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.

– “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.”

VAN HOLLEN: Let me ask you think. You keep saying ‘if there were,’ did you read the Economic Recovery bill?

ARMEY: No I didn’t. I had no reason to read it, I wasn’t voting on it.

VAN HOLLEN: You’re commenting on it an awful lot, both here and in the press, about the Economic Recovery bill. We ask members of Congress to read it when they vote on it and are considering it. You’ve said a lot about it, so I’m a little surprised that you have not read it. [...] It seems to me we owe it to people we are communicating with we have an understanding an read the information.

Watch it:

Ironically, as part of an effort to obstruct and derail the bill, Armey launched an online petition called “ReadTheStimulus.org.” In another bit of irony, although he postures as a fierce ideological opponent of the stimulus, Armey actually worked as a lobbyist to help businesses gain from the stimulus. According to disclosures, he was paid to lobby on behalf of Cape Wind Associates and the Medicines Company on the stimulus. His son, Scott Armey, who runs his own lobbying shop, has also worked with businesses to gain stimulus funds.

Their provision would restore a program called Title V, which, since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, has allocated a yearly $50 million in grants to abstinence-only education programs. Obama let the program lapse in June, leaving some abstinence-only groups in dire straits. So in September, Sen. Orrin Hatch offered an amendment to restore Title V via heath-care reform, which (much to the outrage of liberal groups) just squeaked through the Senate Finance Committee with a 12–11 vote. A similar amendment, offered in the House by Rep. Terry Lee from Nebraska, died in committee.

If the Senate language survives reconciliation, the Title V program will be extended through 2014. This will not, however, bring abstinence funding back to the levels of the past decade. In 2008, Title V grants accounted for just under 25 percent of the federal abstinence budget (the rest of the budget came from other abstinence-only funding sources not restored in the Senate bill, including Community Based Abstinence Education Grants and the Adolescent Family Life Act).

Funding for comprehensive sex education is also in the bill. Sec. 2953 also provides “$75 million per year through FY2014 for Personal Responsibility Education grants to States for programs to educate adolescents on both abstinence and contraception for prevention of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS.”

Foxx then extended her claims of the GOP’s progressive history to the issue of civil rights. “Just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the ’60s without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle,” said Fox. “They love to engage in revisionist history.” When Foxx finally yielded her time on the floor, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) passionately rebuked her:

CARDOZA: Today, what I’m hearing on the floor really takes the cake. The gentlelady from North Carolina, in her statement just now, indicated that the Republican GOP had passed the Civil Rights Act legislation with almost no help from the Democrats. I can’t believe my ears. It was the Kennedy and Johnson administration where we passed that Great Society legislation. It was over the objections of people like Jesse Helms from the gentlewoman’s state that we passed that civil rights legislation. John Lewis…

FOXX: Would, would the gentleman yield?

CARDOZA: No, I will not yield. John Lewis, a member of this House, was beaten on the Edmund Pettus bridge to get that civil rights legislation passed. Tell John Lewis that he wasn’t part of getting that legislation passed.

When she was given a chance to respond, Foxx could only say that Jesse Helms wasn’t elected to the Senate until 1972. Watch it:

Foxx’s claim that Republicans were the real engine behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a common notion among conservatives. But as Cardoza points out, it was President Lyndon Johnson who “choreographed passage of this historic measure in 1964.” In fact, the Republican presidential candidate in 1964, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), voted against the legislation.

To support the claim that Republicans were actually the architects of civil rights, conservatives often point out that a “higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill.” But this ignores the “distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians” on the issue. When this is taken into account, the facts show that “in both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.”

The GOP senators who sided with defense contractors at the expense of women — such as John Thune (SD) — have been facing an intense backlash. David Vitter (LA) refused to give a rape victim a straight answer when she confronted him about his vote, claiming that he is “absolutely supportive of any [rape] case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law.”

Politico reports that Republicans are now scratching their heads at why the public is so incensed about their “no” votes:

Privately, GOP sources acknowledge that they failed to anticipate the political consequences of a “no” vote on the amendment. And several aides said that Republicans are engaged in an internal blame game about why they agreed to a roll-call vote on the measure, rather than a simple voice vote that would have allowed the opposing senators to duck criticism.

