An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« The Iraqi Shoe-Thrower Released—Tells of Torture

Baucus Plan Looks Promising »

Hey, Max Baucus, What’s the Point?

Posted by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor in Health, Politics.
Sep 16th, 2009 | Comments

That’s right, what’s the point of Sen. Max Baucus’s health-care reform proposal? Is it to win bipartisan support? Yes, probably, given that Baucus all along has been trying to work with the few Republicans who have shown a slight (if hollow) interest in reform — namely, the GOP members of the Gang of Six. Not surprisingly, though, the Republicans in question, notably Sens. Charles Grassley and Mike Enzi, have already come out against Baucus’s proposal. And it’s not like Baucus’s compromise appeals to pro-reform Democrats either. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, for example, has decisively, and admirably, said “no way“: if there is no public option, and there isn’t in Baucus’s proposal, it’s a non-starter. This is the position all Democrats ought to be taking.

(Baucus’s proposal is actually pretty atrocious. As one former Big Insurance executive has put it, it’s “an absolute gift” to the insurance industry. Though, it would seem, even an absolute gift isn’t good enough for Republicans.)

Meanwhile, even moderate Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe has stated that she won’t be supporting the Senate Finance Committee’s bill. Which is to say, no Republican senator will be supporting it — or any other reform bill that includes a public option, or, for that matter, any reform bill at all.

As I’ve said before, it’s time, long past time, for the Democrats to go it alone on health-care reform. Republicans have been obstructionist to the point where even genuine compromise is impossible — if it was ever possible, and I suspect it wasn’t. What they want is not just concessions that would render reform meaningless but no reform at all.

Republicans have shown their cards. Democrats must now pull together and do what is right for America.

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

hilarys

Baucus is totally crooked; he's accepted millions from the same health insurance industry that he's now pretending to regulate. He could have come up with a bill that cost half as much if he wasn't so busy sucking corporate d$$k.

Kastanj

There is no bill that will be more attractive to the GOP than a crippling failure of the Obama administration. Even the perfectest bill ever would be a bitter pill compared to the banquet of triumphalism and partisan gain that a reform failure would give them.

GreenDreams

I agree Michael. The Dems should craft a bill exactly as they want it, without a single concession to the GOP. I always opposed giving away real reform for so-called "bipartisanship," but with ZERO votes from the GOP, there is no bipartisanship anyway, so let's drop the pretense.

Leonidas

Yes, probably, given that Baucus all along has been trying to work with the few Republicans who have shown a slight (if hollow) interest in reform

Actually other Republicans have pushed healthcare reform bills that Democrats have ignored or stonewalled Paul Ryan's plan being the most noteworthy.

Meanwhile, even moderate Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe has stated that she won’t be supporting the Senate Finance Committee’s bill. Which is to say, no Republican senator will be supporting it —

When Olympia Snow makes a statement like that you realize just how partisan the democratic proposals are. Right-wing Conservatives almost want to burn Snowe at the stake as a heretic for making concessions to democrats on past bills.

As I’ve said before, it’s time, long past time, for the Democrats to go it alone on health-care reform.

They have been free to do so for quite a bit of time. Remember, they had control of both houses of congress a filibuster proof majority until Kennedy's death, and a democratic President and they still could not muster the needed votes. That again shows just how partisan the proposals have been even within just the democratic party. I mean whats the excuse that the democrats couldn't pass legislation under those conditions, it certainly wasn't " obstructionist" Republicans was it? To make such an accusation is intellectually dishonest.

What a poor post.

I suggest in the future that you consider exploring the reasons democrats cannot convince their own members to go along with the proposed legislations that has been rejected by democratic moderates.

GreenDreams

Ryan's bill is a disaster. And no one has suggested what it would cost. I see nothing in the Ryan bill that would slow the increase in private insurance premiums one cent. It would doubtless increase them.

Leonidas

Ryan's bill is a disaster. And no one has suggested what it would cost. I see nothing in the Ryan bill that would slow the increase in private insurance premiums one cent. It would doubtless increase them.

