The title of a recently released Yahoo! article is "Pelosi STILL DEALING as vote nears". What does this mean specifically?

The first few sentences set the tone: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has conjured up plenty of old ghosts since launching the health care fight back in July, invoking the foundation for this year's push - like FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT and HARRY S TRUMAN". OK, so there's some scary language here ("conjured up plenty of old ghosts"). So, Madame Speaker is looking way back for inspiration (FDR & Harry Truman in the '40s and '50s).

"Pelosi owes her place on the cusp of a HISTORIC health care vote Saturday to far more anonymous contemporaries, like New Jersey Rep. Robert Andrews, and California Rep. Xavier Becerra, whom Pelosi sent out to get the votes". OK, so the comma is significant because Becerra was "sent out to get the votes" instead of Andrews, even though Andrews has been on Capitol Hill longer than Becerra (Andrews came to Capitol Hill in 1990 while Becerra arrived in 1993). Why? WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE, but perhaps this is because Becerra is from California just like Pelosi? That's a minor point, however. A far more important point is the fact that the House Speaker "is on the cusp of a HISTORIC health care vote...", but she is only "on the cusp", reinforcing the fact that she's not there yet. So, for this to work, Andrews and Becerra MUST deliver (i.e. get enough votes to ensure passage of this health care proposal).

"Freshman Reps. Jared Polis of Colorado and Gerry Connelly of Virginia, for instance, organized their fellow freshmen to ask the speaker to raise the income threshold for the so called "millionaire's tax": to ensure (that) SMALL BUSINESSES WON'T BE BURDENED WITH THE COST OF REFORM". Polis and Connelly are evidently/apparently "Blue Dog" or conservative Democrats. We've said this time and time again: there will be SUBSIDIES.

"The fate of the bill itself rests on the shoulders of a new generation of Democrats whose YOUNG CAREERS WILL BE DEFINED, in part by the votes they cast Saturday - VOTES SURE TO BE USED AGAINST MANY OF THEM IN 2010", a critical litmus test for the Obama administration.So will these representatives do the right thing (i.e. do what's necessary to pass necessary health care amendments) or will they play politics? We can be sure that some will play politics,because they like being in an influential position on Capitol Hill, which they surely don't want to give up after just 1 term.

Just as important are the following Congressional officials who came to power "on Obama's coattails", including: John Boccieri (Ohio), Kathleen Dahlkemper (Virginia) and Thomas Perriello (Virginia). Some people are saying that this shouldn't be a problem because these people followed Obama into power. However, the political world is full of suprises and therefore, NOTHING can be taken for granted. ANYONE can withdraw their support AT ANY TIME either without any reason at all or with inexplicable/unjustifiable reasons/explanations.

Pelosi started off: "We have to make sure this works IN YOUR DISTRICT" or state and for some, this unfortunately means VOTING AGAINST health care reform.

According to Polis, "Our ask was something she COULD do. Ultimately, they decided to move the bill IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION". "could do" and "in the right direction" have positive connotations. This is good.

According to Andrews, "EVERY MEMBER was given REAL INPUT into the bill. This is PRETTY rare". VERY "rare" actually. "Normally, the chairman writes the bill and the whip goes out and gets the votes". Well, this bill isn't just "normal". It is monumental and historic.

However, here are SOME problems:

• "Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus fought back against Senate language that would block illegal immigrants from participating in the insurance exchange", led by New York Rep. Nydia Velasquez. Negative Language: "fought back". We have to stop 'fighting' real soon.
• "And a small group of anti-abortion Democrats, led by Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth, continued haggling over the final language to ensure (that) federal funds can't be used to pay for abortions under programs created by the bill". Negative Language: "continued haggling over". Abortions will always be a critical/sensitive/'hot button' issue.
• "Negotiators are working closely with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to finalize language the church can accept". OK, this is the religious part of it. "Vulnerable anti-abortion Democrats don't want to support any bill that the bishops haven't signed off on". The focus in the latter statement is obviously on "vulnerable...DEMOCRATS" which is OBVIOUSLY political yet again.
• "A collection of Democrats SPENT MONTHS haggling over Medicare's controversial reimbursement rates" and they are very "controversial".
• "The House Education and Labor Committee based a key component - banning insurance companies from discriminating against the sick and most expensive to ensure - on a bill introduced by Connecticut Rep. Joe Courtney" which, again, is necessary, because people with chronic diseases/medical conditions can't be sitting around for 6 months waiting for policies to kick in.
• "Dahlkemper and North Carolina Rep. Larry Kissel persuaded the speaker to add billions to expand coverage for YOUNG PEOPLE", which, again, is necessary, but what age can be considered "young"?
• "New Mexico Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, another freshman, PUSHED FOR the addition of money to AMERICAN INDIAN health care programs". OK, many people may consider this "pork-barrel spending", but Rep. Lujan has a point (Indians, were, after all, the first "Native" Americans before the British and everyone else arrived).

