The NRCC has released a clever video:

I don't agree with the part of the video which claims that after the House passes the Senate language it has to go back to the Senate. The bill will go straight to the President and become law if the House passes the (amended) Senate language.

The text of the sidecar bill which will be used (Democrats say) for reconciliation purposes is now online at the House Rules Committee website. It's around 150 pages.

It makes no mention, for instance, of solving the abortion problems that continue to keep about twelve Democrats from supporting the bill.

However, Now that the Democrats have also defeated an attempt by Republicans to make them simply vote on the bill as opposed to this "deem and pass" process, the stage is state for the final vote.

There is no confidence at this point, however, that whatever the House does will be preserved by the Senate, should it eventually take the bill up:

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Thursday that it is unlikely the Senate will be able to pass a health care reconciliation bill unchanged from what the House passes.

Conrad said the Senate Parliamentarian has declined to make rulings on several issues in the bill that Republicans are likely to challenge under the “Byrd rule.” That rule states that, among other things, every provision of a budget reconciliation bill must have a budget impact and cannot be “extraneous.” (Roll Call)

Nonetheless, if the House does anything, even "deeming" the Senate bill passed, it can be taken to President Obama's desk and signed into law. Fait accompli.

Remember, American Principles in Action has an item related to health care.

A surprising Democrat has come out against the health care bill. Here is his statement explaining his reasons:

Congressman Lynch does not support the Senate version of healthcare reform because it has stripped most of the serious reform from the House version of the bill and rewards insurance companies instead.

If there were a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill as it is currently written, Congressman Lynch would vote no. Furthermore, Mr. Lynch opposes using any procedural maneuvering to approve the bill without requiring members to actually vote on it, such as the so-called ‘deem and pass’ option.   He would prefer a straight-forward up or down vote on a bill of this magnitude.

That last paragraph strikes me as very principled reasons for opposing the chosen path for passing this bill, which of course runs against his party's leadership.

Especially as the Democrat leadership has indeed chosen "deem and pass" as the way to finalize their health care push:

In a 222-203 vote, Democrats beat back a GOP resolution offered by Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Parker Griffith (Ala.) that would have forced lawmakers to vote on the Senate healthcare bill separately from the series of fixes they hope to make to that legislation. All Republican lawmakers who voted opposed the measure, which had the effect of ending the GOP's effort to force a vote. They were joined by 28 Democrats, who broke with party members on the vote.

FireDogLake claims the current Whip Count is...

192 Yes, 208 No (205-210 with leaners)

... but we're working on our own whip count which we hope to post this afternoon.

John McCormack, online editor at the Weekly Standard, follows-up on my speculation about who Pelosi invited to the meeting of Democrat congresswomen this morning, and what they talked about:

There's been chatter on Capitol Hill today that Pelosi excluded pro-life women from a meeting this morning, and a staffer for pro-life Democrat Marcy Kaptur tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD's Daniel Halper that Kaptur did not attend this morning's meeting, though the staffer didn't specify why Kaptur didn't attend.

... A lot has been made about erstwhile pro-lifer Jim Oberstar abandoning Stupak, but Pelosi's maneuvering seems to be the bigger news. She doesn't appear to have the votes to pass the bill unless pro-life or pro-choice Democrats cave in.

Oberstar is a dissapointing but not surprising switch (neither is Dale Kildee, for that matter). But let's remember - Pelosi is still a few votes away from Magic 216, so the battle is far from lost.

I wonder how many pro-life Democrat congresswomen there are in the House - anyone know off-hand?

I'm surprised more reporters and wonks haven't picked this up, but this just tells you again how blind they are to the abortion holdout in health care.

I'm told that Stupak met with Pelosi yesterday, but didn't cave to her demands.

Today, Roll Call reports Pelosi called an emergency meeting of women-only members-only Democrats. The only purpose of this meeting would be to see what sort of abortion compromise they would be willing to accept, which could only come down to one of Stupak's proposals. Two things are very clear then: Pelosi does not have enough votes without the Stupak coalition of pro-life Democrats, and the only way she can get enough of them to switch their votes is if the pro-abortion women Democrats give in.

This is the only path I can see for Pelosi and co. to reach Magic 216.

