TPMDC
« Steele: No One Has Any Idea What I'm Doing -- And I Like It That Way! | Home | House Dems Reach Deal on 'Cramdowns': The Details »

Grassley Warns Reid Not to 'Interfere' on Health Care

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) is vowing a rapid push on health reform this year, telling reporters yesterday that he would introduce a bipartisan health bill by June alongside Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA), the Finance panel's senior Republican.

Baucus and Grassley are known for working closely together, particularly on the 2007 reauthorization of the children's health insurance program (CHIP), which didn't make Grassley's fellow GOPers too happy (though the Iowan ultimately opposed the CHIP re-up that President Obama signed this year).

So Grassley enters the health care debate with a good deal of power -- and he's using it to warn Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to stay out of his and Baucus' way. When Grassley was asked this morning whether Baucus "answer[s] to" Reid on health care, he replied:

I don't think so. I don't think Harry Reid is going to [inject] himself into it. I haven't had any evidence of that at this point. And, of course, you know I'm very concerned about it ... the extent to which [Reid] would interfere, it might be the extent to which ... we'd not have a bipartisan bill.

...

If [Baucus] is trying to get a bill with 80 votes, you know, and if it does -- and it's a good product, I don't see any need for Reid to interfere.


19 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

If your biggest worry is about Harry Reid actually doing something, I'd say that you have a very trouble-free life.

January 2011 can't come fast enough. Hopefully Grassley, Baucus and Reid will all matter a lot less at that point.

user-pic

Sigh. Is it time to write our Senators again?

user-pic

have democrats gone insane? why is grassley dictating what democratic health care reform is going to be like?

we spent two years saying "january 2009 cannot come fast enough." we now have huge majorities and the WH and we are waiting for january 2011? the problem isn't the GOP but Democrats like Baucus, McCaskill and Bayh.

user-pic

Why is Grassley dictating health care?

Here are his top donors for 2008:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00001758&cycle=2008

And here are Max Baucus' top donors:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00004643&cycle=2008

I should think the answer should be blindingly obvious -- to prevent single-payer, or "Medicare/Medicaid for all", from being part of it.

user-pic

Thanks for the link. That explains alot. I was wondering why these two were involved. They never said boo about healthcare before. Now we know why. Are they going to title the bill the omnibus 2009 welfare for the insurance and pharma industry bill? They can call it WIPI for short, a play on whoopie?

user-pic

The GOP plan is to exploit the different factions under the Dem's big tent to pull the agenda as close to the center as possible.

user-pic

Baucus and Grassley? Yeah, just this morning I was thinking "out of the 100 senators, which two do I want to put in charge of reshaping our entire health care delivery system" and Baucus and Grassley were totally the two who immediately came to mind.

user-pic

That's very funny. I thought kennedy's staff was writing the bill by the way and kennedy was in charge of the process. I know he is sick, but I thought the process was proceeding. What happened with that?

user-pic

This is so disheartening...you have to wonder who is driving the bus here and are we heading for a brick wall with this kind of bullshit.

user-pic

Check out betz's links. The insurance and pharma industries are driving this bus. Let's hope it goes in a ditch.

user-pic

The role of the Republicans seems to be to involve themselves enough to screw up legislation in the name of bipartisanship, then vote "no" on the final bill.

user-pic

1. There is no such thing as health care reform that does not go through the Senate Finance Committee. Senate Health Education and labor also has jurisdiction but

2. No bill that does not have the support of a majority of the people's representatives can pass. Medicare-for-all whatever its merits doesn't have that support yet.

3. You might want to read Baucus' white paper. It's a pretty intelligent reading of the problem here. Let's just say he has listened to a lot of the right people. The main problem is cost growth and the massively innefficient delivery of care. There are many useful things that can be done.

http://finance.senate.gov/healthreform2009/home.html

user-pic

A recent poll showed that 60% of the people were in favor of medicare for all, without it being promoted yet. Let obama explain the situation and benefits and watch what happens.

I agree on the cost inefficiencies. Medicare is much more efficient than the profit motives of insurance industry. Regulation of pharma will bring those costs down dramatically.

user-pic

Can you provide a link to that poll?

user-pic

Finally, found the story on npr. I had looked for it before and couldn't find it. I heard it on npr and all most crashed my car when I heard the results. Here is the link:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/02/12/medicare_for_everyone/

user-pic

My wife is in health care and based on what she has seen, Medicare provides much better benefits than the health care we pay for. I'm in for Medicare for all.

How can single payer controlled profit health care not be better than what we have right now?

user-pic

I'm one of those who's worried about the size of Obama's proposed budget, but it isn't the cost of health care that worries me, so long as it's done right. Personally, I think voluntary single payer is the only way to go because it is fiscally efficient. The Medicare drug plan has been a horrible mess. It's terribly complex and confusing to it's users and it's inefficient and overly-costly, so I certainly hope we don't use that as a model. As a matter of fact, that's one of the things that needs to be fixed.

As for whether we can afford to do a health care plan right now,what's the big deal? We're already paying for it one way or another, even if it isn't through taxes. We're trading off lower wages for health care benefits. We pay for those who have no coverage when they receive care at hospitals, one way or another. The hospitals don't eat those costs, they pass them to government entities or they pass along the costs in the form of higher fees to those who can afford to pay, such as through higher fees to insurance companies. It would be nice if the plan could be creatively designed to reduce the horrendous costs of workers comp, for instance.

We wouldn't even need to start out with the deluxe model. Give us a very basic plan that we pay for, but that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and let us buy amendments to the basic plan from insurance companies if we want deluxe, so we could at least get it off the ground to see how it works. This is the time to do it.

user-pic

You said, "We're already paying for it one way or another, even if it isn't through taxes."

This is the same argument I make when I talk to many of the right-leaning business types in my area of the country. At a bare minimum we need a system where preventative physician care is delivered to all americans including children.

The issue that always gets brought up when I make this point is, "why should I have to pay for someone, who is not working, can not take care of themselves, etc, I have worked hard my whole life to pay for these benefits" Of course I am pretty sure these do not really address my main point but nevertheless this is essentially their point. Many realize how callous this sounds but this is a normal response.

I really have never understood why people in this country think that every single American is going to wake up ad realize that we all have to pull our wait. We don't live in fantasy land and therefor there will always be those that for one reason or another won't live up to the basic standards. I am not advocating complacency I just don't believe in perfect systems. Their inconsistency is what makes them real.

user-pic

Grassley... It doesn't take 80 votes to pass a bill. Why, given the current ideological lockstep of the remnants of the Republican Party, would Baucus or Reid attempt to secure 80 votes? Been there, done that, didn't get a t-shirt. But we can guess what your contributions will consist of. Insurance corporation protection? No, really?

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Elana
Schor

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Capital Wire

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address