Myths and explainers about health reform bill and Congressional procedures

News outlets provide several explainers on the health care battle so far and how it might proceed.

The Washington Post reports on a few of the misconceptions that are creating "the mythology about how we got here." The "myths" examined include "this could have been a bipartisan bill," "Democrats gave up on the public option too soon," "Scott Brown changed everything," "the public is undecided about health-care reform," and "how lawmakers vote on health-care reform will be the top issue in the 2010 midterm elections" (Cillizza, 3/21).

The Wall Street Journal has a brief Q&A explaining the different possible scenarios for health reform legislation, including what would happen if the House rejects the package (Landers, 3/19).

Politifact checks out a GOP claim about "deem and pass," finds it to be "half true," and explains the procedure (Richert, 3/15).

ProPublica: "Could using "deem and pass" result in the undoing of historic health care legislation by a decision of the Supreme Court? A number of legal experts -- who, like politicians, never say never -- say it's highly unlikely, but not impossible. ... First, the right plaintiff would have to bring the lawsuit. That plaintiff would have to be able to claim that a concrete injury -- usually articulated as monetary or physical harm -- resulted directly from the challenged law and that the injury would be cured if the law were struck down. That rules out angry Republican legislators, says Erwin Chemerinsky, who is dean of U.C. Irvine's law school ... " (Lee, 3/19).