The Senate Dems defeated all of the GOP junk amendments intended to derail the reconciliation package. Senate Republicans have been using every procedural trick they can find to slow down the Senate from doing anything. However, someone discovered a provision that didn’t fit the reconciliation rules. So it has to go back to the House. However, the fixes are minor, and at this point it seems unlikely that the House Dems would balk at making the changes.

From reading their sites, I’m not sure some righties understand that the former Senate bill remains law even if the reconciliation package were to be defeated. I get the impression they think defeating the reconciliation bill (which, among other things, repeals Ben Nelson’s “cornhusker kickback” that provided extra money for Medicaid recipients in Nebraska) will make the whole thing go away. It won’t.

Some rightie sites (and a few leftie ones) are touting the “discovery” that states may opt out of the mandate, which (some say) undercuts any arguments that the mandate is unconstitutional.

The provision (which I remember reading about some time back) is that a state can choose to opt out of the federal program entirely (not just the mandate specifically) IF it comes up with an alternative program that provides its citizens with the same access to coverage at the same rates, and with the same consumer protections. You and I know that’s not going to happen. And since the mandate is essential to keeping down the cost of insurance premiums for everyone, cutting the mandate alone would put a state afoul of the law. But I’d say it was a smart move on someone’s part to insert that into the bill.

[Update: See also E.J. Dionne, “Health Care and the New Nullifiers.”]

More troubling are the threats of violence and acts of vandalism aimed at House members and their families. But many of us speculated we’d see violence from the Right if the Democrats actually got serious about enacting progressive change.

And, of course, nothing has changed yet. All we’ve done so far is put a process in motion that will bring about change eventually.

I thought of that yesterday when I tried to get a Lipitor prescription refilled. I got into a new group plan through the Freelancer’s Union last year that saves me considerable money on premiums over my old individual insurance, which I simply could not afford. However, the group plan (through the infamous Anthem Blue Cross) is much less generous about actually paying for stuff. There’s always some reason prescriptions cost more than the $10 co-pay, for example, although the extra amount I’m required to pay varies from month to month.

But yesterday I was told I’d have to pay $95 to get a monthly supply of Lipitor. I told the pharmacist they could keep it. My arteries will just have to harden until I can get better insurance. (But, Anthem Blue Cross, isn’t the Lipitor cheaper than paying to treat heart disease? You’d think they’d encourage me to take the Lipitor instead of penalizing me.)

But mine is a minor problem compared to that of Robert Hollister, who has stage 4 cancer and who is falling through the cracks in the reform bill. He lost his job, and in September his insurance will expire. The HCR bill provides for subsidies for high-risk pools so that people like Hollister can get affordable insurance. However, there is a three-month waiting period, and even then he can’t apply until he has been without insurance for six months. Without chemotherapy, he doesn’t expect to live that long.

Such provisions are put in to protect insurance companies — they’re to discourage people from dropping their existing insurance companies in favor of the subsidized insurance. But where’s the protection for Robert Hollister?

The bump is a bump in the polls. Current polling says that a small majority of Americans are now in favor of the health care reform bill. So much for the Republican argument that “we have to stop this thing because the people don’t want it.” Nate Silver explains why he thinks the bump will fade a bit but not go away completely.

The Grind is the continued effort by Republicans to derail it. Part of the deal the Senate Dems made with the House Dems was to pass the reconciliation package unaltered. So Republicans are trying to load it up with junk and daring the Dems to note vote for it, like a provision to prohibit sex offenders from purchasing viagra. If Dems don’t include that, see, it must be because they sympathize with sex offenders.

Are challenges to the constitutionality of the mandate a real threat? Zachary Roth at TPM says could be, James Rosen of McClatchy Newspapers says probably not.

If you read nothing else today, be sure it’s David Leonhardt’s column in the New York Times:

For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.

Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.

Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.

Update: Tea Party could hurt GOP in the midterms.

Update: Thanks to alert reader Bob for this.