the final bill. The bill encourages groups of providers to establish doctor-led "accountable care organizations" to more comprehensively manage patients' care by allowing them to share in any savings for Medicare they produce. It also establishes a voluntary national pilot of "bundled" payments that would encourage hospitals, doctors and other providers to work more closely together. Another pilot program would test coordinated home-based care for chronically ill seniors.

Finally, the Reid bill maintains the two powerful institutions the Finance legislation proposed to promote these reforms and develop new ones. The one that's attracted the most attention is an independent "Medicare Advisory Board." Under the Senate bill, that board would be required to offer cost-saving proposals when Medicare spending rises too fast; Congress could not reject its proposals without substituting equivalent savings. Since the board would be prohibited from offering changes that raise taxes or "ration care," and since the legislation initially exempts hospitals from its recommendations, it could choose to promote the sort of payment reforms the bill establishes. (More prosaically it might also clear away some of the expensive coverage mandates that Congress imposes on Medicare under pressure from different elements of the medical industry). Given the limitations imposed on the commission, an equally important means to expand these reforms might be a second institution the legislation creates: a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation in the Health and Human Services Department. Though this center has received much less attention than the Medicare Commission, it could have a comparable effect. It would receive $1 billion annually to test payment reforms; in a little known provision, the bill authorizes the HHS Secretary to implement nationwide, without any congressional action, any reform that department actuaries certify will reduce long-term spending. While the House bill omitted the Medicare Commission (a top priority for Obama) it included the innovation center. 

No one can say for certain that these initiatives will improve efficiency enough to slow the growth in health care spending. Some are only pilots; others would affect only a small portion of providers' revenue from Medicare. CBO typically evaluates them skeptically: it generally scores little or no savings from most of them. Former CBO director Robert Reischauer, who signed the November 17 letter, says that's not surprising. "CBO is there to score savings for which we have a high degree of confidence that they will materialize," says Reischauer, now president of the Urban Institute. "There are many promising approaches [in these reform ideas] but you...can't deposit them in the bank." In the long run, Reischauer says, it's likely "that maybe half of them, or a third of them, will prove to be successful. But that would be very important."

While generally supportive of Reid's approach, McClellan, the former Medicare administrator under Bush, offered several specific ideas for strengthening it. He says the Senate should improve the capacity of HHS to more quickly evaluate whether the payment reforms are working, and also to provide data and technical assistance to new physician groups like the accountable care organizations that will be attempting to better coordinate care. "Ideally you'd both be able to tell the organizations involved and Congress what is working or not, and give the organizations the feedback and data they need to know whether they are doing a good job," he says. McClellan also believes that the plan needs sharper sticks-tougher penalties on providers who don't provide efficient and effective care. "There are a lot of carrots and not so many sticks," he maintains. Of course, tougher penalties might provoke more opposition from provider groups like hospitals and physicians now tenuously supporting the legislation. 

[[McClellan stands at the forefront of centrist Republican thinking on health. Even the more ideologically conservative health care thinkers to his right generally don't oppose long-term reform ideas like bundling payments (John McCain promoted that during his presidential campaign). But they tend to view them as insufficient or tangential to the real problem. Their view highlights a fundamental difference between the parties' on health care. To save costs, Democrats mostly want to change the incentives for providers. Republicans mostly want to change the incentives for patients by shifting toward a model where insurance covers only catastrophic expenses and people pay for more routine care from tax-favored health savings accounts. In essence, the Republican view is that the best way to hold down long-term costs is to directly expose patients to more of them. Few Democrats accept that logic though and it has little influence on either chamber's legislation.

Another Republican cost-containment priority missing from the bill is meaningful medical malpractice reform. (The bill only encourages states to think about it.) Nichols, of the centrist New America Foundation, would like to see that included as well. Its omission is one reason he says he gives the plan a "b" rather than an "a"; the other is he'd like to see mechanisms to more quickly diffuse into the private insurance system reforms that show promise in Medicare. Democratic sources say a group of centrist Democrats led by Virginia Senator Mark Warner is trying to devise a package designed to do just that, perhaps by expanding the role of the independent Medicare advisory commission.

The attempt in all these ideas to nudge the medical system away from fee-for-service medicine toward an approach that ties compensation more closely to results captures how much the health care debate has shifted toward cost-control. So far, the rise in health care spending has proven almost invulnerable to every previous attempt to tame it, like the managed care revolution in the 1990s. Even if Obama signs into law a final bill embodying all these reform proposals, many skeptics wonder if they can bend, much less break, the seemingly inexorable increase in health care spending. Reischauer understands that skepticism, but isn't able to entirely suppress a kernel of optimism that this latest reform agenda may prove more effective than its predecessors. "One never knows whether we're turning the corner or if this is just playing the same old game for another inning," he says. "But I sense there's something different out there. I think the medical profession and its leaders have read the handwriting on the wall and are trying to evolve." If so, the ideas the Senate will begin voting on tonight could mark a milestone in that journey.

Pass it on. Like I've been saying, we can't get all that we want in one shot. This is a step in the right direction, and not acting now will cause another 20-year reform delay.

Charles Franklin notes there have been several articles about President Obama losing support among independents.

"But support for Obama has not plummeted among independents, and that needs to be clarified before it becomes erroneous conventional wisdom... Claims of abandonment of Obama by independents (or lib-Dems or con-Dems) are substantially exaggerated over the past three months. Significant decline from May through August, yes indeed among Inds and Reps, but that trend halted in August."

