It's happening now, and when it's finished—probably later today—it's likely that the U.S. House of Representatives will have made history, passing* a huge health insurance reform bill that includes a public option.

Follow it here, here, and here.

*Without the help of Washington Democrat Brian Baird.

A reliable source sends over a copy of an e-mail that he says went out recently to employees of Premera, one of Washington State's largest insurance companies, telling those employees to call their representatives in Congress and urge them to vote no on the Democrats' health insurance reform bill:

Message from Jack C. McRae
Senior Vice President of Congressional and Legislative Affairs
Premera Blue Cross

We are reaching an extremely critical point in the healthcare reform debate. Later this week, possibly Friday or Saturday, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on its healthcare reform bill.

Please contact your Representative immediately to share your comments and concerns, urging them to vote no on HR 3962. For contact information, please visit http://www.house.gov/. Simply put in your zip code to get your Congressional Representative’s contact information. We recommend that you call and e-mail your Representative.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at jack.mcrae@premera.com or Kelly Jones at kelly.jones@premera.com.

Thank you.

I have e-mails and calls in to Premera to confirm that this e-mail was, indeed, sent to employees. So far, no response.

UPDATE: Premera spokesman Eric Earling says the e-mail was sent to "brokers" (private contractors who sell Premera and other insurance plans), not to Premera employees. But the e-mail does reflect the company's position: supportive of health care reform in general, but concerned about reports that the Democrats' bill will lead to higher premiums.

...a provision, authored by Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott, to give domestic partners the same health-insurance-related tax benefits as married couples.

Section 571. Certain health related benefits applicable to spouses and dependents extended to eligible beneficiaries. This section promotes parity in health benefits by expanding the definition of “eligible beneficiary” so that domestic partners can enjoy the same tax benefits with regard to health insurance coverage, as married couples do.

It's all part of a reform package, McDermott says, that "has been my top priority since the day I entered Congress.”

The Democratic leadership wants the combined House health care bill, released earlier today by Nancy Pelosi, to be voted on before November 11.

This has been a long and eye-crossingly complicated debate. But if you've stopped paying attention, now might be a good time to tune back in. The finish line is (theoretically) in sight.

Something to bear in mind today during the debate about reforming the health insurance industry...

The woman who lost her coverage is a health insurance agent. Via HuffPo.

That's the cost of the House health insurance reform bill unveiled today by Nancy Pelosi—which, though it sounds like a big number, is relatively low in the world of comprehensive reform proposals. So that's good news.

The even better news:

In its size and scope, the House bill is very similar to a measure under development by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.

The more similar the House and Senate bills are, the more likely we are to see quick passage through both houses of Congress.

But, of course, crucial differences remain on complicated, sticky issues like the public option, the millionaire's tax, and the employer mandate.

Get down in the weeds and read all about them here and here and here. But when you come back up out of the weeds, remember: in the big picture, we're closer to Congress passing meaningful health insurance reform than we've been in decades.

Then you should be checking in at Americablog.

Daniel Engber in the NYT Magazine:

Many problems associated with being overweight correspond to being “underheight.” The shorter you are in America, the more likely your chances to develop coronary heart disease, diabetes or stroke. Fat people and short people lead briefer lives, and they put an increased burden on the health care system. Economists estimate that excess weight alone accounts for 9 percent of the country’s medical spending.... To win a war on shortness, we might promote the consumption of fruits, vegetables and other foods that are low in calories and high in micronutrients. Or we could invest in education as a means of alleviating poverty and environmental stress. Better access to doctors for children and their parents would improve prenatal and postnatal care and stave off the stunting effects of childhood disease.

The whole thing is here.

"Since you are so interested in the health of fat people," writes King, "don't miss this story..."

Here's the headline: "Be Overweight And Live Longer, German Study Suggests." And that's where King stopped reading. The studies authors write that "contrary to what was previously assumed" being overweight is not increasing the death rate in Germany. But if you keep reading...

The Süddeutsche Zeitung published an advance notice of the report, which shows that overweight does not increase death rates, although obesity does increase them by 20%. As people grow older, obesity makes less and less difference. For coronary heart disease, overweight increases risk by about 20% and obesity increases it by about 50%. On the other hand, a larger BMI is associated with a lower risk of bone and hip fracture. In relation to cancer, the overall death rate among extremely obese men (BMI above 40) is no higher than among those of normal weight. Men who are overweight even have a 7% lower death rate. No significant association was found in women.

