Last weekend, Ron Brownstein – a reporter for The Atlantic – wrote that the Senate’s health insurance reform legislation marks a “milestone in the health care journey.”

Brownstein spoke to several leading economists, including MIT health care economist Jonathan Gruber, who agreed that the Senate’s legislation is a major step toward ending the unsustainable growth of costs in our health care system.

Gruber, a self-proclaimed “skeptic on this stuff,” said: “Everything is in here....I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill.” Len Nichols of the non-partisan New America Foundation and Mark McClellan, the director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services under George W. Bush, were also positive in their analysis of the bill.

Brownstein digs deep into Majority Leader Reid’s efforts to blend the Senate Finance Committee’s bill with the HELP Committee’s legislation and “bend the curve” by “shifting the medical payment system away from today's fee-for-service model toward an approach that more closely links compensation for providers to results for patients.”  The piece also highlights how Reid incorporated four measures identified in a letter from 20 leading economists to President Obama, that are essential to fiscally responsible health insurance reform.

We excerpted the article in the Morning News clips on Monday, but here’s a highlight in case you missed it. It’s worth the read:  

When I reached Jonathan Gruber on Thursday, he was working his way, page by laborious page, through the mammoth health care bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had unveiled just a few hours earlier. Gruber is a leading health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is consulted by politicians in both parties. He was one of almost two dozen top economists who sent President Obama a letter earlier this month insisting that reform won't succeed unless it "bends the curve" in the long-term growth of health care costs. And, on that front, Gruber likes what he sees in the Reid proposal. Actually he likes it a lot.

"I'm sort of a known skeptic on this stuff," Gruber told me. "My summary is it's really hard to figure out how to bend the cost curve, but I can't think of a thing to try that they didn't try. They really make the best effort anyone has ever made. Everything is in here....I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn't have done better than they are doing…"

The attempt in all these ideas to nudge the medical system away from fee-for-service medicine toward an approach that ties compensation more closely to results captures how much the health care debate has shifted toward cost-control. So far, the rise in health care spending has proven almost invulnerable to every previous attempt to tame it, like the managed care revolution in the 1990s. Even if Obama signs into law a final bill embodying all these reform proposals, many skeptics wonder if they can bend, much less break, the seemingly inexorable increase in health care spending. Reischauer understands that skepticism, but isn't able to entirely suppress a kernel of optimism that this latest reform agenda may prove more effective than its predecessors. "One never knows whether we're turning the corner or if this is just playing the same old game for another inning," he says. "But I sense there's something different out there. I think the medical profession and its leaders have read the handwriting on the wall and are trying to evolve." If so, the ideas the Senate will begin voting on tonight could mark a milestone in that journey.

From Politico:

"It would be a mistake to conclude that the international community's failure to reach a final treaty in Copenhagen is due to a lack of domestic legislation in the United States," said a senior White House official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity.

The United States, said officials, plans to propose a near-term emissions reduction target as part of a "meaningful submission" the country will present at the talks.

Just what that meaningful submission will be remains unclear. But the White House on Monday was clearly reaching out trying to change the negative narrative on the climate debate, making senior administration officials available to insist the U.S. will head to the climate change conference in Copenhagen next month with a real plan…

"I think we go into Copenhagen with a very, very strong hand," said one of the officials. "We have done I think more than anyone could have expected us to do in a short time."

The targets, said Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey, will demonstrate U.S. leadership on the climate issue and encourage other nations to make firm commitments…

From Bloomberg:

When Hillary Clinton heard that an 8-year-old Saudi girl had been sold to a man in his 50s to pay off her father’s debt, the U.S. secretary of state telephoned Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal to protest.

Clinton’s call -- on the type of issue usually handled by an aide -- symbolized her fervor for making women’s advancement a core part of her national-security efforts, even in dealing with problems such as Iran’s suspected nuclear threat or the Islamist violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“Women are key to our being able to resolve all of those difficult conflicts,” Clinton said in an August speech. Since then, she has pursued initiatives to help women gain political power, personal safety and enough money to help their communities and countries improve economically and transition to democracy.

“There is nothing that has been more important to me over the course of my lifetime than advancing the rights of women and girls,” she said in a Nov. 6 Washington speech. “And it is now a cornerstone of American foreign policy…”

In case you missed it, from the New York Times:

…But with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.

The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama’s promise to “save or create” about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers.

