The Senate voted along party lines tonight to avoid a GOP filibuster and move forward with debate on historic health care legislation. The final vote was 60-39, with Ohio Republican George Voinovich not voting. The AP reports that the “spectator galleries were full for the unusual Saturday night showdown, and applause broke out briefly when the vote was announced. In a measure of the significance of the moment, senators sat quietly in their seats, standing only when they were called upon to vote.” Full debate will begin after Thanksgiving.

Immediately after the vote, the White House put out a statement saying, “The President is gratified that the Senate has acted to begin consideration of health insurance reform legislation.” RNC Chairman Michael Steele complained that “a number of moderate Democrats sacrificed their principles to give Harry Reid a victory that brings America dangerously closer to having a government-run health care system.” Igor Volsky has been following tonight’s debate over on the Wonk Room.

Today on the Senate floor, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) railed against Medicaid, the health insurance program funded by both the federal and state governments for low-income Americans, by calling it a “medical ghetto” and blasting Democrats for proposing to expand the program:

– “We’ve heard eloquent statements about how moving 15 million low-income Americans into a program called Medicaid, which is a medical ghetto, is not health care reform.”

– “The governor of Tennessee, who is a Democratic governor, has estimated that the cost to our state of this bill — of moving 15 million Americans into this medical ghetto — is about $800 million over five years.”

– “Or arrogant in its dumping of 15 million low-income Americans into a medical ghetto called Medicaid that none of us, or any of our families, would ever want to be a part of for our health care.”

Watch it:

Conservatives frequently rail against this program, which currently covers around 60 million Americans, including people who are often rejected by private plans. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) has suggested that people are better off uninsured than insured under Medicaid.

While Alexander may think he is too good for Medicaid coverage, a 2005 Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 74 percent of Americans consider Medicaid very important and most would oppose cuts to the program. Families USA has pointed out that, despite its flaws, Medicaid is cost-effective and provides a solid foundation on which to expand coverage:

Medicaid is cost-effective compared to private health insurance. After controlling for health status (since Medicaid enrollees tend to have greater health care needs), it costs more than 20 percent less to cover low-income people in Medicaid than it does to cover them in private health insurance.

The program protects low-income Americans from uncontrollable out-of-pocket costs charged by private insurers and also “covers services not usually covered in private health insurance.” Under the Senate health bill, “most nonelderly people with income below 133 percent of the [federal poverty line] would be made eligible for Medicaid” starting in 2014. Additionally, the legislation would “increase federal Medicaid funding for states that cover recommended preventive services and immunizations at no extra cost.”

One out of every five people in Arkansas lacks health insurance coverage. However, today over 1,500 uninsured Arkansans received health care at a free clinic hosted by Communities Are Responding Everyday (CARE) at the Statehouse Convention Center in Little Rock, which was made possible in part because of calls for donations by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. A wide variety of medical services, including physicals and screenings for such conditions as high blood pressure and high cholesterol, were provided at the clinic.

The Arkansas Times spoke both to volunteers and people waiting to receive care. Several of the volunteers expressed their enthusiasm to help their fellow community members, while at the same time feeling “ashamed” to be in a country where health care is still a privilege:

MAN: Well I came to get health. I do have diabetes and I haven’t been able to get healthcare since I lost my last job. And I am a student so it’s been a little difficult to get a full time job where I can get benefits. [...] I haven’t seen a doctor probably in three or four years. [...] I thank all of the volunteers.

WOMAN: I got laid off in 2008 and since I haven’t had insurance [...]

MAN: I don’t make really enough money to pay bills and have healthcare also. This is a good opportunity for me. And I haven’t really had a check up or anything in more years than I’d like to admit. [...] I’m really thankful.

Watch it:

Earlier today, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) announced today that she would provide the 60th vote “in support of cloture on the motion to proceed” to the health care reform bill. But Lincoln also stressed that she is “opposed to a new government administered health care plan as a part of health care reform and will not vote on the health care proposal introduced by leader Reid as it is written.”

As it is currently written, the Senate health bill would reduce the number of uninsured by 31 million while also reducing the deficit by $130 billion in ten years. So while Lincoln considers voting against the bill, free clinics like the one today remain the only option for hundreds of thousands of people in her state. The next free clinic event is scheduled for December 9-10 in Kansas City, Mo.

This week, both the websites of CafePress.com and Zazzle.com decided to stop selling merchandise that featured the latest right-wing craze: the slogan “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8.” However, Cafe Press then changed its mind and told ThinkProgress that it was reinstating the merchandise, which fell within “fair political commentary.”

Whether it’s “fair political commentary” was quickly questioned. While 109:8 reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office,” the next line is, “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow,” suggesting far more violent rhetoric than simple criticism. Diana Butler Bass at Beliefnet has explained that Psalm 109 is “considered one of the most difficult of all the psalms — full of violent images of vengeance and death.”

Yesterday, Cafe Press announced that it was again reversing itself and removing all the merchandise in response to strong public pressure:

The public debate started with questioning if the design was simply intended to be criticism of the President or something much worse. The discourse was surprisingly civil online, given the heated nature of the topic. Given that, and the positions of groups like the ACLU and the Anti-Defamation League, we decided to let the dialogue play out publicly before making a final decision.

Last night we posted a poll on our blog, read through the emails we’ve received and weighed the nature of the calls we’ve received on the topic. In the process we also learned that many of the original designers of the Psalm 109:8 designs had already decided to remove them on their own.

General consensus has proven that the design does point to a broader interpretation of the Psalm and thus has been deemed inappropriate for sale at CafePress.

The results of the Cafe Press poll were 76 percent calling the slogan “overly inflammatory and inappropriate” and 22 percent saying it was fair.

(HT: TP commenter Marie)