The Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the vote was anything but procedural -- casting it as a referendum on the bill itself, which he said would raise taxes, cut Medicare and create a "massive and unsustainable debt."

For all the drama, the result of the Saturday night showdown had been sealed a few hours earlier, when two final Democratic holdouts, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced they would join in clearing the way for a full debate.

"It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option," said Landrieu, who won $100 million in the legislation to help her state pay the costs of health care for the poor.

Lincoln, who faces a tough re-election next year, said the evening vote will "mark the beginning of consideration of this bill by the U.S. Senate, not the end."

Both stressed they were not committing in advance to vote for the bill that ultimately emerges from next month's debate. Even so, their announcements marked a major victory for Reid and the White House in a year-end drive to enact the most sweeping changes to the nation's health care system in a half-century or more.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide subsidies to those who couldn't afford it. Large companies could incur costs if they did not provide coverage to their workforce. The insurance industry would come under significant new regulation under the bill, which would first ease and then ban the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

Congressional budget analysts put the legislation's cost at $979 billion over a decade and said it would reduce deficits over the same period while extending coverage to 94 percent of the eligible population.

But this is just one procedural vote. The more daunting hurdle of the cloture vote to break a filibuster and hold an up-or-down vote on the bill itself still lies ahead, and there Reid may have serious trouble, especially if a plan to create a government-run insurance provider -- the public option -- remains in it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who is a member of the Democratic caucus, has already said he'll vote to filibuster a bill that contains any form of the public option. (He is voting for cloture tonight, but not, he says, the next time around.) And on Saturday, Lincoln too threatened to support a filibuster of the legislation if it includes the public option.

Both will be tough nuts for Reid to crack. Lieberman's not up for re-election next year, and has already been taunting liberals by saying he's not afraid of possible retribution. Lincoln, on the other hand, is up for re-election -- and that's the problem. She's seriously vulnerable, and is looking at polling numbers that seem to indicate voting with her party to support a public plan would only put her in a more precarious position.

 

Public Option: Will states be allowed to “opt out”?

Both bills include the creation of a government-run insurance provider to compete with private insurers. However, the Senate version would allow states to opt out of the public plan.

Abortion: The Stupak Legacy

To garner much-needed support from anti-abortion Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) allowed them to attach the infamous Stupak-Pitts amendment to her chamber's version of the bill. The provision would bar women who are receiving federal subsidies for their insurance from purchasing plans that cover elective abortions. It would also bar the public plan from offering abortion coverage. The Senate version takes a more moderate approach: Those receiving federal subsidies could buy insurance that covers abortion -- but insurers would have to place federal money in separate accounts and could only use private dollars to cover the procedure. The public plan could also offer abortion coverage, as long as it segregated federal subsidies in the same way.

Cost: The difference a year makes

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House bill would cost about $1.052 trillion and reduce the deficit by $138 billion. The CBO predicts that the Senate bill would cost $849 billion, while cutting $130 billion from the deficit. This difference is largely due to the fact that many major provisions in the Senate proposal would not go into effect until 2014 -- a year later than in the House bill.

Coverage: Universal? Not quite

For decades, the Democrats talked of providing universal healthcare. These bills come closer, but neither quite reaches that goal. Both, however, will significantly reduce the number of uninsured. Today, 83 percent of non-elderly legal residents have health insurance. (The elderly are covered by Medicare.) Under the House bill, 96 percent of that population would be covered by 2016. The Senate's legislation would expand coverage to 94 percent. Still, about 18 million people would remain uninsured under the House's proposal, as would about 23 million in the Senate's.

 

Paying the bills: What gets taxed

Under the House bill, much of the money to pay for the reforms would be raised through a 5.4 percent surtax on high-income people -- that is, individuals making more than $500,000 a year or couples with annual incomes in excess of $1 million. The Senate version, on the other hand, would impose a different series of new taxes including: A 40 percent tax on “Cadillac health plans” (employer-sponsored group plans with premiums of over $8,500 for individuals or over $23,000 for families); the introduction of annual fees for health care companies; an increase in Medicare payroll taxes from 1.45 percent to 1.95 percent for those earning more than $250,000 a year and the implementation of the so-called "Botox tax," which is a five percent tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.

Employer mandates: Do companies need to offer health insurance?

The House bill stipulates that employers with payrolls of more than $500,000 must offer health coverage or pay a federal tax. The Senate version does not explicitly require employers to provide coverage; however, companies with 50 or more full-time employees would have to pay a penalty of $750 per employee if they fail to offer coverage and if any of their employees obtain federally subsidized care via the new health insurance exchanges.