Even more encouraging was the fact that both AARP and the American Medical Association (AMA) endorsed this legislation. As a result, President Obama delivered the following message to Congress from the White House briefing room: "We are now closer to passing this reform (bill) THAN EVER BEFORE and now that the doctors and medical professionals of America are standing with us, now that the organizations charged with looking out for the interests of seniors are standing with us, WE ARE EVEN CLOSER". SOUNDS promising.

The final serious point from Yahoo! is "When Pelosi did try to pound her caucus in place, the votes weren't there, FORCING her to retreat on a public plan in which doctors and hospitals would be paid 5 percent higher than Medicare, EVEN THOUGH SHE LOST $80 BILLION IN SAVINGS".Such is the nature of politics.

For a little humor after all that tense debate on the House side of Capitol Hill, North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy and Connecticut Rep. John Larson joked that it seemed like a "Kumbaya" moment.

Finally, Pomeroy said: "WHEN NEGOTIATED RATES WERE IN THERE I FELT DUTY-BOUND TO SUPPORT THIS BILL", but obviously, those "negotiated rates" HAD TO BE "in there" for this to occur.

And we've just received a briefing that the House has passed the health care overhaul proposal WITH A PUBLIC OPTION, but JUST BARELY (220-215). THAT was close, TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT, in fact. Now the House has done its part in the fight for universal health care. Now, once again, all eyes will be on the Senate to do the same thing, although it is likely to be JUST AS CLOSE TO 60 VOTES (the minimum required for passage without a GOP filibuster) as the House vote was for the purpose of clear, uninhibited passage.

In an article entitled "Landmark health bill passes House on close vote", the first two significant sentences are: "The bill drew the support of 219 Democrats (this is expected) and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term REPUBLICAN (boy, has this been rare, THROUGHOUT the Obama presidency thus far, not just on health care reform) who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat. Opposed were 176 Republicans (no surprise; so much for bi-partisan support) and 39 DEMOCRATS (this is a much bigger concern, reinforcing the fact that Obama and the Democrat's can't even guarantee the support of MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN PARTY). PERHAPS this is unnecessary politics, but it's troubling nonetheless. Cao did not comment directl

Now that we've covered the lawmaker who is supporting the health care reform package, but isn't talking, let's now go back to the people who are talking. According to Michigan Democratic Rep. John Dingell, who is 83 years old and has introduced health care reform legislation EVER SINCE THE PASSING OF HIS FATHER, the late John Dingell Sr. in 1955, "It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans", which isn't perfect, OK, but it's pretty darn close. Once this bill kicks in, the insurance situation will be a hell of a lot better than the situation now with MILLIONS uninsured. "It offers EVERYONE, REGARDLESS OF HEALTH OR INCOME, THE PEACE OF MIND that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care WHEN THEY NEED IT" and for some people, that time is NOW. Considering how long this person has fought for health care reform (Dingell was in the House of Representatives even before TED KENNEDY got to the Senate and most of us associate Kennedy with being the champion advocate for health care reform), we should do our best to get (i.e. pass) it for him. Another key phrase is "...everyone, REGARDLESS OF HEALTH OR INCOME" alongside "the peace of mind". This is critically important for people with CHRONIC or PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS. Also, "peace of mind" is important because NO REASONABLE AND RATIONAL PERSON wants to obsess over what MIGHT or MAY happen to them.

In response, here's Michigan Republican Rep. Candice Miller: "WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A COMPLETE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM faster than you can say 'This is making me sick'". This is the same old story. The GOP is sounding like a broken record on this issue now. We almost must note that Rep. Miller is from Michigan and we all know how the economy is over there: IT IS IN SHAMBLES which means that Rep. Miller is playing politics.

Responding to what went on in the House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: "WE REALIZE THE STRONG WILL for reform that exists and WE ARE ENERGIZED that WE STAND CLOSER THAN EVER (before) to reforming our BROKEN health insurance health insurance system" and that "health insurance system" IS INDEED "broken" and has been FOR A LONG TIME.

So there is "unprecented momentum" for health care reform...in the House. Now, if only the same or a similar proclamation could be IN THE SENATE...