Sen. Joe Lieberman, (I-CT) is adamant on wanting to water down the health care reform bill, to the point that the overall effect of it will represent nothing more than a cosmetic change over the status quo.

As the senator from Connecticut, a state with some of the largest insurance companies headquartered within its borders (and consequently within its tax and voter base), Lieberman is playing fast and loose with the health of all Americans for the benefit of a small number of citizens of its state (and for the benefit of his own reelection efforts, to be sure).

To summarize, Sen. Lieberman is "dead set" against the idea of the public option (in essence, government run and funded health care), as well as the Medicare buy-in provisions of the bill, which would have allowed Americans as young as 55 to buy into the Medicare program, already the largest medical plan in the country.

Obviously, both of these provisions of the overall bill would go a long way towards covering the nearly 50 million Americans who are currently uninsured. Make no mistake: conservatives in Congress have been against any such provisions in the bill from the get-go, and they will fight tooth-and-nail to keep them out of the final framework.

Now, the leadership in the Congress will need to find a Republican vote to bring the total of "YES" votes to 60, the filibuster-proof majority that will be needed to pass the HCR bill with any meanigful reform included.

Odds are that Harry Reid will try to lean on Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, a moderate Republican, to help pass the bill.

And the dirty business of democracy goes on.

President Obama spoke earlier today on the progress that's been made in Congress on the health care reform bill.

Lots of bipartisan work, apparently. Who would have thunk it?

Today, the health care reform bill as it is currently being considered in the Senate, passed two major tests on its way through a long and tumultuous approval process.

The first, arguably smaller hurdle, was the inclusion of provisions in the bill, which, if approved in the final draft, will force insurers to pay for certain services for women with no out-of-pocket costs (i.e. free for you); services include things like mammograms and other screening procedures, as well as some reproductive health services. (But not abortion - we're not touching the third rail today).

Sidebar
It's nice that for once a government body made up of mostly old men has decided to do something for women. Let's forget that Viagra is already covered under most typical insurance plans, and just move on.

The money. It's always about the money.

The second, much bigger and meaningful hurdle, was the stripping of US$460 billion from the Medicare program over ten years, to help pay for the reforms proposed in the bill. Sort of a shifting of money from one account to another, both of which are used to pay for essentially the same things.

There are a couple of reasons why this a big step: first off, this provision of the bill faces much lobbying opposition, specifically in the form of the They're not taking away MY guaranteed federal benefit money! lobby, which, as you can imagine, is strong on Capitol Hill.

Second, due in part to the to the strenuous lobbying, many Democratic senators had expressed "grave concerns" about the removal of funds from Medicare. It has all the hallmarks of the "health care reform will kill your grandma" meme from a few months ago, and many senators wanted absolutely no part of it.

Let's examine the reality.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), (who is fast becoming my favorite prince of darkness in the post Lott-Delay era), said even as late as today: "Medicare is already in trouble. The program needs to be fixed, not raided to create another new government program".

Uhm, yes, Medicare is in trouble, but, and this is a HUGE but, it is in trouble mostly because the health care system as a whole is in trouble; fixing the latter will go a long way towards fixing the former. If we do nothing about the system now, Medicare is hopeless anyway.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the US$460bln will not come out of any existing benefits funds.

I'll let Senators Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley explain:

Sen. Max Baucus, D-MT, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA

"I’d like to once and for all lay to rest this false claim that the pending bill is going to ‘hurt seniors’ and it is going to hurt providers and it’s going to be this long parade of horribles that the other side likes to mention. It is totally, patently untrue, the claims that they are making.”

And in a separate interview on Thursday he added:

"Our bill does nothing to reduce guaranteed Medicare benefits."

Got that?

Earlier, while speaking to reporters from his home state of Iowa, Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican, said that he doesn't think seniors will die sooner because of Medicare cuts in the Senate healthcare bill, rebutting a fellow Republican senator's claim.

To summarize, the plan to scare grandma into being against this particular provision of the larger bill was based on a falsehood, happily propagated by those who stand in the way of reform.

In the end, only two Democrats broke ranks, and this part of the bill passed 58-42 (yes, 42 United States Senators do not want you to have access to affordable health care; it's true).

This is significant, because it shows that when the chips are down, Democrats, like Republicans (always, it seems) can present a unified front in the face special interest opposition, and (at least for today) will not waver in their commitment to the grander project (getting the health care system fixed and saving us all from certain doom).

Today was a good day for our democracy. Now, if we could only do something about that Lieberman guy