One of the things that has bugged us for months and months is health care opponents’ preoccupation with the number of pages in the health care bills that have been introduced in the House and Senate. The most recent bill to emerge is the Senate bill unveiled by Harry Reid yesterday and SURPRISE … it’s 2,074 pages.

As Politico points out, the bill “runs more pages than War and Peace, and has nearly five times as many words as the Torah.” Transcript of whiny health care opponents, please:

“While Americans have been clear about their opposition to thousand-page bills for new government programs, it’s now abundantly clear that Democrats haven’t been listening,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

McConnell is undoubtedly railing against ANY bill Democrats might introduce, but he mentions that it’s a “thousand-page” bill. And our question is, “So what?”

Are the kind folks who demand good government (and less government) saying that a bill with such far-reaching implications – a bill that stands to affect virtually every American – would be better if it was simply shorter?

I suppose their argument might be that a shorter bill would mean there are fewer proposed changes to the health care system, and if that’s their point, too bad. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. health care system has been broken for a long, long time – and when proponents of change sat down to craft legislation, they had a lot to fix.

If the health care industry had historically responded to a legislative tweak here and there by implementing significant consumer-friendly improvements all along, we wouldn’t be looking at a tome that rivals the Encyclopedia Britannica. But here we are, decades into the history of health insurance and we’re having to talk about issues like denial based on pre-existing conditions – issues that should have been tackled decades ago.

We think opponents of the legislation should stop carping and look on the bright side: the legislation is extensive and explicit. It’s good news that the bill’s authors are being thorough. And honestly, if the legislation was shorter, wouldn’t opponents be lobbing accusations that Democrats aren’t spelling out everything that’s in the bill? Uh huh.

So enough about the number of pages. We read through the first House bill – and we’ll take a run at this Senate version. It will surely cause eye strain and likely some nodding off.

But we think our pain and suffering will be worth it in the end. After all, health reform has been a long, long time coming.

When the House passed its version of health reform legislation last week, the development may have sent chills down the spines of those who oppose the Democrats’ proposed solutions. But a quick read-through of Suzy Khimm’s piece in The Treatment yesterday should be equally chilling to folks who think the battle over health reform is anywhere close to being over.

Khimm’s piece should serve as an eye opener to anyone who might suggest that Harry Reid is padding his schedule when he says a Senate bill won’t pass until Christmas – at the earliest. (Other Dems are saying even that is optimistic.)

For as much as talking heads keep pointing out that Reid needs 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster, what hasn’t been talked about much is the fact that Reid needs 60 votes at least three times in this process: 1) for a “motion to proceed” (a vote that could happen as early as Tuesday) 2) for a vote to move past a Republican “point of order,” and 3) for a final vote on passage of the bill.

That final vote happens only after debate on the bill’s amendments – and there are likely to be many introduced by Republicans. But that’s just the beginning of opposition stall tactics that could well include the reading of the entire bill aloud on the floor, as threatened already.

Reid’s work, Khimm points out, will be “heavy lifting.” We think that’s putting it lightly.

We think Reid’s going to need some steroids.

We’re happy to hear folks asking this question: If Democrats succeed in passing health reform legislation with an opt-out public option as included in Harry Reid’s Senate bill, would any states actually opt out?

Conservatives seem to like the idea that states could take a pass on a public option provision they dread. But really, Andrew Sullivan asks in the Atlantic Monthly, will Republicans at the state level really feel like having a discussion that ends with the state removing a potentially less expensive health coverage alternative for its constituents?

Sullivan says he can actually see the public option “becoming the equivalent of Medicare” – the public program that voters have been screaming about all summer. (”Hands off my Medicare!” and also “Medicare sucks!”)

But apparently, the answer may be “yes” for at least SOME of the state officials and wannabe officials. TPMDC polled a few of them here.

Problem is, Sullivan notes that opting out likely won’t be a snap for states that ARE committed.

And will opting out even be a hot issue when the states finally HAVE the option? (As Ezra Klein points out, states wouldn’t be able to opt out until 2014 – and heck, who knows what we’ll be worrying about five years from now.)

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.

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?

A column by Thomas Frank in the Wall Street Journal made us pause and scratch our heads this week because it prompted one of those questions that we think lots of Americans must be asking themselves. The question is simply this:

Are President Obama and his Democratic Party up to no good in this health reform battle?

[Conservatives: Insert "Obviously!" here.]

The question, more specifically, might be “Is President Obama trying to turn the government into a predator?” or “Would the passage of a public option be a predatory move by government?”

[Conservatives: You can again insert "Obviously!" here.]

Phrase it however you like. As the WSJ column points out, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) – who has been up to his hip waders in the health reform battle – said last week that a public option turns the government into a predator. And Sen. John Thune, (R-SD), has apparently agreed.

‘I know you are but what am I?’

The WSJ’s Frank thinks those two legislators have it backwards. Could be he right?

After all, what seems more predatory? A government insurance option, the stated purpose of which is to increase competition with private industry to drive insurance costs down for all consumers? or “actuarial-minded hardliners of the insurance biz, the ones who deny your claim or cancel your policy?”

