By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger

In search of the elusive, filibuster-proof 60th vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid eviscerated the Senate's health care reform bill on Tuesday. Potential GOP swing voter Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) confirmed that Reid promised to kill both the public option and the expanded Medicare buy-in, according to Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo.

Snowe didn't pledge to support the bill, of course. She didn't even promise to cooperate on the procedural votes required to pass the bill before Christmas, a deadline that the Obama administration has its heart set on. In other words, Reid gave away the progressive crown jewels of health reform on spec to a senator who cheerfully turned around and continued the Republican stalling strategy. From Snowe's vantage point, that's a great move. The longer the bill hangs in limbo, the more Reid will give away.

Former Democrat Joe Lieberman (I-CT) seems determined to kill the bill. Lieberman must be motivated more by a desire to spite liberals than any principled policy stance. He keeps threatening to filibuster policy proposals he once campaigned on, like the Medicare buy-in. Lee Fang of TAPPED notes that Lieberman told the New York Times that he now opposes the buy-in because it's beloved of lefty single-payer types like Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY); and the policy wonk behind the public option, Prof. Jacob Hacker.

The Women's Media Center has launched the #UnderTheBus campaign, which calls on supporters to contact their representatives and urge them not to let Lieberman and his close, anti-choice ally Ben Nelson (D-NE) sell out women's health care for political gain. Nelson has hinted he won't vote for the bill unless it contains strong abortion funding restrictions.

Stephanie Mencimer reports in Mother Jones that a bunch of teabaggers decided to stage a sit-in to oppose the health bill at Lieberman's office. Mark Meckler and some Tea Party Patriots showed up at Lieberman's office and asked to meet with the senator. When they were told he wasn't available, they all sat down. When they tried that routine at Sen. Barbara Boxer's office (D-CA), her staff ignored them. Lieberman's staff called the cops. (Note to teabaggers: Sit-ins are for enemies, not allies.)

The senate bill is so watered down that it wouldn't even stop insurance companies from capping benefits, as Roger Bybee reports at Working In These Times.

Former congressional candidate Darcy Burner says she'd rather see the bill die than have it pass in its current state. She argues that if health care reform doesn't curb costs, it's just a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. She writes in AlterNet:

The fundamental failing of the newest Senate proposal is that it requires individuals to purchase health insurance, but does nothing to rein in what insurance companies charge. There is nothing to stop spiraling health costs from eating up an ever-increasing percentage of our national productivity.

The House bill has two major cost-control mechanisms: the public option and the 85 percent medical-loss ratio requirement. The Senate bill is on track to have neither, and nothing new to replace them. The Senate bill is a recipe for national disaster. If it's that bill or nothing, I prefer nothing.

Adding insult to injury, the Senate also voted down a bill yesterday that would have made it easier for consumers to purchase cheaper prescription drugs abroad. Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent suggests that the White House was relieved to see the Dorgan-Snowe bill defeated because it would have violated the deal it struck with pharmaceutical companies earlier this year. The drug companies promised up to $80 billion for health care reform if Democratic leaders withheld support for several initiatives that would cut into drug company profits.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

There's more...

The White House agreement with the pharmaceutical industry, which is reflected in the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill, is one of the most shameful episodes of the health care reform process. Presidential candidate Barack Obama had promised to "put an end to the game-playing" in Washington, citing in one television ad the deal the pharmaceutical industry wrote into the Medicare prescription drug legislation. Yet in order to bring big Pharma on board with health care reform, the White House "stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion."

Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota says no deal, according to Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post:

A Senate Democratic leader is hoping to blow up the deal reached between the White House, drug makers and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), by introducing an amendment on the floor to allow prescription drugs to be re-imported from Canada.

It's one of the simplest ways to reduce health care costs but was ruled out by the agreement, which limits Big Pharma's contribution to health care reform to $80 billion over ten years.

North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan, a member of Democratic leadership, isn't a party to that bargain. "Senator Dorgan intends to offer an amendment to the health reform bill and his expectation is that it will be one of the first amendments considered," his spokesman Justin Kitsch told HuffPost in an e-mail. "Prescription drug importation is an immediate way to put downward pressure on health care costs. It has bipartisan support, and has been endorsed by groups such as the National Federation of Independent Businesses and AARP." [...]

Jim Manley, senior communications adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said that he sees no reason the amendment won't get a floor vote.

If an amendment on reimporting drugs from Canada gets to the Senate floor, it is hard to see how it fails to pass. Grim notes that a separate bill to allow re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada "has 30 cosponsors, several Republicans among them." I hope the White House doesn't start twisting arms to keep that amendment off the Senate floor.