“It was worth doing — it’s made a difference,” said Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group based in Lexington, Mass.

Mr. Gault added: “I don’t think it’s right to look at it by saying, ‘Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn’t work.’ I’m afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus.”

In interviews, a broad range of economists said the White House and Congress were right to structure the package as a mix of tax cuts and spending, rather than just tax cuts as Republicans prefer or just spending as many Democrats do. And it is fortuitous, many say, that the money gets doled out over two years — longer for major construction — considering the probable length of the “jobless recovery” under way as wary employers hold off on new hiring…

From The Atlantic:

When I reached Jonathan Gruber on Thursday, he was working his way, page by laborious page, through the mammoth health care bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had unveiled just a few hours earlier. Gruber is a leading health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is consulted by politicians in both parties...

"I'm sort of a known skeptic on this stuff," Gruber told me. "My summary is it's really hard to figure out how to bend the cost curve, but I can't think of a thing to try that they didn't try. They really make the best effort anyone has ever made. Everything is in here....I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn't have done better than they are doing..."

The attempt in all these ideas to nudge the medical system away from fee-for-service medicine toward an approach that ties compensation more closely to results captures how much the health care debate has shifted toward cost-control. So far, the rise in health care spending has proven almost invulnerable to every previous attempt to tame it, like the managed care revolution in the 1990s. Even if Obama signs into law a final bill embodying all these reform proposals, many skeptics wonder if they can bend, much less break, the seemingly inexorable increase in health care spending. Reischauer understands that skepticism, but isn't able to entirely suppress a kernel of optimism that this latest reform agenda may prove more effective than its predecessors. "One never knows whether we're turning the corner or if this is just playing the same old game for another inning," he says. "But I sense there's something different out there. I think the medical profession and its leaders have read the handwriting on the wall and are trying to evolve." If so, the ideas the Senate will begin voting on tonight could mark a milestone in that journey.

From the Washington Post:

The Senate voted along party lines Saturday night to overcome a Republican filibuster and bring to the floor a bill that would overhaul the nation's health-care system...

The 60 to 39 vote marks a milestone in the decades-old quest for health-care reform, President Obama's top legislative priority. "The road to this point has been started many times," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid said before the vote. "It has never been completed." The debate is expected to last weeks. Reid is aiming for final passage by Christmas.

"We know not all 60 senators in my caucus agree on every aspect of this bill," Reid told reporters. "But they agree on the vast, vast majority."

The Senate bill would provide coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans by vastly expanding Medicaid and creating insurance "exchanges" for individuals who do not have access to affordable coverage through their employers. For the first time, it would require most people to carry health coverage, although families with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level would receive subsidies to buy policies.

The legislation would also force widespread changes to the insurance industry to end discriminatory practices, including the rejection of coverage based on preexisting conditions. It would provide new incentives to encourage disease prevention and to institute the most effective treatments for chronic conditions such as diabetes and asthma...

From the Wall Street Journal: 

U.S. President Barack Obama, fresh from his first presidential trip to Asia, called for the U.S. to increase exports to that region, saying even small gains would help put many unemployed Americans back on the job.

"As we emerge from the worst recession in generations, there is nothing more important than to do everything we can to get our economy moving again and put Americans back to work, and I will go anywhere to pursue that goal," Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio address to the nation.

The president's remarks follow his four-nation tour of Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea, a trip he said was prompted largely by economic interests. Now back in the U.S., he promised to continue to focus on ways to combat U.S. unemployment.

Mr. Obama warned the U.S. shouldn't return to relying on growth fueled by consumer borrowing, urging the nation to spend less, save more and get the record federal deficit under control. He also called for a greater emphasis on exports, saying a 5% increase in U.S. exports to Asia would result in hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs.

The president touted an upcoming White House forum on jobs and economic growth, where business executives and owners, labor unions, economists and financial experts will discuss ways to spur hiring and get the economy moving again...

Just a few moments ago, the Senate voted 60-39 to move forward with debate on health reform legislation. OFA Director Mitch Stewart explained:

For the first time ever, the Senate just voted to begin debate on a comprehensive health insurance reform bill. This was the first big hurdle we had to overcome to pass reform through the full Senate.

The decision was close -- and insurance company lobbyists were working overtime to defeat us -- but your calls this week made a huge difference.

There are more fights ahead, but this is a big victory and I wanted to take a minute to thank you for making it possible.

The Senate is expected to begin debate following the Thanksgiving break.