[cross-posted to NRO's health care blog "Critical Condition."]

update - The Weekly Standard has followed-up on my story and I discuss it here.

Michael New sets the record straight on the latest attempt to twist a vote for this health care legislation into being a "pro-life" vote:

In an editorial that ran in the Washington Post on Friday, author and journalist T. R. Reid argued that universal health care will lower the abortion rate in the United States. Using data from the United Nations, his argument relies on the fact that several European countries with universal health care also have lower abortion rates than the United States does.

However, Reid’s analysis is superficial and unconvincing.

... simply comparing the U.S. abortion rate to abortion rates in countries with universal health care is misleading. The United States has a far more racially diverse population than many of these European countries, and statistics show that a number of minority groups have higher-than-average abortion rates.

... More importantly, there exist many reasons current health-care reform proposals would actually increase abortion rates. For instance, the legislation which passed the Senate and which Democrats are trying to push though the House includes public funding for abortion. This should concern pro-lifers for several reasons. First there is plenty of evidence that government subsidies for abortion increase abortion rates. Second, if abortion becomes a federally mandated benefit, that could jeopardize a number of state-level pro-life laws — including parental-involvement and informed-consent laws. Finally, one reason why the abortion rate in the United States has fallen is the substantial decline in the number of abortion providers. A steady flow of federal funds to abortion providers could stem or even reverse this trend. (National Review)

APP Communications Director Thomas Peters is published over at the Daily Caller today, on the lessons to be learned on both sides from Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts: 

Did the pro-life movement ... sell their souls to help Brown win, and fight for the better outcome?

The most common charge against the pro-life movement these days, especially when that movement is involved in politics and elections, is that it is actually a front of the Republican Party (never mind the fact that the pro-choice movement lumps the vast majority of its money and resources behind the Democratic party candidates). This pro-Republicanism is how liberals explain the pro-life movement’s support of both John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, and their incongruous support of Scott Brown (a pro-choicer) in the 2010 Massachusetts senate race: they’re both Republicans.

But the common thread between these two decisions is far more disarmingly simple: Brown and McCain, while not perfect from the perspective of the pro-life movement, were better pro-life choices than their respective alternatives. [Read the rest.]

I'm not sure if this is a situation of "better late than never":

Reporting from Washington - President Obama, after sustaining months of criticism for not being clear about what he wanted in healthcare legislation, will post specific proposals for a comprehensive plan on the Internet by Monday, according to the White House.

The posting would come three days before a televised meeting that Obama plans to convene with congressional Democratic and Republican leaders in hopes of restarting his stalled bid to overhaul the nation's healthcare system.

"There will be one proposal. It is the president's," Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said Thursday while unveiling a report highlighting large premium increases by insurance companies nationwide, including California-based Anthem Blue Cross.

"I think the idea is that it will take some of the best of the ideas [from the House and Senate bills] and put them into a framework moving forward," Sebelius said. (LA Times)

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the democratic leadership supports the expression of free speech only when these public voices agree with their own viewpoint.

And it is almost as if they are surprised that there could be genuine grassroots opposition to their proposed reform of health care.

Two posts full of videos and comments help make such a case:

• "Why Is Barack Obama Attacking Community Organizers?" at The Cloakroom 
• "This is what mob rule looks like" at Michelle Malkin

August will go something like this, he says:

Expect to see it portrayed by the Left as a good, old-fashioned populist street fight — the little guy vs. big special interests; David vs. Goliath.

Specifically, the president and his allies in Congress will jettison all these large interest groups they sought to co-opt through back-room negotiations and turn elsewhere for support. They’ll join hands with an entirely different collection of interest groups: think MoveOn.org, Families USA, the unions, the liberal blogosphere, and the Democratic National Committee, and you get the picture. Collectively they will don the robes and carry the slingshot of the young David and sanctimoniously seek to slay Goliath — i.e., those special-interest defenders of the status quo.

You can see the dramatic possibilities. However, this strategy poses a host of problems for the president. [Read on.]

This is an astonishing move.

On the official White House blog, Macon Phillips writes:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

As Erick Erickson points out, this request is not only disturbing, it may be explicitly illegal.

Sen John Cornyn accused the White House of compiling an "enemies list."

