“These recommendations, which have been widely criticized by patients and doctors alike, could prove devastating for women at risk of breast cancer,” the lawmakers wrote to Sens. Tom Harkin (D- Iowa) and Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.), the leaders of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Breast cancer screenings and advances in technology have reduced the mortality rate of patients who develop this devastating disease, but early detection of breast cancer is absolutely critical. To alter these recommendations, and to contradict the advice provided by countless doctors, will only serve to cause confusion and alter the behavior of patients, may (sic) of whom may be at a high risk of contracting breast cancer.

Spearheaded by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the Nov. 20 letter was also signed by GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe (Maine), David Vitter (La.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Jim Risch (Idaho), Jim Inhofe (Okla.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), John Ensign (Nev.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Pat Roberts (Ks.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.); the Democratic co-signers were Sens. Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Ben Cardin (Md.),  Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) and Patrick Leahy (Vt.).

No word yet about Harkin’s plans, but Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce health subpanel, has already said that he’ll hold a hearing on the topic early next month.

“This weekend, I will vote for the motion to proceed to bring that debate onto the Senate floor,” Nelson says. “The Senate should start trying to fix a health care system that costs too much and delivers too little for Nebraskans.”

Nelson has previously indicated that his vote for passage of a final bill is far from certain, but his announcement today removes one potential Democratic roadblock on the path to a final vote. TPM also reports that two other fence-sitting Demoratic senators, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, remain uncommitted on tomorrow’s vote but have hinted they intend to vote in favor of sending the bill to the floor to debate.

The survey found 62 percent of voters say tax cuts will create jobs and fight unemployment. Only 21 percent say spending can do that. This cuts against the long-standing economic theories that have guided the White House and Democrats since the beginning of the Obama administration. More good news for Republicans; 51 percent believe canceling the rest of the stimulus money would create more jobs, and only 32 percent — rather less than the Democrats’ base vote — want to keep spending it.

Hoffman’s getting some brushback from local Republicans. George Williams, chairman of the Oswego County Republicans, says Hoffman’s wrong and says the party is “not going to take the blame because he didn’t hold his concession speech.” I was in the district in the run-up to the election, when Hoffman accused Democrats or ACORN of slashing a campaign worker’s tires; when that charge turned out to be baseless, ACORN spokesmen informed me that they had no volunteers in the district. While ACORN’s credibility has been challenged left and right lately, its very public implosion would seem to back that up.

This isn’t the sort of behavior that wins over a skeptical electorate looking at a possible rematch between Hoffman and Rep. Bill Owens (D-N.Y.).

A quick update: Here’s the letter Hoffman is circulating, available at http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/stolenelection.html.

Dear Fellow Conservative,

As evidence surfaces, we find out that reported results from election night were far from accurate. ACORN and the unions did their best to try and sway the results to Obamacare supporter Bill Owens.

I was forced to concede after receiving two pieces of grim news – - down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night – and barely won my stronghold in Oswego County. On Election Night, the information we received was far different from what we received this week!

Rest assured, they will not succeed, and I am therefore revoking my statement of concession.

That is why I am writing you today. Recent developments leave me to wonder who is scheming behind closed doors, twisting arms and stealing elections from the voters of NY-23.

I’m sure you are as dismayed as I am to learn of the mischief that took place in Oswego and neighboring counties. We know this would not be the first time for the ACORN faithful to tamper with democracy.

Now it’s time to actually count every legal ballot and I need your help to ensure the people of NY-23 get the Congressman THEY ELECTED. Please donate now to help me ensure every vote is counted!

A recanvassing in the 11-county district shows Owens’ lead has narrowed to 3,026. In Oswego County, I was reported to lead by only 500 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted election night, but inspectors found I actually won by 1,748 votes

Let’s force them keep this recanvassing active! Let’s give this election a chance to end differently!
Oswego County elections officials blame the mistakes on “chaos“ in their call-in center that included a phone system foul-up, and on inspectors who read numbers incorrectly when phoning in results. This sounds like a tactic right from the ACORN playbook.

The district’s second biggest voter turnout was in Jefferson County, where I had also benefited from a turnaround since election night, gaining another 700 votes. Owens led by 300 votes on the final election night tally, but after recanvassing, I’m now leading by 424 votes.

Jerry Eaton, the Republican elections commissioner for Jefferson County, said inspectors found a problem in four districts where my vote total was mistakenly entered as zero.

The new vote totals mean the race will be decided by absentee ballots, of which the state Board of Elections distributed about 10,200.

The people of NY-23 deserve to have their ballots counted properly, but we can’t let ACORN or the unions keep that from happening. They have more lawyers and more experience tampering with democracy.

State Board of Elections Communications Director John Conklin said the state sent a letter to the House Clerk last week explaining that no winner had been determined in the 23rd District.

Now it’s time to actually count every legal ballot and I need your help to ensure the people of NY-23 get the Congressman THEY ELECTED. Please donate now to help me ensure every vote is counted!

We need to make sure that fair elections are a reality in NY-23, just like our Founding Fathers envisioned So long as we remain the “land of the free,” we MUST ensure every vote is counted.

Help us today so we may be the first of many conservative victories during the Obama Regime.

Yours in Freedom,

Doug Hoffman

Hoffman, who lives in Lake Placid, N.Y., was a controller for the 1980 Winter Olympics, but he didn’t play on the winning hockey team.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) (Photo by Mark Murrmann/ZUMA Press)

The Democrats’ proposal to terminate the Children’s Health Insurance Program would hike health care costs for some of the country’s low-income families, likely increasing the number of uninsured kids in the name of expanding coverage, several health policy experts and state health officials warned Friday.