So, nah.

First Read has obtained a resoultion being e-mailed around to Republican National Committee members for comments that proposes a conservative litmus test of sorts for candidates.

If a candidate disagrees with three of the 10 items on the list, the RNC would withhold financial assistance and an endorsement from that candidate.

You guys are so freaky.

The Chicago Tribune notes "it's an old ritual put to an updated use: The traditional author's book tour transformed into a vehicle for setting up to launch a campaign for the White House. Where presidential hopefuls once traveled the country buttering up party bosses and courting county chairmen, today's would-be candidates often choose a different approach -- the national book tour."

But this isn't another article about Sarah Palin; it's about Mike Huckabee.

"'Team Huck' rolls into the bookstore like a NASCAR pit crew, red uniform shirts adorned with the corporate logos of Mike Huckabee's website, his speaker's bureau, his publisher, and 'Huck' emblazoned on their epaulets. They strip the protective wrappings off a large, heavy object -- a podium they install at all such appearances. Mike Huckabee doesn't sit at tables. He stands, as a president would, even to sign books." 

Stop it.

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds the political repercussions for Congressional Democrats of not passing a health care bill could be severe.

Democrats currently lead Republicans 46% to 38% on the generic Congressional ballot. But when asked how they would vote if no health care bill is passed, respondents split 40% to 40%. 

Ball game.

A new study finds that voters perceive a candidate to have lighter skin color when they agree with him on the issues.

From the abstract: "For evaluations of Barack Obama, the extent to which people rated lightened photographs as representative of him was positively correlated with their stated voting intentions and reported voting behavior in the 2008 Presidential election. This effect persisted when controlling for political ideology and racial attitudes." 

Creepy.

In an interview with the St. Cloud Times, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is confused about why she's the target of so many Democratic attacks.

Said Bachmann: "I grew up a Democrat in a Democrat family. My husband and I both worked on Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign. The first time I ever came to Washington was to dance at Walter Mondale's inaugural ball. It was a thrill for my husband and me, and we were both happy to work on behalf of Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter. We really believed in them when we were in college. So in some ways I don't understand why the Democratic Party would be opposed to me, because I stand for the same values that my parents stood for when we were Democrats." 

Because you're CRAZY.

A new Project Vote study shows both why Democrats are worried about next year's midterm elections and optimistic about the long term trends for their party.

This revolves around two key findings about turnout of young voters:

For the past seven election cycles, the national turnout rate in mid-term elections averaged 15 percentage points lower than the preceding presidential election with the steepest decline represented by younger voters.

Since the 2000 presidential election, young voter turnout has increased at a rate of about 30% per election.

So much missed opportunity.

* Matt Taibbi per "sayruh"'12:

The really beautiful thing about the culture war, from an entertainment standpoint, is that it is fundamentally irresolvable. There isn’t a concrete set of issues involved, where in theory both sides could give in a little and find middle ground, reach some sort of compromise.

That’s because there are no issues at all. At the end of this decade what we call “politics” has devolved into a kind of ongoing, brainless soap opera about dueling cultural resentments and the really cool thing about it, if you’re a TV news producer or a talk radio host, is that you can build the next day’s news cycle meme around pretty much anything at all, no matter how irrelevant — like who’s wearing a flag lapel pin and who isn’t, who spent $150K worth of campaign funds on clothes and who didn’t, who wore a t-shirt calling someone a cunt and who didn’t, and who put a picture of a former Vice Presidential candidate in jogging shorts on his magazine cover (and who didn’t).

It doesn’t matter what the argument is about. What’s important is that once the argument starts, the two sides will automatically coalesce around the various instant-cocoa talking points and scream at each other until they’re blue in the face, or until the next argument starts.

More...

* 60 votes to start the debate today was the easy part, the trick is ending the debate and voting.

Creationism is Astrology. Evolution is the operating model that creates real medications that heal real sick people. Yes, even when you tart up your relious beliefs to seem fact based. This is the difference between Science, and sciency. The theory of evolution is accepted by the National Academies of Science and every National Academy in the world. It's not pertinant that .5% scienctists believe in a magical ompnipotent space overlord controls reality and now .56% of scientists are in the rationalizing and projecting their beliefs into their "research" to sell books to the choir that like Sci Fi business. Peer review works. Not many theories have been better peer reviewed then evolution and the obfiscation of how science works with misleading red herrings like the demand for the appearance of a single fossil is like Orly Tate's theories on The President's birth certificate, a grossly misleading frivilous lawsuit.

If you've ever taken a flu shot, you believe in evoltuion you just haven't convinced your ego. If you've been to the Doctor you're placing your hands into someone who has been trained with evolution as the underpining of their knowledge. Why not go see a Shaman when you get your next virus?

Evolution is not an attack on religion, you can't prove something doesn't exist, and evolution doesn't try and has nothing to do with theology, but theology should be augmented and kept up to date, relavent to jive with all modern knowledge.

Those trying to reform Health Insurance in good faith need to remind Bart Stupak that he controls around ten or twelve votes and not forty to sixty like his imagination tells him. The deal was this: Bart gets his up or down vote on Stupak -Pitts, after that the deal has been completed. Stupak-Pitts:

NARAL Pro-Choice America criticized the amendment, stating it could mean that people whose health insurance currently covers abortions will lose that service. Those who voted against the amendment argued that since premiums of private individuals would pay for the abortions, they are distinguished from situations covered by the Hyde Amendment.