As BarbinMD writes, “Seriously? They voted against an amendment that was prompted by the brutal gang-rape of a young woman by her co-workers while she was working for a company under contract for the United States government, after which she was locked in a shipping container without food or water, threatened if she left to seek medical treatment, and was then prevented from bringing criminal charges against her assailants. And they failed to anticipate the political consequences?”

Thune is also claiming that Franken doesn’t really care about Jones and other rape victims whose employers have blocked them from seeking justice; he and other Democrats just wanted to “create a vote which they could use to attack Republicans.”

So basically, the only lesson they learned is that next time, they have to hide their votes when they decide to screw over women’s rights. That way, they can support their allies in the contracting business and the public will never find out.

In his New York Times column today, columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why hawks claim health reform is “fiscally irresponsible” while enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge, essential to the health and well-being of Americans:

The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.

So doesn’t it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?

Indeed, hawkish legislators have lined up to both demand a costly surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan while at the same time claiming that deficit-cutting health care legislation would simply be too expensive:

– Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has called for providing the “resources [needed]” for a “significant increase in U.S. forces” while warning that he is “really worried about what [health care reform] would do to the deficit.” [9/13/09, 10/26/09]

– Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has complained that passing health care legislation would “expand government spending even more,” while also boasting of his Republican caucus’s “broad support” for any troop increase in Afghanistan. [10/21/09, 10/11/09]

– Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wrote a letter to President Obama stating that we “urgently need more resources” in Afghanistan, “including more combat troops,” while at the same time claiming that passing health care legislation would be tantamount to “generational theft” that would run up “unconscionable and unsustainable deficits.” [11/10/09, 8/27/09]

Kristof’s question bears answering. Why is it that hawkish lawmakers are so willing to spend such enormous resources in both lives and treasure on a troop surge in Afghanistan that is increasingly opposed by Americans and Afghans, but are so quick to bark at the price tag of health care legislation that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they don’t have access to health care? As Glenn Greenwald notes, “Urging that more Americans be sent into endless war paid for with endless debt, while yawning and lazily waving away with boredom the hordes outside dying for lack of health care coverage, is one of the most repugnant images one can imagine.”

Yesterday, ThinkProgress interviewed Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), one of the Democratic women who faced this treatment. Kilroy said unequivocally that the GOP’s actions were “sexist” and it would be “nice” if they apologized. She pointed to recent GOP comments about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — that it’s time to “put her in her place” — and said that’s exactly what Price and the other Republicans were doing on Saturday:

KILROY: [T]hree male members of Congress got up and started shouting down — trying to shout down the Democratic women. I thought it was loud, I thought it was rude, I thought it was disrespectful, and I thought it was sexist. [...]

Well, when you engage in loud, rude, and boorish behavior, my mother would have said they should apologize. I don’t expect an apology, but that would be nice to have that. But you know, you’re seeing this sexist behavior going on.

You heard recently comments — from the Republican side of the aisle, some of my Republican colleagues over there — saying Speaker Pelosi should be put in her place, and I think that’s what they thought they were doing with the Democratic women. And it’s simply outrageous to me to have women being treated like that on the floor of the House.

Listen here:

Yesterday on a Center for American Progress Action Fund conference call, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said that Republicans have been essentially giving a “back-of-the-hand treatment to women,” pointing out that on Friday, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) “actually compared women to smokers and suggested women, like smokers, have to pay more for insurance just by the accident of our ability to get pregnant.”

Transcript:

KILROY: It wasn’t just me they were shouting down; it was every Democratic woman that got up to speak, to ask for unanimous consent to extend and revise the remarks in support of the Democratic health care bill. And each woman was giving a very short, one-sentence statement about why it was important for women — all the different aspects of the bill, why it was important for the women.

Apparently that message was too hard for Republican members of Congress to take because three male members of Congress got up and started shouting down — trying to shout down the Democratic women. I thought it was loud, I thought it was rude, I thought it was disrespectful, and I thought it was sexist.

TP: Why do you think they’re doing that? What were they so afraid of, that you were saying?

KILROY: Apparently since there’s a lack of a viable alternative coming from the other side of the aisle, they wanted to delay the Democratic bill from being voted on. They were engaged in a stalling tactic. But in particular, they were wanting to change the dialogue from how this bill helps women to a discussion on Republican tactics and parliamentary procedure and how long there is for debate and various points of order, or just shouting, “I object! I object! I object! I object!” to drown out the message that this bill — House bill 3962 — substantially will benefit the women of this country.

