This story in The New York Times reminded us of the old saw about the guy who felt bad about not having shoes until he met a man with no feet.

I’d say that in this story, the United States would be the guy with no shoes – millions of uninsured and skyrocketing health care costs (despite the fact our country pays more per capita on health care than any other). The guy with no feet would  obviously be North Korea, where per capita spending per year is $1.

The North Koreans are definitely not spending recklessly and, as the article points out, the country can boast that it offers free medical service for it citizens. Unfortunately, at $1 a head, they have to pinch pennies in areas such as anesthesia. And by pinch pennies, we mean “not spend any pennies on anesthesia” – even when your patient is having a leg amputated or appendix removed.

For North Koreans, that kind of medical system seems like a true “death panel” or perhaps “I’d rather be dead panel.”

We post this only because we feel it’s worth noting that things could be a whole lot worse.

The Democratic party is closing in on being on the right side of history with its upcoming vote on health care reform. It would be better if we could say Congress will be on the right side of history, but the way things have played out, the Republicans in the House and Senate have sat on their collective hands during the debate on the most significant piece of domestic legislation since the New Deal.

Make no mistake: despite the Republican sit-out, the bill is no cause for celebration for liberals. Those on the left edges of the Democratic party are some of the last few votes being courted. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), one of the party’s leading liberal voices, reluctantly came aboard this week.

The final bill is one that – minus purely partisan politics – many Republicans should be able to embrace:

• It not only preserves America’s private health insurance system, but brings 35 million new customers to it;
• It reduces the deficit more than $130 billion in the first ten years, and more than $1 trillion the following decade;
• It ensures that Americans no longer have to fear personal bankruptcy as the result of medical bills;
• It provides the most significant tax relief to the middle class in more than a decade.

It would be nice to see a few brave, independent Republicans join in on this historic vote. But the two parties are as far apart in style as they are in substance. The Republican Congressional leadership maintains a lock-step discipline over its members and vote as a block. Wrangling Democratic Congressmen is akin to herding cats, but as frustrating as that may be for the leadership it sure looks more like democracy (with a small “d”) to us.

Many progressives are frustrated with President Obama’s handling of the whole health care debate. Many progressives painted their own individual hopes on the nearly blank slate that Obama appeared to be during his Presidential campaign. Instead, Obama has turned out to be the moderate, post-partisan figure his speeches promised him to be.

And with health reform, Obama hit it right down the center.

Time and time again, during this debate, Obama has reached across the aisle in an attempt to bring Republicans into the process, incorporating many of their ideas even without gaining their support. The refrain from House Republican leader John Boehner has been only to “scrap” the legislation and “start over,” while offering few or no ideas on how to produce a better bill.

Boehner and his counterpart in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, have already pledged to make repeal of the legislation the centerpiece of this year’s congressional campaigns. The impetus appears to be simply politics, not substance, and is a sad commentary on the party’s current state of affairs.

The far left see this bill as an imperfect first step towards solving America’s health care problems. Republicans see it as a football they must stop from advancing down the field. The coalition of various factions in the Democratic Party that have done the heavy work of getting us to this point see it as essential in righting a societal wrong and bringing the country back toward financial security.

A sobering fact is that America’s health care is ranked the expensive in the world but only #37 in quality. If this bill delivers even half of its promise, the history books will mark its passage as one of the most important legislative actions ever taken.

Pundits, including the Wall Street Journal, are calling it the “Grand Compromise.” It’s an agreement Senate Democrats struck late yesterday on health reform legislation that will allow those who oppose the public option to say that it’s out, while proponents of the public option can claim that it’s still in the bill – sort of.

Either way, negotiations by a group of 10 Democratic Senators have paved the way for the possibility of a compromise bill in the month of December. It’s good news for reform advocates who dreaded a Democratic filibuster over the public option and great news for Democrats who feared the whole deal would fall apart.

Under emerging details of the compromise, the public option would be replaced by a low-cost national health plan. (Note that it’s “national,” but not a public option.) It would be put in place by the Office of Personnel Management, but run by nonprofit entities set up by the private sector and would be one of the qualified benefit plans available through the legislation’s insurance exchanges.

