House Minority Whip Eric Cantor promised Capitol Hill protesters on Friday that not one Republican would approve the Democrats' health-care bill. But Cantor's vow of unanimity slipped Saturday night when the final vote tally, 220 to 215 in support of the bill, revealed Rep. Anh (Joseph) Cao, a Republican from Louisiana, cast a yes vote.

His reason for being the lone GOP nod? "I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents," he said in a statement quickly released by his office. Earlier in the evening, he also supported a controversial amendment (which also passed) from Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak prohibiting any federal money from funding abortion.

We have yet another study that disputes the Obama administration's claims that the various congressional health proposals will somehow muffle the relentless rise in medical spending. In the past week, both Peter Orszag, head of the Office of Management and Budget, and Christina Romer, head of the Council of Economic Advisers, have repeated earlier assertions that health-care "reform" amounts to "deficit reform" because it will reduce the health-spending spirals that contribute to bulging budget deficits. So far, their arguments aren't resonating with the economic models.

The latest study, done by the health-consulting firm Lewin Group (which is part of a company owned by United Healthcare Group), focuses on the proposal passed by the Senate Finance Committee (S 1796, "America's Healthy Future Act of 2009). The study estimates that it would increase national health spending in the program's first decade (2010 to 2019) by $114 billion. Without the proposal, health spending is projected to increase from 17 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010 to 25.2 percent by 2030; with the Senate proposal, the increase in 2029 would be slightly greater, about 0.3 percent of GDP. That's not a huge gain, but it's no decline. The study was commissioned by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a research-and-advocacy group that focuses on the nation's long-term budget problems.

photo by Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty

You’ve gotta hand it to Nancy Pelosi: She is queen of the photo op. Four days after Harry Reid unveiled his version of health-care reform in a windowless room deep inside the U.S. Capitol, Pelosi chose perhaps the most dramatic setting in Washington to make her own health-care pitch: the west front steps of the Capitol building. You’ve seen it on TV. It’s where presidents are sworn in—though this morning’s events looked and sounded a little more like a convention speech than an inauguration event. Case in point: Pelosi marched into the event to her own personal soundtrack, “Elevation” by U2. (She loves that Bono, remember?) Reid had, well, the sound of reporters typing away on their laptops. Throwaway details aside, there is one major optical difference between the Pelosi and Reid events: when the senator spoke, he did it alone. At Pelosi’s event, almost every member of the House Democratic caucus stood behind her. Who do you think has more sway on Capitol Hill?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled her long-awaited health-care bill today. There aren't any real surprises. Most of the newsy provisions have been well known for weeks now. The bill will likely extend coverage to 36 million Americans, and it will prevent insurers from dropping or denying coverage. It also won't add to the deficit, thus satisfying one of the president's primary objectives. The CBO estimates the cost at under $900 billion. Here are a few of the key points you need to know about the bill:

• The change that will perhaps have the most impact on Americans is the expansion of Medicaid. Under Pelosi's bill, anyone earning up to 150 percent of the poverty line will be eligible for Medicaid. This is an increase on previous iterations─and the Senate bill─which only covered people up to 133 percent of the poverty line.
  
• The bill includes a public option but not the so-called robust plan. Hospitals and providers will be able to negotiate their rates with the government insurer.
• A surtax will be leveled on wealthy Americans─those earning over $500,000 for individuals or $1 million for families─to help offset costs. This differs from the Senate bill which relies on a tax on "Cadillac," or expensive, insurance plans. Medical-devices companies will also be subject to a new tax.
  
• The bill removes the health-insurance industry's exemption from antitrust laws, which will no doubt upset insurers.
• Like her Senate colleagues, Pelosi won't be offering a "doc's fix," that is, she won't offer a long-term solution to a problematic Medicare formula that causes reimbursement rates for physicians treating Medicare patients to decrease.
• Medicare expenditures will be cut by approximately 1.3 percent, with the pharmaceutical industry bearing the brunt.