And instead of a celebratory moment by all of this who were lined up to speak — as women, to women, about why this bill would help them, but not give a long speech, just give a one-sentence statement as is permitted under House rules and then ask permission to revise and extend your remarks — to turn that into a contentious moment. So instead of talking about health care for women, we’re talking about the Republican tactics.

TP: So, did any of them come up to you afterward and apologize? Or do you think any of them should apologize?

KILROY: Well, when you engage in loud, rude, and boorish behavior, my mother would have said they should apologize. I don’t expect an apology, but that would be nice to have that. But you know, you’re seeing this sexist behavior going on.

You heard recently comments — from the Republican side of the aisle, some of my Republican colleagues over there — saying Speaker Pelosi should be put in her place, and I think that’s what they thought they were doing with the Democratic women. And it’s simply outrageous to me to have women being treated like that on the floor of the House. And the rules clearly say we can get up, give a simple sentence about why we’re supporting the bill, and ask to revise and extend. They were simply shouting that down.

Democratic Senators are calling on Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to lift his hold on a veterans’ health bill that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to clear before the chamber adjourns this week for a three-day recess.

Sens. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) will hold a press conference Monday to rally support for the measure. [...]

In a floor statement Friday, Begich called on Coburn to lift his hold. Other Democratic Senators made similar appeals, but Begich took the rare step of naming Coburn on the Senate floor.

“I am disappointed that my Senate colleague does not feel this same sense of duty and responsibility to our nation’s heroes, who have sacrificed so much for our very right to stand in this body and debate this matter,” Begich said. “There is no good reason or rationale for a hold to be placed on this legislation and I call on my colleague to remove his hold.”

Unfortunately, using holds to obstruct progress is nothing new for “Dr. No.” He has previously used holds on legislation such as an HIV/AIDS prevention bill and a public lands bill. VoteVets.org, a leading veterans advocacy group, has put together an online petition to call on Coburn to lift his hold.

LIEBERMAN: A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I’m convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They’ve got a right to do that; I think that would be wrong.

But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt — $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.

WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you’re a “no” vote in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.

Watch it:

Late last month, Lieberman told reporters that he was planning to filibuster a public option. But a few days later, the Hill reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office was confident Lieberman would “vote with Democrats in the necessary procedural vote to end debate, perhaps with intentions to change the bill.” Today, Lieberman made it clear where he stands.

It isn’t really Lieberman’s “conscience” that is driving him to oppose the public option — more likely it’s his ego (since he told reporters that he likes feeling “relevant“). After all, Lieberman opposed the Senate Finance Committee bill even though it didn’t have a public option, and in 1994, his “conscience” told him that the filibuster was “unfair” and shouldn’t be used to block major legislation. He has also asserted that the public option would raise premiums and increase the debt, even though the Congressional Budget Office has disputed those claims. Furthermore, 60 percent of his constituents support a public option, but Lieberman has dismissed them as just being “confused.”

Transcript:

WALLACE: The House passed health care. What do you think of the bill they passed, and do you still intend — if there is a public option and there is this tax on so-called cadillac health plans — will you support a Republican filibuster on final passage in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: Well, there’s some good things in House-passed plan. I think we ought to do health care reform this year to deal with the two great problems that President Obama and others have talked about. There are unsustainable continuing increases in the cost of health care; we’ve got to stop that. And there are millions of Americans who don’t have health insurance.

But I’m afraid our colleagues in the House added a lot onto that that subtract from the genuine purposes of health care reform, and one was to create a public option plan. A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I’m convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They’ve got a right to do that; I think that would be wrong.

But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt — $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.

WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you’re a “no” vote in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.

PENCE: You know, the Speaker has said it was scandalous — some interpretation of the Republican plan, which I am happy to talk about. We actually do deal with pre-existing conditions in our bill. But what’s scandalous is the Democrats launching a massive $1.2 trillion government takeover of health care paid for with more than $700 billion in tax increases on individuals and small businesses at a time when unemployment may well today come close to 10 percent.

Watch it:

Yesterday on MSNBC, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) similarly said that they “address the pre-existing conditions.” Both statements are misleading, and Republicans clearly recognize that they’re in an uncomfortable position because their bill doesn’t address one of the public’s top priorities in health care reform. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that the public overwhelmingly wants final legislation to require “that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.” Sixty-three percent of the respondents said that it “must” be included, and another 26 percent said they would “prefer” that it were there.