Friday, Senate Democratic leaders agreed to include the Wyden amendment in their healthcare proposal. Under this provision, employers would have one of two options. Companies could offer their employees a single plan and give all eligible workers the option of accepting a voucher to independently purchase their own insurance. Alternatively, an employer could offer two or more health care plans, provided that at least one has a premium that costs no more than the average premium of the two least expensive health plans in the local exchange. The House bill includes no comparable language.

Individual mandates: Penalties for remaining uninsured

Both bills require most Americans to maintain a minimum level of health insurance. However, the penalties for not doing so are much stiffer in the House bill: Those who failed to acquire insurance would pay a tax equal to 2.5 percent of their gross income of over $9,350 for individuals or $18,700 for couples. Under Reid’s legislation, the penalties would start at $95 per person in 2014 and gradually go up to $750 a head in 2016.

Insurance Exchanges: State-based or national

Both bills would create some sort of health insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals and small companies can shop for insurance and compare benefits and prices. The exchanges would put individuals into large risk pools, which are intended to provide them with leverage to purchase insurance at a lower cost. The House bill would create a national exchange, although states could petition to run their own exchanges as well. Under the Senate proposal, states would form their own exchanges. This, however, could prove problematic, as it is unclear whether state exchanges would be able to attract a sufficient number of enrollees to push for lower premiums.

Illegal Immigrants

The House bill would allow illegal immigrants to buy insurance from the exchanges, but would not allow them to obtain federal subsidies. The Senate version prohibits illegal immigrants from purchasing insurance from these exchanges, even if they could pay for their own coverage in full. This could have the effect of preventing illegal immigrants from buying individual insurance altogether.

Some skepticism on women's part about these relaxed standards makes sense after years of repeatedly being pinned with pink ribbons, lectured about the importance of yearly paps and hit over the head with pamphlets about the lifesaving HPV vaccine. That's especially true for those of us who know women -- some in their 20s and 30s -- with breast or cervical cancer. As my friend wrote, it feels a bit like the overarching message is: "Chill out, chicks! It's just cancer!" Yeah, and it'll just kill you!

That these new guidelines come amid a contentious healthcare debate has also raised paranoia that this is part of an effort to lower healthcare costs -- at the expense of women's health. The impossible-to-avoid Sarah Palin took to Facebook late Thursday to air her worries about this shift in the wisdom about pap smears: "There are many questions unanswered for me, but one which immediately comes to mind is whether costs have anything to do with these recommendations," she wrote. "The current health care debate elicits great concern because of its introduction of socialized medicine in America and the inevitable rationed care." Many other Republicans have jumped on the "rationing" bandwagon as well. (Yeah, now they care about women's healthcare!) Judy Norsigian, executive director of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective (aka Our Bodies Ourselves), told me that "we have a discourse at the moment that is dominated by right-wing rhetoric that the Democrats are all about denying healthcare services."

The truth is that Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, insists that the breast cancer screening guidelines will not change "what services are covered by the federal government." (Also, insurance companies claim they won't change mammogram coverage and, as David Dayen points out on FireDogLake, "the procedure is mandated at [age 40] in 49 of the 50 states.") The Obama administration has yet to address the new standards for cervical cancer screening -- but medical opinion on the benefits and risks of pap smears is far less contentious than when it comes to the mammogram debate (which has been going on for decades).

Cindy Pearson, executive director of the National Women's Health Network, an independent consumer-advocacy group, told me that the suggested pap smear routine "is not at all about cost-cutting," but instead "improving women's health." Most women's bodies are able to fight off the virus that causes cervical cancer -- but, when a doctor does detect infection through a test for the virus or the appearance of "disturbed cells" on the surface of the cervix, they typically provide treatment that very well might be unnecessary. This isn't just an issue of experiencing bothersome "cramping, discomfort and missing some work" after having the abnormal cells removed, she says -- "what's actually happening is it's weakening the cervix in some women so that they can't support a pregnancy full-term."

My question for her was why doctors haven't instead adjusted their response to the discovery of the virus' presence -- was it in the interest of avoiding malpractice suits? She explained that the medical community operates under the mantra of "if you see it, you treat it." Essentially, the new cervical cancer screening guidelines reduce the likelihood of a doctor seeing it, so as to avoid their treating something likely to clear up on it's own. "Sometimes there are cases when you say, 'Watch and wait,'" she says, "but almost no one does it."

It just goes to show that you have to be your own advocate when it comes to navigating the healthcare system. As Mary Elizabeth Williams wrote earlier this week about the new mammogram standards, "What’s optional for one woman may be the difference between life and death for another." She also added that "blanket guidelines are just that -- they're fine for covering the many, and they are not laws we have to follow." A woman and her doctor still have to take into account her individual history and particular risk factors. That has always been the case and continues to be so. As Norsigian from Our Bodies Ourselves said: "You give women the scientific evidence and let them make their own choices."