The Republican National Commitee:

The RNC's health insurance plan "covers elective abortion -- a procedure the party's own platform calls 'a fundamental assault on innocent human life,'" reports Politico.

FEC records "show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC's policy covers elective abortion."

A little hypocritical. I'm beginning to wonder if the GOP sharps really care about abortion or is it more of a political carrot on a stick which they never intend to resolve. The last fifteen years in the House and eight years in the Executive makes me wonder.

The voice of the poor, working, single woman in this country has been severely mitigated due to dismissal of their interests as "feminist" with the under current fear that the real majority in this nation, Women, will vote like a majority. Why are we asking the base of our party, women, to choose between health reform and equal access under the law to safe legal abortions in the first tri-mester, or at least let them get what the RNC has? I guess it doesn't effect the men so who cares, right? Men negotiating away the rights of women who are the real majority? Women need to become the majority of Likely Voters not just the largest by-standers in the history of democracy who had all the power, but never uesed it to protect their interests. It's an auto-apartheid.

This is a health bill, not an abortion bill. We need to stop negotianting away our beliefs to no benefit. The GOP gave Democrats how much credit for passage of Stupak-Pitts? How about the Evangelicals? It pleased nobody, and pissed off the people we're trying to protect.

Draft language for the 2008 Democratic Party platform on abortion:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Except when Bart Stupak decides otherwise. I think the tracks are laid, and we will soon see how we plan to pass our major domestic policy proposal while maintaining an iota of respect for the women who sent the Democrats and Obama into office.

Abortions are an unintended reality of life and we found out the hard way that prohibition of this as a legal surgical proceedure in the first trimester causes poor women to get maimed in back alley's and attend black market abortions that kill women. Wealthy women just fly to the next state, or the next country, or offshore to a boat like in Ireland. I hope that most pregnant women who can't support their pregnancy talk to their doctor and whomever they trust to determine for themselves what is right and wrong. We need to stop stigmitizing the law as insured by of Roe v. Wade. Science doesn't believe that a soul enters the body, if you believe it does, then do what you believe, but this nation doesn't operate when other people try to force beliefs on people of a theological nature. It just drives the behaviour you dislike underground, where the unintended consequences are made worse and the confluence of influences exasberates the orbiting problems.

I prefer that we create a society that deals in honesty with facts, where there are less unintended pregnancies and more pre-natal, and post-natal care for Mother's, that what this bill will unsure that for millions of women by providing access to insurance for the working poor, most of whom are working, single, mothers. Better schools, more oppurtunities for higher education, better self-esteem this liberates girls and women from denail of choices, and always lifts every society. Develop and support our women and they will develop and support our nation exponentially.

Political Wire: Obama's best speech ever. It was one of those speeches that makes you especially proud to be an American.

Marc Ambinder: "I guarantee: they'll be teaching this one in rhetoric classes. It was that good. My gloss won't do it justice. Yes, I'm having a Chris Matthews-chill-running-up-my-leg moment, but sometimes, the man, the moment and the words come together and meet the challenge. Obama had to lead a nation's grieving; he had to try and address the thorny issues of Islam and terrorism; to be firm; to express the spirit of America, using familiar, comforting tropes in a way that didn't sound trite."

Chuck Todd: "That's going to be a speech that's remembered and quoted from for quite some time; struck a balance of commander and consoler; not easy."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Text of President Obama's Remarks at Ft. Hood November 10, 2009

We come together filled with sorrow for the thirteen Americans that we have lost; with gratitude for the lives that they led; and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on.

This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.

For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that has been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers. You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.

But here is what you must also know: your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life's work is our security, and the freedom that we too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that is their legacy.

Neither this country - nor the values that we were founded upon - could exist without men and women like these thirteen Americans. And that is why we must pay tribute to their stories.

Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill had served in the National Guard and worked as a physician's assistant for decades. A husband and father of three, he was so committed to his patients that on the day he died, he was back at work just weeks after having a heart attack.

Major Libardo Eduardo Caraveo spoke little English when he came to America as a teenager. But he put himself through college, earned a PhD, and was helping combat units cope with the stress of deployment. He is survived by his wife, sons and step-daughters.

Staff Sergeant Justin DeCrow joined the Army right after high school, married his high school sweetheart, and had served as a light wheeled mechanic and Satellite Communications Operator. He was known as an optimist, a mentor, and a loving husband and father.

After retiring from the Army as a Major, John Gaffaney cared for society's most vulnerable during two decades as a psychiatric nurse. He spent three years trying to return to active duty in this time of war, and he was preparing to deploy to Iraq as a Captain. He leaves behind a wife and son.

Specialist Frederick Greene was a Tennessean who wanted to join the Army for a long time, and did so in 2008 with the support of his family. As a combat engineer he was a natural leader, and he is survived by his wife and two daughters.

Specialist Jason Hunt was also recently married, with three children to care for. He joined the Army after high school. He did a tour in Iraq, and it was there that he re-enlisted for six more years on his 21st birthday so that he could continue to serve.

Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger was an athlete in high school, joined the Army shortly after 9/11, and had since returned home to speak to students about her experience. When her mother told her she couldn't take on Osama bin Laden by herself, Amy replied: "Watch me."

Private First Class Aaron Nemelka was an Eagle Scout who just recently signed up to do one of the most dangerous jobs in the service - diffuse bombs - so that he could help save lives. He was proudly carrying on a tradition of military service that runs deep within his family.

Private First Class Michael Pearson loved his family and loved his music, and his goal was to be a music teacher. He excelled at playing the guitar, and could create songs on the spot and show others how to play. He joined the military a year ago, and was preparing for his first deployment.

Captain Russell Seager worked as a nurse for the VA, helping veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress. He had great respect for the military, and signed up to serve so that he could help soldiers cope with the stress of combat and return to civilian life. He leaves behind a wife and son.

Private Francheska Velez, the daughter of a father from Colombia and a Puerto Rican mother, had recently served in Korea and in Iraq, and was pursuing a career in the Army. When she was killed, she was pregnant with her first child, and was excited about becoming a mother.

Lieutenant Colonel Juanita Warman was the daughter and granddaughter of Army veterans. She was a single mother who put herself through college and graduate school, and served as a nurse practitioner while raising her two daughters. She also left behind a loving husband.

Private First Class Kham Xiong came to America from Thailand as a small child. He was a husband and father who followed his brother into the military because his family had a strong history of service. He was preparing for his first deployment to Afghanistan.

These men and women came from all parts of the country. Some had long careers in the military. Some had signed up to serve in the shadow of 9/11. Some had known intense combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some cared for those did. Their lives speak to the strength, the dignity and the decency of those who serve, and that is how they will be remembered.

That same spirit is embodied in the community here at Fort Hood, and in the many wounded who are still recovering. In those terrible minutes during the attack, soldiers made makeshift tourniquets out of their clothes. They braved gunfire to reach the wounded, and ferried them to safety in the backs of cars and a pick-up truck.

One young soldier, Amber Bahr, was so intent on helping others that she did not realize for some time that she, herself, had been shot in the back. Two police officers - Mark Todd and Kim Munley - saved countless lives by risking their own. One medic - Francisco de la Serna - treated both Officer Munley and the gunman who shot her.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call - the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm's way.

We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.

We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God.

We are a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That is who we are as a people.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day. It is a chance to pause, and to pay tribute - for students to learn of the struggles that preceded them; for families to honor the service of parents and grandparents; for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.

For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us - every single American - must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in a time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places. They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and stations - all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.

In today's wars, there is not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops' success - no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be claimed. But the measure of their impact is no less great - in a world of threats that no know borders, it will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that is extended abroad. And it will serve as testimony to the character of those who serve, and the example that you set for America and for the world.

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.

Long after they are laid to rest - when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today's servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown - it will be said of this generation that they believed under the most trying of tests; that they persevered not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; and that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.

So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those we lost. And may God bless the United States of America.

I don't know of any way to help more Americans in a meaningful way all at once, then passing Health Reform this year. It will be one of the best things, smartest things, good things we the people could ever accomplish.





With all of these undecideds, (23% GOP, 33% Independents, 37% Dems!!), whom many are persuadable it's in the Administration's interests to have The President, the First Lady, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, (yes because the base cares about him for good reason, as chairman of the party he helped engineer our current legislative majorities), all and and every "celebrity" in the party whom the people trust speaking at targeted groups that respect their opinions, it's time to put up or shut up. The party will sink or swim based on their capacity to deliver on their promises, and we literal must reform the health insurance system or this country will go even more broke then it already is. Obama and all the Democrats, are all in this together, like it or not, so they better bring it home. That means communicating how these reforms will improve people's lives by providing health security and alleviation from the worry of not being able to get insurance and/or pay your bills.

With 27% of the country under employed or unemployed, most unable to pay COBRA, they are one accident or other health emergency away from the poor house. If the Democrats can't deliver on this fifty-four year promise then they might as well pack up and go home, because I and millions of others will find a new party. This isn't about being a fan of Democrats or Republicans like a fucking sporting event, winning elections, it's about delivering for the people who invested their trust and vote to us before they went back to work, 30 million of whom back to work with no health insurance if a drunk driver runs a red light and puts them in the hospital. Cancer doesn't care if you work hard and play by the rules. Nobody should needlessly suffer in 2009 in the United States. It's archaic, pathetic, immoral, corrupt, selfish, destabilizing, unnecessary, bad for the national security, sociopathic, and it needs to end this month. If we hold our equality as an obvious, inalienable truth, how can your pursue life, liberty, and happiness without health insurance? How can you pursue your dreams if there is no safety net to catch you win some drunk asshole runs a red light or you get a lump on breast? When we can prevent treatable conditions from compounding into a situations where a diabetic who has to have their limbs removed because they haven't seen a doctor in thirty years.

This bill incentivizes people to go into nursing or all the other careers in health care with grants and loan forgiveness, because with the baby boomers retiring we require more of all forms of health care workers. A national health system that's digital, with the best minds sharing information in the abstract to better treat people at the clinical level. We need to free up the Emergency rooms for emergencies and treat chronic illness at the doctor's office. Nobody should lose all their savings, their property, their pride, and go bankrupt because they became ill for no fault of their own. People who aren't sick need the security in the knowledge that if the worst does happen, that their insurance won't be pulled out from under them, or have to fight on the phone with Private Insurance Bureaucrats while they are dying. Our national health care system is as vital as our national highway system, or the military. The amount of lost time due to illness and injury costs US Businesses billions of dollars each year, a point the Chamber of Commerce should admit. When this bill becomes law, 95% of Small Business will be exempt, but if they can afford to offer health care, they now will be able to.