Giving the government the ability to negotiate prescription drug prices would bring costs down even more. Obama should support that reform, since he says he won't let the health care bill add a dime to the deficit. But apparently, not taking that step was part of the White House deal with drug companies.

Speaking of backroom deals, Alexander Bolton reports for The Hill, citing "senior Democratic aides," that Reid will "not include legislation repealing antitrust exemptions for the health insurance industry in the healthcare package he will bring to the Senate floor."

So far the powerful insurance industry has held back waging a full-out battle against Democratic health reform proposals because companies stand to gain tens of millions of new customers. But adding language that would open health insurance companies to prosecution by the Justice Department would provoke a strong counterattack from the industry.

Hey, why take something valuable away from the insurance industry (the ability to fix prices) just because we're about to hand them a "bonanza" (individual mandate to buy their products)? They might run ads against us.

It is time to replace Reid as Senate majority leader. Since Senate Democrats are unlikely to take that step, I agree with Chris Bowers that Reid losing re-election next year wouldn't be such a bad thing. Getting a more effective majority leader, like Dick Durbin of Illinois or Chuck Schumer of New York, would make up for losing Reid's Senate seat.

There's more...

Hookerlover David Vitter is having a pretty rough week.  And the week didn't even feature the sleaziness of soliciting prostitutes and cheating on his wife and children or the cowardice of turning constituents away from a town hall event in favor of stacking the audience with Teabaggers.

First, Vitter came off like a Senator Strangelove in declaring that he wanted to import prescription drugs from Canada specifically to destroy Canada's health care system.  Got that?  Yeah, me neither.

Second, Vitter came off like a mindless partisan zombie by attacking Democratic Congressman Charlie Melancon for taking the exact same position on legislation as Vitter did:

Vitter compared his stance on health care to that of his likely future opponent, U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville.

Melancon voted against certain amendments in the health-care bill that Vitter plans to support, such as a provision requiring all members of Congress to enroll in the proposed government-run program, Vitter said.

But Melancon then voted against the entire package, something Vitter said he would be likely to do with a senate version.

Vitter "took swipes" at Congressman Melancon for not supporting amendments to legislation that both Vitter and Melancon are planning on voting against anyway.  Vitter must work awfully hard to make this little sense.

Third, the Louisiana Democratic Party has filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee against Vitter for using public funds for events that were more political than official in nature, which would violate Senate standards.  By using public funds for events at which Vitter politically attacked a likely political opponent (Congressman Melancon):

Senator Vitter has likely violated 31 U.S.C. § § 1301(a) and has engaged in activity that reflects poorly upon the United States Senate.

Said Louisiana Democratic Party Spokesman Kevin Franck:

Once again David Vitter has given into the temptation to cross an ethical and legal boundary.

Hookerlover David Vitter does seem to have a recurring problem resisting temptations that cross ethical and legal boundaries, doesn't he?

For daily news and analysis on the U.S. Senate races around the country, regularly read Senate Guru.

There's more...

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire blogger

Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) have set a timetable for healthcare reform by this fall--a major step on the road to passing legislation this year. The Senators' plan, set out in a letter to President Obama, calls for a bill by June, committee markups over the summer, and a final vote in the fall. (Just in time for delayed-action budget reconciliation, should the Republicans prove recalcitrant.)  

There's more...

Cross-posted at Blue Jersey

Chris Smith voted to double the cost of prescription drug co-pays for military families. In 2006, the Bush administration doubled the cost of prescription co-pays for military families under Tri-Care health coverage. Democrats introduced legislation restoring the original co-pays of $3 for generic drugs and $9 for brand name drugs, but Chris Smith and other Republicans voted to block the legislation. [HR 5122, vote #139, 5/11/06; Leadership document, "Democrats Are Fighting for Military Families," 5/11/06]

According to research, many military families face difficult financial challenges. Over 20% of military families report having received WIC aid or food stamps from the government. While a few dollars saved might not mean much to Chris Smith, who has voted to raise his own salary by $32,600 since 1999, every dollar helps our military families afford basic necessities.[Washington Post/Kaiser Foundation Military Families Survey March 2004 CRS: Salaries of Members of Congress Updated January 8, 2008; 1999 Vote #300; 2000 Vote #419; 2001 House Vote #267; 2002 House Vote #322; 2003 House Vote #463; 2004 House Vote #451; 2005 House Vote #327; 2006 vote #261; 2007 Vote #580]

There's more...