Naturally, some folks fear that insurers will somehow “game” the system. And Senators have already anticipated that private insurers might not want to be part of the system at all.

If no private insurers want to play ball and participate in the new non-public-option plan, the Office of Personnel Management could then initiate a government-run (public option) plan.

In addition, the Senators are looking at expanding coverage through a Medicare buy-in plan that would allow folks 55-64 to enroll in the program early. The solution could provide coverage potentially to millions who have lost their coverage or who are unable to secure inexpensive coverage.

Not everyone loves this idea: Doctors are already unhappy with the level of payment they receive for service to Medicare-insured patients.

Are there still hurdles ahead? Certainly. (Including a debate about funding of abortion.) For now, though, it appears as though the compromise could move the legislation forward.

The Congressional Budget Office will still have to weigh in on the financial implications, but according to the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Harry Reid could move to close debate this week and determine whether he’s got 60 votes to pass the legislation NEXT WEEK.

As we pointed out the other day, there’s a lot of heavy lifting ahead for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the brave folks who are committed to enduring the process of getting health reform legislation through the Senate and beyond.

Opponents have promised to filibuster the bill if it includes a public option. Some would be OK with an opt-in version of a public option, some would be OK with a triggered public option, some don’t even want to hear the word public option.

So what if Democrats just let opponents have their filibuster? Health care guru Ezra Klein sheds some light here. And what if Dems want to stop a filibuster? Klein spitballs some ideas here.

An even more interesting theory? Here.

If you want to get up to speed on the House and Senate approaches to the public option, it shouldn’t take you long to dig up the info online. We’re not taking any chances, though, so the info’s right here:

Reuters had an excellent summary of the House bill that was announced on Thursday. If you’re committed to wading through the entire 1,990-page House bill, it’s here. Enjoy.

Politico also offered a detailed 11-page summary. Also, NPR takes a look at what the bill might cost.

For a look at what’s being proposed and debated on the Senate side, read this Associated Press summary. Note that the details of the Senate bill have not been made public yet. (A House bill summary is also included.)

Progressives are starting an unlikely love affair with the normally conservative Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In this video, Reid asks Americans to contact their elected officials to nudge the public option over the finish line.

Will Democrats unite to allow an up-or-down vote on health reform legislation? Robert Creamer explained on the Huffington Post this morning why he thinks it’s in Democratic legislators’ best interests to pull together. Creamer’s reasons include, briefly:

• That Americans have already swung overwhelmingly in support of the public option.
• A vote to defeat the filibuster isn’t a vote for the public option: it’s simply a vote to NOT give the opposition the power to thwart the will of the majority.
• Legislators who allow the filibuster risk the resentment of the majority party.
• The defeat of this legislation could threaten the election-year prospects of Democratic legislators in the next election cycle.
• More importantly, Creamer suggests, a defeat on this legislation could threaten the majority status of the Democrats and damage the political standing of President Obama.

The bottom line, Creamer says: the party has spoken in support of the public option. Now, members of the party need to stand back and make way for progress. As CBS News notes, the clock is ticking.

For a political proposal that appeared ready to be staked in the heart by its opponents just weeks ago, the public option looked surprisingly perky this week. In fact, the only thing that now sounds optional about the proposed reform initiative is the abundance of public option options being floated.

The perkiness is due, of course, to the latest poll from ABC and the Washington Post, which showed that 57 percent of American surveyed supported a government-sponsored insurance option. The news could hardly have been better for proponents, unless you consider that even MORE Americans – 76 percent of those polled – said they’d support the idea if it would be limited to folks who can’t get affordable private health insurance.

Sensing that the tide of public opinion is turning, advocates of a public option have turned up the volume on demands that it be included in the bill that will be voted on by the full Senate. Sen. Harry Reid, who’s working behind closed doors to marry the Senate Finance and HELP Committee versions of reform legislation, indicated that he WOULD include a public option in the bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged ardently that a “robust public option” is still on the table for the House of Representatives, at least.

Some media also reported that the White House, feeling the heat from the red-hot poll results, finally signaled that it would support a public option – with an opt-out clause. But other media say the White House hasn’t drawn any lines in the sand just yet.

