It appears the National Organization for Women (NOW), NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Planned Parenthood will all be going into over-drive to stop Democrats from dismantling choice in a way Republicans have only dreamed.

Just wondering... are there any anti-choice organizations that support this bill?

The president right now, and I have said I think this is intended by Rahm, seems to be in a bubble. Does he not register the discontent that is growing right now? Right now, it is not against him (its against the larger prospects of Democrats losing a lot of seats next year), but he should not assume that this will always be the case.  I just don't understand their political thinking. I am begining to agree with Tabibi that the core problem is that we asking a broken system (DC) to fix a broken system (health care).

because polls show that the majority of people don't like or want this so called reform. This includes, Dems, Indies and Repub.

Good Luck, everyone!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1 2/19/816794/-One-process-note-on-the-day s-events

So the deal's out, and word is that they've got the necessary 60 votes for cloture on the health insurance reform bill.

But if you caught this morning's story on the President's Saturday radio address, you'd have seen this forceful call for action:

   The question is whether the minority that opposes these reforms will continue to use parliamentary maneuvers to try and stop the Senate from voting on them.

   Whatever their position on health insurance reform, Senators ought to allow an up or down vote. Let's bring this long and vigorous debate to an end. Let's deliver on the promise of health insurance reforms that will make our people healthier, our economy stronger, and our future more secure.

And as this difficult year comes to a close, let's show the American people that we are equal to the task of meeting our great challenges.

An up-or-down vote. Senators ought to allow an up-or-down vote.

It's something we all hoped the President would call for, of course. But it lets some of the air out of the tires when the call comes on the day the Senate announces that they've finally found the right combination of concessions to get Democrats to agree to break a filibuster.

When people call for the Senate to allow an up-or-down vote, they're calling for opponents to get out of the way and stop filibustering, so that it doesn't require 60 votes (for cloture) just to get to a final vote on passage.

We'll be getting that up-or-down vote, all right. But not because the President's demands have broken through the logjam of Republican obstructionism.

Rather, it'll happen despite its continuance, and even then only at the cost of a laundry list of concessions made to Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.

That by itself is not to say that the bill is or isn't worth the effort. We've had and will continue to have debate on that.

But are we answering the President's call for an up-or-down vote here? No, we are not. Not in the sense in which everyone else in the world uses the term "up-or-down vote."

A straight up-or-down vote would have gotten us to a vote on a bill that didn't need to make these concessions to Lieberman. Didn't need to make these concessions to Nelson. Didn't need to be courting Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins.

So we'll get a vote. And the bill will pass. But today's call for an up-or-down vote just doesn't mean much now that there's a deal in place that obviates the need for the up-or-down vote that most people think of when they hear that phrase.

Though maybe that's just it. Do most people think of breaking the filibuster when they hear the words "up-or-down vote?" Not likely. They hear "vote."

And a vote we will have. And by the middle of next week, it'll look for all intents and purposes like it was exactly the vote the President wanted.

Make what you will of that, but it's an interesting lesson in the way the public perceptions game of politics is played. And therefore worth pointing out.

Great post, Bob.

This bill leaves the enforcement of stopping recessions up to the states.

There are big problems with that. It hasn't worked well in states that already have laws about it:
_

California regulators admitted Thursday that for more than a year they didn't even try to enforce a million-dollar fine against health insurer Anthem Blue Cross because it feared they would be outgunned in court.

In early 2007, the Department of Managed Health Care pledged to fine the state's largest insurer for "routinely rescinding health insurance policies in violation of state law." But they never did.

The department's director, Cindy Ehnes, told The Associated Press on Thursday that, when it comes to rescissions, the agency has had success in forcing smaller insurers to reinstate illegally canceled policies and pay fines, but Blue Cross is too powerful to take on.

"In each and every one of those rescissions, (Blue Cross has) the right to contest each, and that could tie us up in court forever," Ehnes said of the approximately 1,770 Blue Cross rescissions between Jan. 1, 2004, and now.

"They have the largest number of rescissions, so as a practical matter for the department it does present some practical challenges that are different from a Health Net (of California) or a PacifiCare," referring to providers who, along with Kaiser Permanente, have made settlements with the state to reinstate health care coverage.

That means that although Anthem Blue Cross has the highest number of alleged illegal rescissions, it may face the least regulatory consequence simply because of its sheer size, and aggressive legal defense.

http://cbs5.com/business/anthem.blue.cro ss.2.763636.html

Good post at showing the division.  Too bad Labor hasn't joined all the way yet in going against this, its a great coalition of progressives against the status quo. CTG movement.