According to the authors' analysis, overall mortality is unchanged by overweight, but increased by 20% by obesity, while extreme obesity raises it by up to 200%.

I didn't find this stuff in the fine print; the above quote begins at the third paragraph of the abstract. So, yes, maybe mortality is "unchanged by overweight," but the study found that obesity is clearly a health risk: mortality is increased by 20% for the obese, 200% for the extremely obese. So don't read that headline and decide that weight is a non-issue where health is concerned.

And speaking of assumptions: I'm not really all that interested in the health of fat people. I actually believe, as I wrote in "Savage Love" this week, that "our bodies are our own, FAT; they're ours to use, abuse, and, since we're all going to die one day, they're ours to use up." I don't have a problem with people who are overweight, or even obese, and think sane people have a right to take calculated health risks in pursuit of pleasure. If food makes you happy and you're happy with your size, knock yourself out. You don't have to justify your size or your pleasures to me or anyone else. What I do have a problem with is being told that the sky is green and the grass is blue, e.g.. with being told that there's no relationship between diet, exercise, lifestyle, and weight, and that only a bigot would to suggest that there is.

Getting back to the study: that headline seems incredibly misleading. The study found, again, that "being overweight is not increasing the overall death rate," and that, "overall mortality is unchanged by overweight." It did not find, according to the abstract, that being overweight is good for you or leads to a longer life. But it did find that obesity is a health risk—not that I give a shit. It's your body, use it up. And even if being overweight isn't a health risk—per this study—being overweight points to potential health problems down the road. All obese people were overweight people at one time—you can't get to obese without passing through overweight—so being overweight is a step toward the potential negative health consequences that come with obesity.

Not that I give a shit.

Today at 12:45, Washington Senator Patty Murray will be doing a live web chat about health insurance reform with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

It's among the first such chats that Sebelius has been a part of, and it sounds pretty cool—you can submit questions live through Facebook, and you can watch it here.

Ezra Klein, as always, has the answer on health insurance reform's next phase—which, now that the Finance Committee has completed its work, is the floor bill.

The floor bill will not be the Finance Bill, exactly. And it will not be the HELP Committee's bill. Instead, it will be a blend of the two. The merger will be overseen by Harry Reid's office, and Hill sources expect the room to be fairly small beyond that.

Learn who's likely to be in, who's likely to be out, and what's going to be on the agenda, here.

The Baucus Bill has support from Democrats and (one of the) Republicans—and, with the help of Washington Senator Maria Cantwell, it's on its way out of the Senate Finance Committee.

But keep in mind: It will soon become just one of five health insurance reform bills that have moved out of their respective committees. And as far as the left is concerned, it's far from the best bill—because, for starters, it lacks a public option.

Which is why, immediately after Cantwell announced she would be voting to move the Baucus Bill out of committee, MoveOn.org blasted out word of a rally tomorrow to remind the senator to keep fighting for the public option as bills get merged, adjusted, and ultimately voted on once again on the floor of the senate.

With the health care fight reaching a fever pitch in the Senate, local citizens of Seattle will rally at Senator Cantwell's office at 2:00PM on October 14th to thank Senator Cantwell for pushing for real health care reform.

Participants will tell Senator Cantwell they are counting on HER to keep fighting for real reform that includes a strong public health insurance option. Senator Cantwell has been a strong advocate for offering the choice of a public health insurance option, which is the heart of real health care reform. Passing a robust public health insurance option is crucial to help lower rising health care costs and extend high-quality, affordable coverage to more Americans.

There will be people with boxing gloves on, MoveOn promises, to encourage Cantwell to keep swinging.

But Republican Olympia Snowe's announcement today that she will support health insurance reform via the Baucus Bill actually makes it less likely that Cantwell and others—whether swinging or not—will ultimately be able to pass a reform bill that includes a public option.

Why?

Because now the only "bipartisan" bill is the one Snowe backed today—the bill that, to repeat, lacks a public option.

The bill doesn't include a public option—though Cantwell did try, and fail, to attach one via the amendment process—but, Washington's junior senator says, it's a "start."

She added:

To stand here and do nothing is not an option.

Watch it—and see how Senator Maria Cantwell votes on the Baucus Bill—here.

(UPDATE: Well, watch it... eventually. Sounds like the actual vote now won't happen until much later today.)