As Roll Call reported, Republicans “deal” with Americans with pre-existing conditions by forcing them into expensive high-risk pools:

And states would be eligible for a total of $15 billion [in federal funds] over the next 10 years in aid for creating high-risk pools for people whom private insurance companies refuse to cover because of pre-existing health conditions.

People with pre-existing conditions would pay up to 50 percent more than average for insurance coverage under the plan. States would have to cover the rest of the tab with a “stable funding source,” although the modest federal subsidy would cover a portion of the cost.

Most states already have such plans, which typically are much more expensive than regular insurance and have not made much of a dent in the ranks of the uninsured.

Even worse, high-risk pools would be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions that made people eligible in the first place. So people would be forced into the pools because of their pre-existing conditions, but the pools wouldn’t pay for treatment of that condition. President Obama and the Senate Finance Committee have also supported increased funding for high-risk pools, but only as a stop gap until 2013, when insurers would be prohibited from denying people coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

The disappointing refusal to bar insurers from rejecting Americans with pre-existing conditions comes after numerous Republican officials promised to address this problem.

Thirteen major military and veterans groups have joined forces to try to force one senator — Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — to release a hold that he has placed on a major veterans benefits bill.

Coburn has been identified by Senate aides as the lawmaker preventing consideration of S 1963, the Veterans’ Caregiver and Omnibus Health Benefits Act of 2009, by using an informal but legal practice of putting a hold on a bill. [...]

In a letter sent Monday night to the Senate majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the 13 military and veterans groups ask the Senate to get on with it.

“It is essential that Congress act on this comprehensive measure without further delay,” the letter reads. “Thousands of disabled veterans with serious medical conditions and the family members who care for them are counting on this additional support.”

Steve Robertson, the legislative director for the veterans advocacy group The American Legion, met with Coburn’s staff about the holds on the bills and came away disappointed with their refusal to budge on the issue. “For a lot of family caregivers, delay is costing them their jobs and their savings. It’s having a big impact,” Robertson told the press. “They made it clear that Sen. Coburn sees this as using his rights as a senator to place a hold on a bill…I agree with that, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to hold up a bill that would do a lot of good things for veterans that has cleared a committee and is ready for a vote.”

When right-wing radio host Mark Levin took the stage a short while later, the American flag fell over, and he exclaimed, “What the hell is this? Dare I say it? The flag drops. Hold up the flag and drop that [the health care bill]!”

In his video announcement, Pence said that he and his House colleagues “will present an interactive broadcast marathon on the Democrats’ plans to launch a government takeover of health care. We’ll take your calls, answer your tweets, and talk to people on the street.” Watch it:

Maybe they’ll explain why they’re in favor of allowing insurers to deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

In the past few weeks, conservatives and their allies in the press have obsessed over the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district. Pundits have claimed that the rise of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman as the likely winner in that race is a “referendum on the Obama-Biden spending agenda” and evidence of a rightward shift in the nation’s politics, despite the fact that this particular district in New York hasn’t elected a Democrat in a century.

While pundits have obsessed over the special election in New York, they’ve completely ignored another race that evidences a progressive resurgence. Today, voters in California’s 10th congressional district will go to the polls to elect a member of congress to replace former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), who was brought into the Obama Administration to serve as the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.

As The Nation’s John Nichols notes, CA-10 is a far more competitive district than NY-23:

If [NY-23] elects a Republican Tuesday – and, though Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party line, he is now backed by local, state and national GOP leaders and organizations – the district will hold to the pattern it has been on since Ulysses Grant was president. On the other hand, California 10 was represented by a Republican until Tauscher beat him in 1996 – and in the past century, Republicans have represented the core counties of the district more frequently than Democrats. In other words, California 10 is the more historically competitive turf.

Despite the competitiveness of his district, Democrat John Garamendi leads Republican David Harmer by ten points in the latest polling.

What makes Garamendi’s lead all the more impressive is his progressive stances. While CA-10 was previously held by a Democrat, Tauscher legislated as a centrist. A member of the business-friendly “New Democrat Coalition,” Tauscher was a supporter of rolling back the estate tax, tightening bankruptcy rules, and expanding free trade agreements. Following the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in 2006, she famously warned her colleagues to not run “over the left cliff” by passing too much progressive legislation.

Garamendi, on the other hand, is an unabashed liberal. He is a strong supporter not only of a public option, but of a single-payer Medicare-for-all health care system, supports the creation of an exit strategy from Afghanistan, and actually defeated the hand-picked candidate for the Democratic endorsement.