Meanwhile, Ben Smith at Politico points out:

This is exactly what [the Obama team] did with the Muslim smear and other rumors (including the birth certificate) last year — created a website and e-mail address, its own Snopes, to highlight and then disprove that which was damaging its candidate.

I think Smith misses a critical point, however - the Obama team is no longer running a campaign, they are running the American government. And such active and aggressive means to control messaging and hamper debate simply have no place in any president's administration, democrat or republican.

An incredible charge from DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse who claimed Tuesday that 

mobs are being transported to rallies by "well- funded, highly organized groups run by Republican operatives and funded by the special interests who are desperately trying to stop the agenda for change the president was elected to bring to Washington. " (CNN)

The closet proof I have seen about these claims are scattered instances of center-right organizations which provide information about where town hall meetings are scheduled to take place.

Obviously one should not encourage violent protest which breaks-down the order of a free debate, especially when the free debate will actually provide a more substantial challenge to the reforms currently being proposed.

But to claim that these many, many public outbreaks of anger about the current political landscape are orchestrated by nameless, faceless special interest groups ... well, where is the proof? And if there is not proof, how is this not instead an attempt to curtail free speech rights?

The second in a series of videos by LetFreedomRing, on the follies of government-run Health Care:

The first video is here. The third (and final) video should be out next week.

Matt Drudge picks up this AP story which refutes claims made by abortion advocates that the health care bills in Congress are abortion-neutral:

Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

... The new federal funds would take the form of subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying coverage through the health insurance exchange. Subsidies would be available for people to buy the public plan or private coverage. Making things more complicated, the federal subsidies would be mixed in with contributions from individuals and employers. Eventually, most Americans could end up getting their coverage through the exchange.

... In the Senate, the plan passed by the health committee is still largely silent on the abortion issue. Staff aides confirmed that the public plan—and private insurance offered in the exchange—would be allowed to cover abortion, without funding restrictions.

Under both the House and Senate approaches, the decision to offer abortion coverage in the public plan would be made by the health and human services secretary.

Is there any doubt, given her record on the issue, that Kathleen Sebelius wouldn't allow abortion coverage in the public plan?

And as backstory, Steven Ertelt points out that the previous coverage of the abortion-in-health-care debate published by the AP was woefully misleading, and as a result, several organizations had demanded a retraction. Such pressure perhaps resulted in the commissioning of this more-complete analysis of the situation.

And not surprisingly, she is progressively pleasing none of them:

House liberals are offended that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) mocked their threats to oppose a Democratic healthcare bill, saying leaders are underestimating their frustration over a deal cut with centrist Blue Dogs. In a session with reporters before leaving for the August recess, Pelosi said, “Are you asking me are progressives going to vote against universal, quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans? No way.” Her directness elicited laughter in the room.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, on Monday expressed outrage at the comments and said her group is being “laughed at.”

Woolsey is the author of a letter signed by 60 fellow House liberals vowing to vote against a deal cut with the Blue Dogs. Liberals feel the bill weakens the “public option,” the group’s signature issue in the healthcare debate.

“It didn’t take us very seriously,” Woolsey said. “She may be overlooking the strength behind the 60, and there are more who are absolutely committed to a robust public option.” (The Hill)

The health care debate on the democrat side is becoming a voyage between Scylla and Charybdis - between the Scylla of a "robust" public option which will undermine private competition (creating a huge national debt burden) and the Charybdis of a more economically-feasible plan which still creates an explosion of government beuracracy in the already-overburdened health care industry.

Oregon has a government-run state health care plan. And this has led, not surprisingly, to rationing of care for the elderly, as this very personal local news segment reveals:

I thought the spokesperson for the government-run health care program came off very poorly. And note how it was the private pharmeceudical company that did the right thing in the end.

Peggy Noonan recently wrote about the virtue of individuals in the medicine industry, and whether they would be able to continue performing acts of kindness under government supervision:

Let me throw forward three other things that I suspect lessen , or will lessen, support for full health-care reform, two of them not quantifiable.

