Anyway, the Senate has a health care bill, it runs 2,074 pages, and that is a source of great consternation. Why is this bill so long? Look at it! Why does it have all those words and numbers? Can't they just overhaul the American health care system with a Facebook note, like normal people? What outrageous things are the Democrats trying to hide with their writing and publishing?

How about this?

To raise money for the health overhaul, Democrats are proposing a new 5% tax on elective cosmetic procedures. The tax was a surprise addition to the sweeping 2,074-page bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled late Wednesday. It generates $5 billion over a decade for the plan, which is expected to cost $849 billion over a decade.

The tax would fall on the individuals who undergo the procedures. If they don't pay it when they’re billed for their surgery, then it falls to the provider who performed the procedure.

Outrage-o-meter says… 3. Maybe 4, max. Fun fact: since 2004, New Jersey has been the only state with its own cosmetic surgery tax law on the books.

Yet if you've ever gone down the shore in July, you'll notice that it's had zero impact in terms of putting bureaucracy, or even common sense, between patients and their plastic surgeons.

^{Aww, NJ, you know I love you. Next time I'm in Belmar, the pork roll-egg-and-cheese is on me.}

Now the Stupaked-up bill heads for the Senate, where some people want to be sure its provisions stay in…

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid found his health reform efforts seriously complicated Monday by the explosive issue of abortion, as key centrist senators said they wanted to see airtight language in the bill blocking federal funding for the procedure.

Didn't we already have regulations that block federal funding for abortion? How is the current "compromise" more "airtight"?

[Stupak] prohibits public money from being spent on any plan that covers abortion even if paid for entirely with private premiums. Therefore, no plan that covers abortion services can operate in the [public] Exchange unless its subscribers can afford to pay 100% of their premiums with no assistance from government "affordability credits." As the vast majority of Americans in the Exchange will need to use some of these credits, it is highly unlikely any plan will want to offer abortion coverage.

Seriously? Even though 87% of current employer health plans offer abortion coverage? You know, this reminds me of a powerful editorial I read a few months ago, entitled "We need to reform the reform." Here's the best part:

Instead of expanding coverage to the uninsured, the legislation upends the current employer-sponsored insurance system, ends patients' choices, and puts a bureaucrat between you and your doctor.

Thank you, Sen. Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire! I look forward to hearing you make this exact same argument on the Senate floor in the coming weeks.

The reason should be obvious…

The question of abortion coverage in the health care bill has bedeviled top Democrats for weeks. Under its current language, the measure would allow individuals to purchase policies through a new insurance exchange that would cover abortion procedures.

Getting "abortion" mixed up with "valid legal medical care" is, of course, contrary to everything America stands for. Doesn't anyone have a better idea, one that won't just cater to pro-choice types?

Democratic leaders may turn to compromise language drafted by Rep. Brad Ellsworth, an Indiana Democrat opposed to abortion rights. Ellsworth has proposed using private contractors to pay providers of abortion services – an idea that has come under fire from both supporters and opponents of abortion rights.

Nice work, Rep. Ellsworth! I don't have a dictionary handy, but I'm pretty sure that's the textbook definition of a compromise.

This version would allow doctors to negotiate reimbursement rates with the federal government, the aides said Wednesday.

The proposal would be a blow to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has argued for a more "robust" public option, one that ties reimbursement rates for providers and hospitals to Medicare rates plus a 5 percent increase.

But the votes aren't there for a robust public option, so the "more moderate" "tempered" "other" public option it is. None of those descriptors are catchy at all! How about we call it the "alternative public option"? That might appeal to disenfranchised youth. "Lite public option," on account of that obesity problem? Or, duh: "doctored public option."

By the way, in case you are confused, here is exactly why the public option has been de-testicled:

Democratic House aides said party leaders had yet to resolve long-standing disputes over provisions to prevent federal funds from being used to subsidize abortions and to block illegal immigrants from receiving benefits.