This post-conference bill won't please everyone, it could never possible accomplish that feat with all of the tuning to meet the demands of the members of Congress to make a majority. This is the classic impediment to progress, the fear of the unintended consequence and of change, but we are prescient of this and know that if this bill passes and fails to alleviate the problems of the American people we will have no one to blame but ourselves, and that's the way it should be. This fact should make the Conference Committee very aware of the need to make this bill quickly help as many people as possible as soon as possible.

Don't let Joe Lieberman or any other Senator on the for profit healthcare payroll take this away from you. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. This is as important as the Civl Rights Laws, Medicare, The Interstate Highway Commission, standing up to Big Tobacco or any other law/policy that the people have passed that has advanced this society and made this a better place. This is the most important bill that will ever come before Congress in your lifetime. This is about security for you and your family, the liberty to pursue your dreams more freely, this is about the justice of allowing 30 million Americans who work all day every day with no health insurance the reassurance that America is just, doesn't just care about rich people, and working people not only count, they make this society possible and should be honored. When society prevents 30 million working people from having health insurance they're telling them that they are worth less. It's time to redress the balance and besides this bill will improve the lives of the wealthiest American and the poorest American by turning down the stress level in society in ways we can't even see yet. These reforms must be the beginning and as we learn what works and what doesn't work we will continue to improve the law.

The Health Insurance Problem is a man made problem, and any man made problem has a man made solution. The impediments to progress always claim that unintended consequences outweigh the need to change, but when the problem worsens, and the tension builds, you can no longer contain the natural progression of society. You cannot control the river of progression as it's tied to demographic changes in America that for one allow a Constitutional Law Professor named Barack Hussein Obama to win North Carolina, Indiana, Oho, Virginia, and become President. You couldn't contain slavery forever. You couldn't contain Women's Suffrage forever, You couldn't contain segregation forever. You cannot contain injustice forever, we grown naturally out of malignant policy. The only variable is the rate of change. How fast do we go. That's up to the people, if the people want it, they always get it. But you have to demand it. Otherwise we are going to be in for a bad surprise, if you though W was bad imagine Huckabee or Palin taking charge of the agenda. Failing to deliver on these reforms will lead the American people to believe that we are to vain to work together, that the needs of the politicians to retain their positions is greater then their interests, and they won't vote at the rate we need them to vote to win even an election for Dog Catcher. You will such the hope right out of half the Democratic Electorate.

So Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Max Baucus, understand that if this bill fails, the Democrats fail, and you will fail. We're all in this together. If you do the right thing. You will be heroes forever.

The time for bullshitting and pussyfooting is over. Do the right thing for someone other then the wealthiest 5% for once in fifty years.

Real Unemployment is also considering those who ran out of unemployment insurance and workers who are underemployed below 40 hours/fulltime status, that number is around 27%. If the private sector is unable to employ the fruits of 100% America's GDP output aka near full employment, then the public needs to borrow from FDRs CCC, Tennessee Valley Authority, and other projects that defray the unintended consequences of idle hands and lack of income on society. Crime, not meeting education goals, and direct harm to Children. Because Mom and/or Dad is out of work. Lack of stability destroys families, and stability is dependable income which allows for planning and allows for the function of the family to continue undisturbed.

After the failure of Prohibition nobody is allowed to discuss the role of alcohol in obliterating people and families in America, especially when they are made vulnerable by medical, educational, or economic emergencies, but then I just did.

The Obama Administration and Congress needs to introduce another round of economic stimulation, because the first round stabilized the economy but the patient needs more inducement to remain stable and hopefully get up and walk around on it's own. The prevalence of middle men which didn't occur at the same rate in FDRs day makes it harder to be stimulative when the people bequeath money with no strings attached to giant corporations and then those entities either steal it or subcontract, and subcontract, and subcontract, and subcontract, and subcontract, until the money that was supposed to improve people's lives has been picked apart to the point where it loses it's power to change lives. If you don't believe me google "Katrina Contract Crimes", or "Military Industrial Complex." The root of the problem is campaign finance reform that de-leverages lobbyist's capacity to steal from the people via theft, kickbacks and "the old boy network(s)."

Time is of the essence.

As we progress here through the Congressional Calender we have a dearth of procedural motions that are left for the end of each year, then you're into campaign season. The Senate needs to complete Health Insurance Reform this Month. So as the first stimulation begins to flow next quarter and into subsequent quarters it can be followed with a continued flow of economic stimulation that produces jobs, jobs, and jobs.

Write Joe Lieberman, type written, print it out, buy a stamp, and Tell Joe that you want your Senator's to have the opportunity to vote up or down on Health Insurance Reform and you oppose his threat to filibuster a bill that includes a public option.


Joe Lieberman: (202) 224-4041
One Constitution Plaza
7th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
(860) 549-8463,Voice (800) 225-5605 In CT

DC: 706 Hart Office Building Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4041,Voice (202) 224-9750,Fax

It's now up to public sentiment and willpower to get these historic reform passed. An end to pre-existing conditions, an end to recession, an end to sneaky insurance company tricks, higher quality, and lower prices.