The first has to do with the doctors throughout the country who give patients a break, who quietly underbill someone they know is in trouble, or don’t charge for their services. Also the emergency rooms that provide excellent service for the uninsured in medical crisis. People don’t talk about this much because they’re afraid if they do they’ll lose it, that some government genius will come along and make it illegal for a doctor not to charge or a hospital to fudge around, with mercy, in its billing. People are afraid of losing the parts of the system that sometimes work—the unquantifiable parts, the human parts.

Sadly, the "human parts" of health care seem to have been edged-out of the Oregon government-run health care system.

update: Hot Air also posts on this story, which apparently is from 2008. No matter though: government-run health care programs have had problems with rationing benefits for some time.

It's going to be a long August recess....

Local report from the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Something like this, Krauthammer says:

In the end, Obama will have to settle for something very modest. And indeed it will be health-insurance reform.

To win back the vast constituency that has insurance, is happy with it, and is mightily resisting the fatal lures of Obamacare, the president will in the end simply impose heavy regulations on the insurance companies that will make what you already have secure, portable, and imperishable: no policy cancellations, no pre-existing condition requirements, perhaps even a cap on out-of-pocket expenses.

Nirvana. But wouldn’t this bankrupt the insurance companies? Of course it would. There will be only one way to make this work: Impose an individual mandate. Force the 18 million Americans between 18 and 34 who (often quite rationally) forgo health insurance to buy it. This will create a huge new pool of customers who rarely get sick but will be paying premiums every month. And those premiums will subsidize nirvana health insurance for older folks. Net result? Another huge transfer of wealth from the young to the old, the now-routine specialty of the baby boomers; an end to the dream of imposing European-style health care on the U.S.; and a president who before Christmas will wave his pen, proclaim victory, and watch as the newest conventional wisdom reaffirms his divinity.

An incredible series of events took place yesterday which resulted in abortion coverage being mandated in both the public option for government health insurance and (to less of a degree) for coverage of abortion in private insurance.

This amendment will now have to be voted on by the entire House after the August recess.

Jeff Emanuel has the details at Red State: 

Yesterday afternoon, House Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) proposed an amendment to the House health care overhaul bill to allow for federal funding of elective abortion coverage for those enrolled in the “public option,” to mandate that every regional Health Insurance Exchange contain at least one private insurance plan that offers abortion coverage, and to permit taxpayer subsidies of those private insurance plans and others that cover elective abortion.

The Capps amendment passed 30-28, with E&C Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Capps, and 28 other Democrats voting in favor of mandating (and allowing taxpayer funding to be used to subsidize) abortion coverage.

Taxpayer dollars do not currently pay for, or subsidize, insurance plans that cover elective abortion services. This amendment, if the health overhaul bill to which it is attached is passed and signed into law, would alter that policy, using the tax dollars of every American - pro-life or pro-choice - to subsidize abortion coverage (and, by extension, abortion services).

A counter-amendment introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) was defeated only after Rep. Waxman decided he wanted to bring the counter-amendment back for "reconsideration" and a re-vote.

Bottom-line: now the health care plan not only allows for abortion coverage - it mandates them.

Via Hot Air, disappointing behavior from the speaker of the house:

A day after formally delaying a vote on a healthcare bill and having to accept a further weakening of a public option to compete with private insurers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) lashed out at the health insurance industry and urged her members to do the same during the August recess.

“They are the villains in this,” Pelosi said of private insurers. “They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening. And the public has to know that. They can disguise their arguments any way they want, but the fact is that they don’t want the competition.”…

.... “It’s almost immoral what they are doing,” added Pelosi, who stood outside her office long after her press conference ended to continue speaking to reporters, even as aides tried in vain to usher her inside. “Of course they’ve been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure with pre-existing conditions, you know, the litany of it all.”

Speaker Pelosi is trying to shift the debate way from the problems inherent in the health care reform bill towards the problems in the private health care and insurance markets. But there is little disagreement about there being problems in the current system - there is great disagreement, however, about how to best fix these problems.

Oddly-enough, democrat leadership does not seem willing to include tort reform in their proposals for the American health care system, even as frivelous lawsuits are a huge source of waste, driving up the premiums and costs which Speaker Pelosi is so concerned about.

As a summary reminder, alleged injustices by insurance providers does not justify a new injustice of a flawed public option. If Americans aren't being well served today, they certainly do not deserve to be more exploited tomorrow.