So good luck with your cancer or whatever as the costs of the [adjective here] public option get tied to the medical inflation rates that made a public option necessary in the first place. The important thing is that no money's going to those gals who receive the legal medical service of pregnancy termination. And no Mexicans, either.

Let's see, there's got to be a press release from Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. Yep, here it is:

"In a slap to the face of our servicemen and women, they attached 'hate crimes' legislation to the final defense bill, forcing Congress to choose between expanding hate crimes or making our military go without. This hate crimes provision is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians [...blah blah, etc...]."

Funny thing about this hate crimes legislation, actually, there is this one part of it I hadn't noticed before…

It also would make it a federal crime to attack U.S. military personnel because of their service.

Whoa! So why are Tony and his conservative allies demanding President Obama's veto? If I read this right, by slapping our servicemen and women in the face with this legislation, the U.S. Senate has just convicted itself of a hate crime. Dudes, let it pass and let the awesome lawsuits begin!

* Total cost over 10 years: $829 billion
* Impact on deficit: Reduces it, as in makes it go down, by $81 billion over the next decade
* Americans with coverage: Would go up to 94% from 83% right now
* Illegals??!??!!: There will still be 25 million uninsured people by 2019, and rest assured, at least a third of those will be illegals.

Hmm, sounds good. Luckily, there are still plenty of reasons to hate Max Baucus's bill, like the fact that he subbed "insurance co-ops" for the oogy-boogy "public option," and the budget office reports that these "co-ops" won't make a smidgen of difference in many parts of the country.

Oh, and did I mention the secret bill written in invisible ink using a secret version of pig Latin?

Republicans, who are overwhelmingly opposed to the legislation, minimized the significance of the cost analysis. They suggested that the "real" bill would be written secretly by Democratic leaders as they combine the Finance Committee measure with a version approved by the Senate health committee in July.

To say nothing of the secret clubhouse where the Democrats hang out with all the cool "real" bills, and the secret "real" Constitution, and a perfect life-size replica of the White House. It's awesome. Too bad the Republicans have never, ever set foot in secret real bill headquarters, but they don't know the password ("123456").

The Daily Show airs Monday through Thursday at 11pm / 10c.

As for Democrats, they prefer "sweetie" to "young lady." It's more personal that way.

Pay attention to how it all went down, in case you ever find yourself faced with a "choice" about health care…

The first proposal, by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, was rejected 15 to 8, as five Democrats joined all Republicans on the panel in voting no. The second proposal, by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, was defeated 13 to 10, with three Democrats voting no.

The votes vindicated the middle-of-the-road approach taken by the committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana. Mr. Baucus voted against both proposals [because] he asserted that the idea could not get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster on the Senate floor.

Nobody is quite sure what Max Baucus means by this, because Democrats could do this thing with 51 votes in the full Senate — oh, but then again, it would be teddibly teddibly rude to put Republicans on the spot like that, and rudeness is never a good option.

However, we can be sure what Max Baucus means by this…

"My first job is to get this job across the finish line," Baucus said. "I fear if this provision is in this bill as it goes out of this committee, it will jeopardize real meaningful health reform."

Of course, we can't jeopardize real meaningful health reform with things like real meaningful health reform! That's a choice no one should ever have to make.

Both Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Sunday talk shows that a government insurance option was not essential — one day after President Obama himself said as much.

Absent a public option, Congress is likely to focus on insurance co-ops and exchanges to cover the nation's 46 million uninsured and to control rising healthcare costs. Under one such system in discussion, all uninsured Americans would be required to buy insurance, with poor consumers receiving government subsidies.

In other words, instead of creating a plan to compete with the private health insurance industry, which helped create the health care crisis in the first place, the government will simply have us pour billions of dollars into the private health insurance industry. Genius!

Republicans, of course, are thrilled with this victory for the free market. And I'm sure their next move will be to commission a fleet of time-traveling DeLoreans, so they can zip back to 2008 and be retroactively thrilled about the decision to solve the economic crisis by pouring billions of dollars into the banking industry, which helped create the economic crisis in the first place. Genius!