Historic Health Insurance Reform Bill Passes House, off to the Senate.

Pelosi has the votes to pass The Health Insurance Reform Bill. The vote will be tonight after the votes on the GOP version and the Stupak Amendment.

AlterNet:

House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which seeks to block even private insurance plans from funding abortion care.

In other words, this amendment, if passed and included in a final health reform bill, would block you from getting insurance to cover legal procedures in the United States of America, with premiums paid with your personal funds. Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Women's Law Center and other groups are calling for immediate action against the amendment, and you can click here to find your representative and tell them to vote no on Stupak.

The amendment, named for Representatives Bart Stupak, D-Mich, and Joe Pitts, R-Penn. Stupak is a so-called "Democrat for Life;" Pitts has been a dogged supporter of failed abstinence-only policies, domestically and internationally, and was among those who succeeded in adding language forbidding the provision of contraceptive supplies for HIV-positive women in US global AIDS funding.

Top Targets
Baird (WA-03): (202) 225-3536
Barrow (GA-12) (202) 225-2823
Berry (AR-01) (202) 225-4076
Cardoza (CA-18): (202) 225-6131
Castle: (DE-AL): 202.225.4165
Cuellar (TX-28) (202)-225-1640
Matheson (UT-02) (202) 225-3011
Michaud (ME-02): 202-225-6306
Perriello (VA-05): (202) 225-4711
Pomeroy (ND-AL) (202) 225-2611
Snyder (AR-02) (202) 225-2506
Tanner (TN-08) (202) 225-4714
Visclosky (IN-01) (202) 225-2461
Wilson (OH-06) (202) 225-5705


That vote happens tonight. Call Your Member and tell them to vote "No" on Stupak-Pitts. It's outrageous and likely Unconstitutional.

From PBS, The American Experience, a great documentary on the multidemenisonal benefits of the Civilian Conservation Corps. The CCC restored the soil and reclaimed America's agriculture, put people to work in honorable and quality conditions, and led to environmental consciousness. Watch here. The CCC started the Ski and outdoor leisure industry, created fire roads, and put out forest fires. The release of pressure on the working class provided by the CCC at a time when jobs were not available prevented political revolution in the United States. We need more ideas like the CCC to address our current unemployment problem along with creating a sustainable green technology industry that creates local jobs based on local energy, that can't be exported, also ending our dependence on foreign and/or dirty sources of energy with unintended environmental consequences like tar pits that leak into drinking water supplies. We have people who need jobs, we have a demand for clean, renewable domestic sources of energy, now we need the political will provided by the people last November, expressed by our policy makers in legislation that strengthens the engine of our economy, the working class family who is the producer and consumer that makes this economy go. If these Americans don't have the money from their labor result in enough to live, save, invest, buy homes, receive education, and plan for the future, with each subsequent generation benefiting from the payments of the previous, then the quality of life that Americans have become accustomed to will disappear.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
David Plouffe
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

HOUSE WHIP COUNT - HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM

As of this hour the House is around ten votes short of the 218 they need to pass the House Version of Medical Inusrance Reform that will expand coverage, lower prices, ends pre-existing conditions, and redactions. Up to 40 Democrats can pass on voting on this and we still could pass the bill. In the meantime, contact these Democratic Members of the House and let them know that you support this bill continuing in its development,

Rep. Travis Childers (Miss.); Rep. John Adler (N.J.); Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho); Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.Dak.); Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.); Rep. Frank Kratovil (Md.); Rep. Larry Kissell (N.C.); Rep. Bart Gordon (Tenn.); Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.); Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah); Rep. Michael McMahon (N.Y.); Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.); Rep. Brian Baird (Wash.); Rep. Harry Teague (N.M.); and Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.)

Use this handy gadget to contact these and other members of Congress, or it might be another seventeen years before we have a window to reform access, quality, and cost of Health Care.

Calls: (202) 224-3121 | TTY: (202) 225-1904

UPDATE: via The Hill:

Below is a list of selected Democrats and their positions on the House healthcare reform bill based on media accounts, press releases and spokesmen for the lawmakers.

UPDATED 11/6/09 2:29 p.m.

YES OR LEANING YES
Howard Berman (Calif.)
Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
G.K. Butterfield (N.C.)
Steve Cohen (Tenn.) Called the measure "America's bill"
Gerry Connolly (Va.) Had expressed concern about tax provisions in initial bill
Henry Cuellar (Texas) Got tort provisions added, though still wary of costs
Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.)
Sam Farr (Calif.)
Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.) Leaning yes, would like to see more on tort reform
Debbie Halvorson (Ill.)
Alcee Hastings (Fla.)

Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) Yes
Steve Kagen (Wis.)
Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) Leaning yes
Dale Kildee (Mich.)
Ron Kind (Wis.) Voted no in Ways and Means Committee
Brad Miller (N.C.)
Dennis Moore (Kan.) Was target of death threat last summer over healthcare reform
Jim Langevin (R.I.) Opponent of abortion rights
Jared Polis (Colo.) Voted no in Education and Labor Committee
Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) Voted no in Ways and Means Committee
Nick Rahall (W. Va.)
John Salazar (Colo.)
Linda Sanchez (Calif.)