The bill currently has no Republican support. Abortion remains a sticking point for some Democrats, like Bart Stupak of Michigan, who want to see the language tightened to prohibit any federal funds being used to fund abortions, meaning that government subsidies can't be put toward plans that cover abortion.

Politico reports that Pelosi has reneged on a deal she made with Anthony Weiner of New York to allow a vote on a single-payer system on the floor. The vote would have failed by a large margin, but its symbolism was important to liberals who feel that they've already compromised enormously in backing a public option over single payer.

OK. Granted, the GQ list of the 50 most powerful people D.C. is no more definitive, or less arbitrary, than any other such list. And, granted, President Obama is not the boss of many of the people on the list. But it's rather striking to see that the list is about as white and male as ever. There is no woman above No. 8 (Nancy Pelosi) and no one who isn't white above No. 13 (Attorney General Eric Holder). Wasn't 2008 supposed to be the election that changed all that? Remember Hillary Clinton's 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling? (Coincidentally, Secretary Clinton only ranks 18th on the list.)

Maybe this tells you as much about how GQ's staff thinks as it does about diversity and power in politics. Even the token sports figure—a hockey player—is comically white! Hockey? That ranks somewhere between NASCAR and professional bowling on the list of things people in D.C. think about.

But ask a bunch of politicos to name the most important players in town and everyone at the top of GQ's list would be mentioned. The bald, white pates in GQ's slideshow reflect a very different demographic than the one that put Obama in office. Women are more likely to vote Democratic than men. African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Latinos are all more likely to vote Democratic than whites, and young people swung enormously for Obama. Wasn't Obama's election supposed to usher into D.C. a bunch of diverse youngsters?

Guest Gaggler Joshua Alston mounts a convincing argument below against the outing of gay politicians. For the most part I agree with him, but I'm feeling a little argumentative and there's a little gap in his argument worth exploring. Josh writes:

Now, it’s fair to suggest that the voting public has the right to know everything about its elected officials, including their personal lives. But if we knew the details of what everyone was doing and voted accordingly, who would we have to vote for? Political scandals over the years, ones that have nothing to do with homosexuality, have proved that most politicians have skeletons they keep. If a gay man wants to run for governor of a socially conservative state because he has terrific ideas on how to reduce crime, balance the budget, or bring new jobs to his state, should he put his sexuality front and center and risk going down to defeat? There’s a valid argument for both sides of that question.

On last night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart, at his sharp, inimitable best, ripped into congressional Democrats for failing to get a public option included in the health-care bill before the Senate Finance Committee, despite having a supermajority. For the few people still harboring concerns that the liberal-leaning Stewart would have difficulty matching his piercing critiques of the Bush administration while Democrats are in power—worry no more. (If you haven't seen it, watch here.) Stewart's observation was a simple one, delivered with devastating effectiveness: how is it possible that the Democrats appear so thoroughly incapable of taking advantage of their majority? And it's not just any old majority—it's a supermajority! Stewart is right. It's mind-boggling that a political party could be competent enough to sweep so many seats, and yet have such a stunning lack of discipline that it's unable to deliver on its agenda.

To be fair, the entire Senate caucus shouldn't be tarred with that brush. In reality, there are just a handful of Senate Democrats forcing their party to compromise so thoroughly. It's pretty obvious who they are. Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, and Evan Bayh are the main offenders, but Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Tom Carper can also cause headaches on occasion.  Part of the blame has to lie with Harry Reid. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has her caucus whipped into shape, though admittedly she has a much larger majority to play with, and individual senators have a lot more power to derail bills than individual House members do. Still, for some reason, Reid doesn't seem to be able to hold sway over the votes of his caucus members. (It's been suggested to your Gaggler by Democratic aides, who clearly don't want to be named bagging the majority leader, that Reid isn't tough enough. He won't play hardball with them.)