Under the sweeping health reform bill passed by House Democrats last weekend, CHIP would cease to exist at the end of 2013, instead shuffling those kids into Medicaid or private insurance plans on a proposed insurance marketplace, called the exchange.

Image by: Matt Mahurin

Stan Dorn, senior health policy researcher at the Urban Institute, said there are certain advantages to scrapping CHIP. Both Medicaid and exchange plans, for example, would never require congressionalreauthorization — a process CHIP is subjected to every few years, he pointed out. But due to CHIP’s affordability, Dorn said “it’s clear” that kids “are much better off” under CHIP than they would be under private exchange plans.

“It’s not even a close question,” Dorn said during a children’s health care forum on Capitol Hill Friday.

Studies suggest Dorn’s concerns are valid. One analysis, conducted by Watson Wyatt Worldwide, an actuarial research firm, found that families living between 175 and 225 percent of the federal poverty level pay just 2 percent or less of treatment costs under CHIP. Under the proposed exchange plans, researchers found, those same families would pay up to 35 percent of their children’s health costs.

Nate Checketts, director of Utah’s CHIP program, noted that the move to more expensive exchange plans would only discourage low-income families already pinching pennies in the economic downturn. “Unless there’s a mandate, I don’t think those low-income families will sign up for it,” saidChecketts.

CHIP was created in 1997 with broad bipartisan support and renewed for five additional years last February. The popular program is designed to cover children in low-income families that are ineligible for Medicaid. The House bill would both expand Medicaid and dismantle CHIP, sending some kids currently covered under the program into Medicaid plans and others into private plans on the exchange.

The Senate Finance Committee also initially proposed to terminate CHIP when it unveiled its legislation in September. However, the committee last month approved an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), to reauthorize the program through 2019.

Supporters of the House proposal argue the advantages of centralizing control over CHIP coverage. Because CHIP is managed by states, there is a fear among some lawmakers that lean economic times could lead to sharp CHIP cuts in some spots, leaving those kids without any coverage at all. Those fears were almost realized earlier this year when California, facing a severe budget squeeze, temporarily froze new CHIP enrollment. Some health policy experts have pointed out that it’s probably not a coincidence that many House Democrats pushing the CHIP repeal are from California, including Speaker NancyPelosi, Rep. George Miller, who chairs the Education and Labor Committee, and Rep. Pete Stark, who heads the Ways and Means health subpanel.

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) has also defended the plan to terminate CHIP, arguing in a recent email that “enrollment of kids increases when the entire family can be enrolled under one plan.”

Checketts agrees, pointing out the difficulties that can arise when family members’ health coverage is scattered across different programs. “It is a good goal,” he said, “to get families on a single source of coverage.”

Yet some analysts have concluded that affordability is the more significant factor to ensuring coverage.

The advantages of providing families with low-cost access to health coverage for their kids, Dorn said, “significantly outweighs the benefits of putting parents and kids in the same health plan.”

Other children’s health care advocates are agnostic. Jocelyn Guyer, co-executive director at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, said Friday that, while CHIP has proven “a great success,” getting affordable coverage for kids is more important than what program provides it.

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a consumer health care group, also indicated that affordability is more critical for ensuring children have health insurance. “What are the out-of-pocket costs, and what is the care that they’ll receive?” Pollack asked, without endorsing either the House or Senate approach to CHIP.

If an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office is correct, the Senate’s plan to salvage CHIP is the more affordable option. Examining the Senate Finance Committee’s initial proposal to repeal CHIP, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted last month that “some of those children would be eligible for subsidized coverage in the exchanges but would not be enrolled in an exchange plan.”

The reason, Elemndorf explained, is “at least in part to the higher premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs that they would typically face in such a plan.”

Click on the numbers in the scoreboard for the lists of senators in each category, including key quotes on their positions and background information that helps explain their perspectives.

Methodology: Classifications are based on senators’ stated positions on the public option — a government-run health insurance program to compete with private insurers. The health bill that ultimately reaches the Senate floor will require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, so senators are categorized based on their likelihood to vote for cloture, which brings the bill to an up-or-down majority-rule vote. “Likely supporters” are senators who have indicated that they would probably vote for cloture on a bill with a strong, untriggered public option. “Likely opponents” are senators who have indicated that they would not vote for cloture on a bill with any kind of public option. “On the fence” senators have expressed reservations about a strong public option but have not given clear or consistent signals as to whether they will vote for cloture on a bill that contains some form of public option compromise. Given that there are currently 41 “likely opponents” — the entire Republican caucus plus independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut — a bill containing the public option will not receive an up-or-down vote unless at least one of these senators changes his or her stance.

We will update this scoreboard frequently as senators change and clarify their views on health care legislation. Stop by daily for the latest news!

It goes like this. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the RNC reminds us (three times!) once said that he voted for $87 billion in Iraq War funding before he voted against it. This, says the RNC, is exactly what Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) would be doing if he failed to join a Republican filibuster of health care reform and instead voted to move the bill to the floor–where everyone expects him to vote against it.

One problem with this is that it’s not technically true. In 2003, Kerry voted for a bill that would have appropriated the $87 billion in funding for Iraq while repealing some Bush tax cuts. He voted against the final bill which didn’t repeal the tax cuts. In this case, the GOP is defining “moving a bill to the floor” as “supporting it.” If that’s flip-flopping, then every Republican member of the Senate has flip-flopped–they allow bills to go to the floor, then vote against them, all the time.

Again, this is largely an academic discussion, as this video won’t be widely viewed outside a base of political junkies and partisan activists. But it demonstrates real progress for this myth of the Senate as a supermajority-driven institution, instead of one where the filibuster has been wildly, flagrantly abused beyond all recogniition.