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) Yes
Mark Schauer (Mich.) NRCC quickly pounced on Schauer's support of bill
Dina Titus (Nev.) Voted no in Education and Labor Committee
Paul Tonko (N.Y.) Leaning yes
Tim Walz (Minn.) "I think we're getting there."
Diane Watson (Calif.) Praised bill in speech on the floor
Peter Welch (Vt.)

NO OR LEANING NO
John Adler (N.J.) A firm no, saying bill doesn't do enough to control health costs.
John Boccieri (Ohio) Leaning no, citing cost-containment concerns
Dan Boren (Okla.) A firm no
Travis Childers (Miss.) "We need to get this legislation right, not just get it fast"
Jim Costa (Calif.)
Artur Davis (Ala.) Gubernatorial candidate says, "We risk a disaster if we get this wrong."
Lincoln Davis (Tenn.) Wants changes to abortion-related provisions
Parker Griffith (Ala.) “I cannot support this bill.”
Bart Gordon (Tenn.) Science panel chairman is a no, citing public option and bill's "financial impact on the state of Tennessee."
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.) "It does not include sufficient cost-containment and deficit reduction measures."
Larry Kissell (N.C.) "From the day I announced my candidacy for this office, I promised to protect Medicare."
Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.)"As the bill stands right now, I am not going to be able to support it," Kosmas told the Orlando Sentinel.
Frank Kratovil (D-Md.) No
Jim Marshall (Ga.) A firm no
Mike McMahon (NY) New York Daily News reported Friday evening he is planning to vote "no."
Charlie Melancon (D-La.) No
Walt Minnick (Idaho) Has bucked leadership on big-ticket bills
Collin Peterson (Minn.) Ag chairman has sharply criticized bill
Ike Skelton (Mo.) Ag chairman cites public option, concerns about rural providers
Bart Stupak (Mich.) Wants changes to abortion-related provisions
John Tanner (Tenn.) "I am unable to support this legislation in its present form."
Gene Taylor (Miss.) Made it clear to constituents this summer he is a “no.”
Harry Teague (N.M.) Skeptic of public option

UNDECIDED/REVIEWING BILL
Jason Altmire (Pa.) Acknowledged White House pressure Friday to CongressDaily
Brian Baird (Wash.) Changed from "leaning no."
Melissa Bean (Ill.)
Marion Berry (Ark.) Wants more aggressive action against HMOs, drug makers
Rick Boucher (Va.) Wary of public option; voted no in Energy and Commerce Committee
Dennis Cardoza (Calif.)
Yvette Clarke (N.Y.)
Chet Edwards (Texas) A perennial GOP target; rejected climate bill
Keith Ellison (Minn.)
Bob Etheridge (N.C.) May run for Senate
Bill Foster (Ill.) “Encouraged” House is moving forward; voted no on climate bill
Bart Gordon (Tenn.) Republicans targeting Science panel chairman
Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) Wants vote on “robust” public option
Baron Hill (Ind.)
Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) He said he "will have trouble voting for anything other than robust public option."
Daniel Lipinski (Ill.) Opposes abortion rights
Betsy Markey (Colo.) Has concerns with cost of the bill
Eric Massa (N.Y.) Fan of single-payer approach
Jim Matheson (Utah) Prefers Senate Finance measure; voted no in committee
Harry Mitchell (Ariz.)
Jim Oberstar (Minn.)
Solomon Ortiz (Texas) Voted no on climate change bill
Ciro Rodriguez (Texas) Voted no on climate measure
Loretta Sanchez (Calif.) Has gone from "yes" to undecided
Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Zack Space (Ohio) Voted yes on Energy and Commerce Committee
Betty Sutton (Ohio)


Mike Soraghan, Bob Cusack, Mary Ann Dreas and Dan Randlett contributed to this list.

Feedback, tips can be sent to bcusack@thehill.com

Click to Update here.

UPDATE 2: Whip Count From Firedoglake:

I’m counting 189 firm yes votes and 44 undecideds. Democrats would need to get 29 on those 44 undecideds to pass the bill. Here’s the names of those undecideds:

Jason Altmire (D-PA) – office says he’s “reviewing the bill closely”; told Bloomberg that the leadership “doesn’t appear to have the votes”
John Barrow (D-GA) – undecided
Melissa Bean (D-IL) – office says she’s “reviewing the entire bill”
Marion Berry (D-AR) – told Fox News he’s undecided
John Boccieri (D-OH) – undecided
Rick Boucher (D-VA) – office says “still in the process of deciding”
Allen Boyd (D-FL) – office says undecided
Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) – The Hill describes him as “lean no”
Chris Carney (D-PA) – undecided
Ben Chandler (D-KY) – leaning no
Jim Cooper (D-TN) – office says undecided
Jim Costa (D-CA) – undecided
Jerry Costello (D-IL) – undecided
Steve Driehaus (D-OH) – hinging on abortion language
Chet Edwards (D-TX) – undecided
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) – hinging on his abortion language
Bill Foster (D-IL) – office says undecided
Baron Hill (D-IN) – weighing the bill
Jim Himes (D-CT) – lean yes UPDATE: Himes just announced that he’s voting for the bill.
Tim Holden (D-PA) – office says undecided
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) – office says undecided
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) – reviewing the bill
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) – might vote no because of lack of his single-payer amendment: UPDATE based on what he just emailed through the Progressive Democrats of America list, may be a yes vote after all
Dan Lipinski (D-IL) – office says undecided
Dan Maffei (D-NY) – undecided
Betsey Markey (D-CO) – office says undecided
Mike McIntyre (D-NC) – office says undecided
Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) – studying the bill UPDATE: From the comments, he’s committed to voting for the bill.
Allan Mollohan (D-WV) – supports if abortion language clarified
Glenn Nye (D-VA) – still needs to be convinced
James Oberstar (D-MN) – office says undecided UPDATE: Locals expect him to be a yes vote in the end.
Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) – undecided
Tom Perriello (D-VA) – told Morning Joe today he was “closer to yes”
Gary Peters (D-MI) – reviewing the bill
Nick Rahall (D-WV) – supports if abortion language clarified
Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) – undecided
Mike Ross (D-AR) – office says undecided
Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) – this blog post seems to suggest she supports the bill
Adam Schiff (D-CA) – no information
Kurt Schrader (D-OR) – office says undecided
Heath Shuler (D-NC) – GOP Congressman says he’s a no, but could be trash-talking
Adam Smith (D-WA) – undecided
Zack Space (D-OH) – undecided
Betty Sutton (D-OH) – no information