If he is elected, and he likely will be, it will mark a dramatic leftward shift in CA-10. But with all the media coverage of NY-23, most Americans may never know that.

Yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who caucuses with the Democrats, made headlines when he vowed to join the Republican filibuster the Senate health care bill unless the public option is removed from it.

As Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, “A member of the majority has never before crossed party lines to filibuster with the minority. And that is exactly what Joe Lieberman is threatening to do to kill health care reform.” In fact, according to research dug up by Maddow and her staff, Lieberman has voted for cloture and allowed up-or-down floor votes on a number of major bills he opposed in the past:

– Lieberman joined 55 Republicans and 13 Democrats to back cloture for a bill that made it more difficult for people to declare bankruptcy. [5/8/05] He voted with the minority in opposing final passage. [5/10/05]

– Lieberman joined 93 other senators in voting for cloture on the Secure Fence Act, which beefed up the use of technology for border security. [9/20/06] He voted with the minority in opposing final passage. [9/29/06]

– Lieberman joined 96 other senators in backing cloture for an Iraq funding bill that included a timeline for withdrawal. [3/28/07] He voted with the minority in opposing final passage. [4/26/07]

One of the most glaring examples of Lieberman’s past flexibility on filibusters was during the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Lieberman, who was part of the notorious “Gang of 14” that ended the chances of a filibuster of Alito’s nomination, explained his rationale to Fox News host Sean Hannity: “I did vote against the filibuster cause I thought that, you know, it was time to move on.”

Indeed, the same argument can now be made for health care.

But Boehner’s “playing hooky” attack on Pelosi comes at an awkward moment, considering that just today, 76 House Republicans introduced a frivolous resolution aimed at playing to the conservatives’ tea party base by officially commemorating the Glenn Beck-inspired 9/12 taxpayer march on Washington. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), claims that “the fundamental American principles of limited government and personal liberty are under direct assault.” It also seeks to have Congress officially enshrine the inflated crowd numbers pushed by conservatives:

Whereas, on September 12, 2009, hundreds of thousands of American patriots, who refuse to sit idly by as the Federal Government advances skyrocketing deficits, taxpayer-funded bailouts, pork-barrel projects, burdensome taxes, unaccountable policy czars, command-and-control energy policy, and a government takeover of health care, came to Washington, DC, to show their disapproval;

[…]

Whereas estimates of the number of people who peacefully marched from Freedom Plaza to the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on September 12, 2009, range as high as 1,700,000 marchers;

[…]

Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the hundreds of thousands of people who marched on Washington, DC, on September 12, 2009, to show their love of liberty and their grievance with recent government actions.

The closest thing to an official count, numbers given by the Washington DC Fire Department to ABCNews.com, placed the crowd at “approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people.”

Rep. Tom Price (Ga.), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), revealed the schism within his party late last week.

“There’s a difference of opinion over what ought to be the strategy from a political standpoint on this issue. I happen to believe we ought to have a bill. There are others who believe, as strongly, that the principles that would be outlined and would be adhered to in the Republican bill are what need to be discussed because everybody can embrace those principles,” Price said last week. [...]

One House Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity said, “The fact is, [GOP leaders] are very concerned with doing anything that the base would interpret as ‘Democrat-lite’ or ‘socialized-lite’ … which is forcing a little of paralysis.”

In an attempt to reclaim the right’s rich tradition of opposing Medicare, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has proposed legislation that would roll back the Medicare system and replace it with a system of vouchers that seniors could use to purchase private insurance:

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun introduced his own health care reform bill last week that would, among other things, privatize the Medicare insurance program for seniors.

Broun’s bill would replace government benefits with vouchers that could be spent on private insurance or put in tax-free medical savings accounts.

“We’ve got to fix Medicare,” he said. “It’s headed in a direction that’s unsustainable.”

While Medicare is facing future budgetary problems, privatization isn’t the solution. Medicare Advantage, the Medicare plan under which the administration of the program is farmed out to private insurance companies, has more than five times the administrative costs of the traditional public Medicare plan.

Earlier this year, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) — who is a strong supporter of extending a program like Medicare to all Americans — introduced an amendment that would eliminate Medicare. Not a single member of Congress voted for Weiner’s amendment, including Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), despite his long-held belief that the program is unconstitutional.