Respectfully disagree. Tort reform and increased competion would drive costs down IMHO. Both are in the Ryan bill.

Kastanj

"When Olympia Snow makes a statement like that you realize just how partisan the democratic proposals are."

That's one way of seeing it.

"Right-wing Conservatives almost want to burn Snowe at the stake as a heretic for making concessions to democrats on past bills."

I think it's awesome that you wrote the sentence above right before the first one I quoted, with absolutely no pause for reconsideration.

"consider exploring the reasons democrats cannot convince their own members to go along with the proposed legislations that has been rejected by democratic prostitutes who are addicted to insurance company lobbyist money."

Fixed that for you.

DLS

One part of Obama's speech was to get the Demmies moving forward again, and Baucus's decision about his bill (and to move forward on it, with or without GOP support) is merely another part of this. That it isn't as extreme or wacky (or that he isn't as extreme or wacky) as the House lib Dems is why you are rabid, Mikey, but while that is once again extreme _and_ wacky, it's no surprise at all.

GreenDreams

Malpractice is 0.5% of health care. You're 36.5% short of matching the savings of a Medicare for all program. "Competition" has not helped. Remember, that's our current system.

GreenDreams

DLS: "rabid, extreme, wacky, blah blah blah"
zzzzzzzz

learn some debate skills, buddy.

DLS

"[L]earn some debate skills, buddy."

Having the facts on my side is sufficient. Some don't like the truth, and sugar-coating it won't help them. There's no need for me to make bogus concessions any more than there is a need for me to conceal the occasional bad news or instance when I'm wrong, merely because it would lose debating points. I'll put up with the gripes about style and continue to stay on the right side with the substance.

Mikey's behavior is well-known. In fact, I've been generously brief with him normally. Enough said.

DLS

""Competition" has not helped. Remember, that's our current system."

Our system is rigged. What's being sought is even more rigged "competition."

It would remain divisive, but would be much preferable to see a plain bill with only the "public option," if the logical thing isn't going to be sought instead (actual, honest reform).

And I wouldn't be surprised to see the House Dems put the public option back into conference legislation if that is based now on Baucus's bill rather than HR 3200.

GreenDreams

For once I agree with you, that the Dems should offer a simple OPTIONAL Medicare for all bill. "If you want to BUY into Medicare, at any age, you can."

As for "the facts" being on your side on the other issues, I disagree. Ad hominem attacks are opinions, not facts.

Ric Locke

"Bipartisan", in Obama/Gandelman World, means "...get a few Republicans on board, so when the thing blows up in our faces we can make Betty Boop eyes and wail, 'But the Republicans signed off on it!'"

And if Olympia "Babs of Snowe Country" Snowe has figured that out and won't go along with it, you'd better start wondering if maybe the tactic hasn't worn itself out.

Regards,
Ric

GreenDreams

And what does 'bipartisan' mean in the GOP world? "My way or the highway."

DLS

I'm aware of what (real) logical fallacies are, as opposed to fast and loose, too-handy misuse of the related nomenclature.

"the Dems should offer a simple OPTIONAL Medicare for all bill"

That's not what I said, but [shrug] it's actually more honest, still, than what they're doing now.

One of the approaches I've heard of was to offer buy-ins for people in their fifties, either 55-and-over or past age 50 (fifty). These are the people outside Medicare facing the largest per capita expenses (for themselves, as opposed to the family plans, which typically exceed four figures monthly now in many states). Presumably a family approach and "safety net" approach could relax eligibility for Medicaid or extend it to the unemployed or in place of COBRA. (That would elevate the problem with these two programs, Medicare and Medicaid, of underpayment to providers and expose more access problems.)

DLS

"'Bipartisan', [as well as "moderate"] in Obama/Gandelman World, means "...get a few Republicans on board...[to constitute a thin veneer of moderation, centrism, or mainstream approval]"

As with stimulus -- the next question will be, will it be the same now for damage control of health care, or will it be still like the House climate bill (with the public as well as the GOP saying "don't do this")?

blog comments powered by Disqus