That’s the landscape right now. And I understand why we’re starting to hear about possible slippage on the vote. Because it’s going to be a very heavy lift.

UPDATE: Mike Arcuri (D-NY), Scott Murphy (D-NY) and Joe Donnelly (D-IN) are now in the lean yes/undecided camp. But also, Brian Baird, who announced his opposition today, may be in play.

Given all the updates, I think the count is:
23 definite nos
2 lean nos (McMahon and Baird)
45 undecided/lean yes
188 definite yes

188+45= 235, we need 218, so 15 to play with, still contact the member on this list especially the "no's" and "undecided's", take no vote for granted.

UPDATE

AlterNet:

House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which seeks to block even private insurance plans from funding abortion care.

In other words, this amendment, if passed and included in a final health reform bill, would block you from getting insurance to cover legal procedures in the United States of America, with premiums paid with your personal funds. Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Women's Law Center and other groups are calling for immediate action against the amendment, and you can click here to find your representative and tell them to vote no on Stupak.

The amendment, named for Representatives Bart Stupak, D-Mich, and Joe Pitts, R-Penn. Stupak is a so-called "Democrat for Life;" Pitts has been a dogged supporter of failed abstinence-only policies, domestically and internationally, and was among those who succeeded in adding language forbidding the provision of contraceptive supplies for HIV-positive women in US global AIDS funding.

Call Your Member and tell them to vote "No" on Stupak-Pitts. It's outrageous and likely Unconstitutional.

LBJ Ordering Pants, LBJ style.

Via Political Wire.

Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Scalia Conversation On The Constitution: Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation recorded on Monday, Oct. 26th, 2009 at the Leo Rich Theatre, Tucson Convention Center.

Scalia and the other Originalists know the democratic process as designed in our institutions is slow and difficult, so they serve as sort of goalkeepers against progress just in case the people happen to get a shot off, this may not be their intention, but that's always been the effect, and it's no coincidence that these judges find a way to align their policy option selections congruent with their rulings. The Scalia side has little rationale when confronted with the Breyer view and I think Scalia knows it. Highly entertaining.

From Political Wire, Frank Luntz's GOP guide to undermining Health Care Reform.

If Frank want's to publish his propaganda playbook, by all means. It's important to point out that public policy polling supports a robust public option and if Democratic so called "centerists" listen to this made to order sciency briefing they are following the same pied piper that got us into the Iraq War, Budget Defecits, and all the W and GOP policy failures emanated from the pen of either Frank Luntz, Karl Rove, Dick Morris, or Bill Kristol or all of them simultaneously. These are the guys that sunk the GOP in to a 25% approval rating.

The people want a pro-consumer Health Bill, stay the course in the Legislative Process and next week Obama needs to blow-up these bullshit talking points and asset his commitment to the pro-consumer, cost-cutting, health improving biggest public option implemented along with all of those other reforms as close to 2010 as possible. Remember Blue Dogs this is the same guy that told Bush to pursue the privatization of Medicare, he's ineffective and has been leading people off of cliffs for over ten years now. The Democratic Party and Obama's fortunes are tied together and we rise and fall as one. Don't let the GOP and Joe Lieberman exploit any of the rifts in our strongly melded caucuses. Teeing up a Health Reform Bill that is badly needed and desired not only to cover the uninsured and improve medical outcomes but to reign in the deficit and not swinging or not swinging hard enough and/or not getting the most bang for the consumers buck is the biggest political mistake you could ever make in your career.

There is a tiny window for success or failure and history will remember those who stepped up to the challenge and delivered for working families instead of MegaCorporations for once, and the voters will know that, remember those who fought for them and reward that commitment to the people. Those on the wrong side of history will stay in their 25% popularity hole. This is what's known as a "no-brainer". It cuts the deficit, it stops redactions and pre-existing conditions, the people will love it so long as they are not funneled into more corporate controlled bins without the choice of a public plan. If the Democrats fail the people, they will lose the Congress, if they are strong and don't mind the lawyers for the staus quo they will rightly retain their position.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
For Fox Sake!
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Please Hammer, don't hurt them. Afterall, FOX's ineffective Circus makes everything un-FOX more appealing. Then, again, go ahead and describe them and quantify them name them and shame them.