We understand the concept of a “predatory government.” It’s a government that stands back and watches as the foxes of private industry feed on the hen house of American citizenry. We’ve seen it happen when corporations sucked the economic lifeblood of the nation through no-bid defense contracts. And we’ve seen it happen when, as Frank points out, the government used a prescription drug benefit to herd millions of Americans into the waiting arms of the pharmaceutical industry.

The “predator state,” Frank writes, materializes “when consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, and policing against fraud are handed over to lobbyists. And when health care is run for the benefit of private insurance companies, whose business model . . . is to target coverage on the healthy and delay payments to the sick.”

Keys to the hen house?

So is a public option “predatory?” We don’t think so. But we agree with Frank that without a public option, Congress may be putting its efforts into getting all of our hens in one hen house – and then committing the most predatory act imaginable: handing the foxes the keys.

Fundraising scorecard

Political contributions from the health industry:
Grassley: $2.9 million (despite the fact Iowans support a public option)
Thune: $1.2 million

Okay, we know that it’s the conservative members of the House that are called “Blue Dogs” (not members of the Senate), but what a perfect visual for the actions of the North Dakota Democratic-NPL party’s put-down of its own senator, Kent Conrad (D-ND).

The party’s members recently reaffirmed a commitment to an even much more progressive health reform idea – single payer – but support a public option as a fallback. And in a letter to its three-member congressional delegation, it put its disagreement with Conrad out for all to see.

Conrad has been a nattering nabob of negativity when it comes to the public option – and as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, he’s used his position to try to euthanize. As far as the public option is concerned, several conservative Dems on the finance committee have essentially been their own  death panel for the proposal.

The Democratic party in Nebraska is also wielding a rolled-up newspaper. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) is another example of an elected official stubbornly pulling back on the leash while his masters are trying to walk forward.

Looks like the winter temperatures in these Midwestern states are going to be more frigid than ever for these two senators, bringing to mind the old Warner Bros. cartoons where the shivering dog looks longingly through the window while Sylvester lies curled up by a roaring fire.

That ain’t dog food

Political contributions from the health industry:
Conrad: $1.6 million
Nelson: $2 million

Hmmmm. A CBS/New York Times poll says 81 percent of Democrats favor a public option; yet five Democratic senators on the Senate Finance Committee vote against it. Strange.

Go to the raw story, for the full scoop!

This week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus did a head count of its members to see whether House liberals still strongly opposed any health reform bill that would not include a public option. Word from the Hill Thursday indicated that opposition is still plenty strong. Not so strong? Blue Dog opposition to a public option, apparently.

Huffington Post reports that when the Blue Dog Caucus did its own head count this week to determine whether opposition to the public option was Job One, it found that it wasn’t even Job Two … or Three … or Four. Apparently, the Blue Dogs’ bark – and bite – aren’t as bad as expected when considering a public option.

Four priorities kept emerging, focusing mostly on dollars-and-cents issues, but the public option was not among them says Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD). (TIME magazine highlighted Sandlin in a 2008 piece called The Hotshots: Democrats to Watch.)

That means the door could still be open to negotiations on the public option, though Sandlin says Blue Dogs would only consider including it if it was “structured to ensure a level playing field, negotiated rates and [be] subject to a trigger.”

In 1974, President Nixon tried to put one right down the middle for health care reform. Now, 35 years later, President Obama seeks those same modest but important reforms.

Students of history may get a chuckle when they hear Republicans define Obama’s health care plan as “socialism.”  If we look to the past, we see Obama’s plan is pretty much in line with Republican President Richard M. Nixon’s failed efforts in 1974.

Like Nixon, Obama seeks to tweak America’s existing private health care system, rather than replace. Like Obama, Nixon sought to simply make access universal, put more emphasis on preventative care, limit out-of-pocket expenditures and ensure that Americans would not go bankrupt because of a catastrophic illness.

Read Nixon’s plan for health reform, in his own words and you’ll see that opposition to Obama’s similar plan, if any, should be coming from his own party and not the Republicans. In fact, some of it is: Democratic House members have been threatening to not support any health care reform that does not include a public option.

The so-called public option is, Obama says, but a sliver of his overall health care plan; only five percent of the population would have access to it, and only a subset of that would choose it. Obama has readily telegraphed his willingness to drop it in exchange for bipartisan support.

The Republican opposition to Obama’s modest health reforms appears to be more politics than true opposition to the plan’s elements. After the losses it experienced in the last election, the only way the party out of power can see to regain strength is to deny the President any victories. As Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has famously said “If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” The Republicans risk being seen as cynical, as polls show most Americans believe they are not making a good faith effort to work with Obama on health care.

By not over-reaching on health care, the young President seeks to move America one step closer to a country where no one dies because of lack of access to health care, and no one goes broke because they get sick.

The old saying goes that “only Nixon could go to China.” Perhaps health care will be Obama’s China.

RELATED: See this YouTube clip on Nixon’s and Ted Kennedy’s competing health care plans in 1974.