Who in Congress has pledged their support or opposition to the public option or versions of  a public option so far? Here’s a snapshot.

• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, vocally.
• Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Florida) says all states need a public option.
• Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) says, “I’m not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be.”
• Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Florida), the sole Republican to cross the aisle and vote for the Senate Finance bill, says she’ll vote again a public option and could support a filibuster. She’s also said she’d consider an option only if it had a trigger mechanism.
• Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) wants Sen. Harry Reid to include a public option in legislation and force opponents to strip it out.
• Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) says he opposes a public option “right now.”
• Yesterday, Rep. John Larson (D-Connecticut), said the House had the votes to pass a robust public option.
• Sen. Roland Burris (D-Illinois) says he’ll oppose any health reform bill that does NOT include a public option.
• Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) says she’s “ruled out a government-funded and a government-operated plan.”
• Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana), says the option is still ‘alive’ but said a “pure option” may not get the 60 votes it needs to survive the Senate floor.
• Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), says “it depends on what the public option is.”
• These 55 Republicans strongly oppose a public option (though they have their own “public option.” )
• Sen. Tom Harken said last week that he had counted 52 Democratic Senators who supported the public option and five who did not.

A quick look at the health reform debate this week:

How’s the Senate legislation coming along?

As of yesterday (Tuesday), Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) was working behind closed doors with Senate Democrats and White House advisors as they attempt to marry two Senate versions of health reform legislation: a more conservative Senate Finance Committee bill and a more liberal Senate HELP Committee bill. Reid’s challenge: to produce a bill that could get enough votes – 60 – to avoid a filibuster when the legislation is voted upon by the full Senate.

What’s the vibe on the public option’s prospects?

It won’t be easy. Though media report that support for a public option is growing,  and Sen. Max Baucus says the option is “still alive,” that support also needs to grow within the Senate. At last count, just 52 Senators supported a public option.

What’s the strategy for getting the public option to a Senate vote?

Ezra Klein notes that there are a couple of basic strategies Reid can employ in bringing the public option to the Senate floor. One would put the public option in the bill and force 60 Senators to vote it out of the bill. Another would leave the public option out of the bill and hope to get 60 Senators who will stand up to demand its inclusion.

Is the President helping?

The latest word is that Hill staffers are becoming more vocal about their concern that the President has not yet signaled his support for a public option.

How long before negotiations are wrapped up?

Reid’s office would like the bill on the Senate floor by the end of the month, but, as Klein points out, the CBO has to score whatever Reid & Co. produces. A couple of weeks might be pushing the schedule.

There were squeals of joy and howls of rage when Olympia Snowe crossed the aisle (or as Republicans would say “went over to the Dark Side”) yesterday to vote for the Senate Finance Committee’s version of a health reform bill. But now that it’s done, both sides might be rethinking their outbursts.

The Right could well rejoice in the fact that Snowe was asked to ostensibly stand up as a witness for the marriage of the Finance and HELP bills. The Left’s reason to whine? That Snowe won’t be just the witness; she’ll be giving away the bride – the Finance bill – to an undeserving groom – the HELP bill.

It looks like Snowe will fill that protective parent role, and naturally, she’ll have plenty to say about the groom’s intentions regarding what she sees as her baby. Most of the folks on the groom’s (liberal) side of the aisle are already concerned about whether Snowe forced some sort of pre-nup … and why she’s been invited to even watch the proceedings (since the Democrats had expected that this whole marriage would end up in Las Vegas, where they wouldn’t have to hear the whining of the bride’s parents).

Of course, the Left side of the church is just praying that IF the Reverend Harry Reid can convince the groom and the bride that they can get along, that some unruly wedding guest (we’re thinking Joe Lieberman) won’t stand up and object when the two finally meet for the nuptial blessing at the altar of the Senate.

If their prayers are answered, a successful marriage would inevitably lead to a steamy romance involving House and Senate bills. And then? Naturally, the delivery of adorable, living, breathing health reform legislation by none other than our trusted family physician.

Dr. Obama? Paging Dr. Obama?