From the New York Times:
The Senate is expected to vote Saturday on whether to take up the legislation. The majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, refused to say Thursday whether he had the 60 votes needed to clear that procedural hurdle.
While the guts of the Senate and House bills are similar, Mr. Reid came up with a new method of financing coverage, not found in any other major health bill. His proposal would significantly increase the Medicare payroll tax for high-income people.
The Senate and House bills would provide coverage to millions of the uninsured by expanding Medicaid and subsidizing private insurance for people with moderate incomes.
The Senate bill would spend $821 billion over 10 years on Medicaid and subsidies. The House bill would spend 25 percent more: $1.03 trillion over 10 years...
Mr. Reid and other Democratic leaders said that the unveiling of the bill, hatched in his office, had given them political momentum going into the first test vote. Despite solid Republican opposition, the Democrats said they were confident they could enact some kind of national health insurance program, a goal that has eluded politicians for more than 75 years. But Congress appears highly unlikely to meet President Obama's goal of finishing work on the bill this year.
From Politico:
He doesn’t have the votes — yet — but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and fellow Democrats projected confidence they could clear the first hurdle for health reform, a rare Saturday vote to open debate on the sweeping measure.
Reid also got one piece of good news as Republicans at least tentatively dropped their plans to force a reading of the 2,074-page bill, in exchange for a daylong debate, starting in the morning and culminating with a vote at about 8 p.m. Saturday...
Most senators said they had yet to read through the entire bill — or the summaries that their staff members were preparing. Reid’s plan would expand coverage to 94 percent of Americans through a government-run health insurance option — allowing states to opt out — and other features, all while reducing future federal deficits by $130 billion during the next 10 years, according to a Congressional Budget Office report.
“I just like the numbers,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who pledged to read “every word.” “I love the deficit reduction...
From the Editorial Page of the New York Times:
An expert panel’s recommendation that mammography screening to detect breast cancer be scaled back has caused consternation among women and doctors and prompted some attempts to connect the results to the debate over health care...
It is important to keep the findings and recommendations in perspective. They are guidance for women and doctors. The decision about whether to be screened is properly left to each woman — to determine with the help of her doctor what risks and benefits she is most comfortable accepting...
Opponents of the health care reform bills moving through Congress have seized on the new recommendations as evidence that the government is seeking to put bureaucrats between you and your doctor or that it would ration care by denying coverage for some mammograms that are now covered.
There is virtually no chance that any insurers, either public or private, will deny coverage to anyone based on these recommendations. Government and industry officials have said that explicitly and, in fact, every state but Utah requires private insurers to pay for mammograms for women starting in their 40s...
The only part of the reform bills that could affect mammography would only make them more accessible...
