Right after President Obama was elected in November, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) released a fairly ambitious health care reform policy white paper and held a series of events rolling out his vision for health care reform. Then, in negotiations with his colleagues on the committee, Baucus spent the intervening months chipping away at the key provisions of his plan, including the public option, which has reportedly been dropped and replaced by controversial, private, non-profit co-ops.
Now Baucus says that's all a matter of political necessity. "I want a public option too!" Baucus reportedly told about 40 Montana Democrats a week ago, adding that he also doesn't trust private insurance companies to police themselves and rein in profits and other excesses.
Though the call took place last Monday, the details weren't reported until yesterday, and were quickly picked up by online media outlets including Politico and Huffington Post.
Baucus' staff says that the apparent disconnect between what he's telling party members back home and what he's doing in Washington isn't particularly significant--it's all about the politics. "Senator Baucus included a public option in his November 2008 White Paper, which is essentially his blueprint for reform. A public option has always been on the table," a Finance Committee aide says. "He's said all along that he wants to hold the insurance companies' feet to the fire and there are a lot of ways to do that. The key is putting together a bill that will hold insurance companies accountable and - most importantly - that will pass the Senate."
What exactly does that mean? It's impossible to know what's in Baucus' heart of hearts. But whether he truly supports a public option or not, the aide says that the bill the Finance Committee eventually unveils will represent "what he thinks can pass the Senate."
And given that almost all reports suggest the committee will not endorse a public option, this may well cause reformers some heartburn.
Ed. note: This is an edited version of the original post.


The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 24, 2009 4:56 PM
What legislation? His secret negotiations with the Only Six Senators Whose Ideas Matter have yet to yield a single damn line of proposed legislation as far as I can tell.
But, yeah, as if we needed any further confirmation the walls are closing in on the Gang of Six, I'd say we just got it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MASON
August 24, 2009 5:29 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I've got to give credit where credit is due, TCFKA NCSteve. I read your earlier speculation on the thinking behind Sebelius' public option comment and it seems to me you nailed it.
Republicans, predictably, overplayed their hand. Looks like the tide is turning...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 24, 2009 5:06 PM
I don't trust Baucus to make sure that's in his legislation but this is a good sign. It means that when Dodd and Rockefeller and Schumer try to put a public option into the senate bill, he won't fight them, especially since the republicans have made it clear that they're not going to vote for anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ozacrot
August 24, 2009 5:15 PM
I think it's totally reasonable to have an understanding of what kind of bill we need to be able to put together to get through the Senate.
What's that, you say? We have 60 Democrats in the Senate, and 2 Maine Republicans who still deliberate using reason? Huh.
It seems to me that the first thing we need to do is get some comment from all of our Senators - who would be voting against cloture on a bill like this? I think it's certainly worth seeing where everybody stands as far as an up-or-down vote goes, but the real question, especially now, is seeing explicitly from Dem Senators where they stand on allowing their own party to hold votes in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
August 24, 2009 5:16 PM
I've felt all along that a number of these guys are trying to have it both ways. They talk publicly about how it's too expensive, too much government, blah, blah, blah, and it's all just a show for the folks back home to see what a good job they're doing keeping the evil government in check. But when it's time to press the voting button, they know which side of their bread is buttered, and they'll vote for the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baltimore
August 24, 2009 5:31 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
who butters their bread? lots of politicos get large sums from the insurance companies!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
August 24, 2009 5:39 PM in reply to baltimore
And no doubt, that carries a lot of weight, but those contributions aren't going to stop just because they vote for the bill. The party also puts large sums of money into re-election campaigns - even more than lobbyists. In the end, they need the Democratic party to be on their side.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jzap
August 24, 2009 6:06 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
But it is possible to know what's in his campaign coffers -- and where it came from.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
August 25, 2009 9:00 AM in reply to jzap
But, he SWEARS this time!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
August 24, 2009 9:39 PM in reply to baltimore
They get that money to run tv ads telling their constituents how wonderful they are at election time. That will matter very little if they stymie a bill that is wildly popular with their base. Don't tell me there aren't up and coming Democrats in MT who aren't rubbing their hands together right now making plans to take on the old man if he screws this up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
August 24, 2009 6:22 PM
The fact that the Republicans are seemingly changing the goalline now tells me that they're worried the Dems might get a party line vote of 60, or be able to peel off the necessary number of Republicans for cloture. When you have Grassley, Enzi and what's his face spouting off about wanting 75-80 votes to be truly bi-partisan it tells me they're worried.
Republicans need 51 when they're i the majority, but Democrats need 80? WTF? Of course the Dems will probably play by those rules now. I can hear Reid now...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
August 24, 2009 9:40 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Reid has his own election to worry about, he knows that his chances of getting reelected go down sharply if they fail to get something good with a public option passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cmaukonen
August 25, 2009 9:19 AM
Considering a likely challenge...Grasping at straws (men).
C
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
August 25, 2009 9:44 AM
I am sick of this preemptive capitulating. There are Senators who will probably cave and support a public option, if they are forced to filibuster and/or vote against it, once they feel the public pressure that their vote will provoke. It's all part of the legislative process. Baccus shouldn't try to truncate it.
Secondly, the House won't pass a bill that doesn't contain a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tpmgary
August 25, 2009 9:45 AM
the dems conservatives, first names are expletives,
BLANKIN Baucus, BLANKIN Bayh,
BLANKIN Nelsons, Ben and Bill,
there's not one iota of health reform
they wouldn't BLANKIN kill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
T Groan
August 25, 2009 10:19 AM
Liar Liar pants on fire. These people must think the American public will believe anything.
And as I've said repeatedly, there will be no meaningful health care legislation until the corporate parties are removed from power. This unfortunately means many on the left are going to have to awaken from their dumbocrat inspired trance and go third party. I won't be holding my breath on that one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
August 25, 2009 10:27 AM
So he is one of the most powerful Senators but his support for the publicoption must remain a hidden desire while his doppleganger Chuck Grassley is out there pumping out the the torch and pitchfork crowd with lies and hyperbole?
Gee, Senator Baucus, why can't yo speak of your love for the public option publicly if Grassley can speak so loudly his delusions and falsehoods?
Either Baucus is bullshitting the Dems back home or he doesn't understand that he can advocate for policies, not just toss cold water on them.
Baloney.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truthspeaker
August 25, 2009 10:50 AM
As a Canadian, I am appalled at the lies being told about our great country. Whether you are for reform or not, at least defend your position from a factual point of view. I listen to limbaugh, hannity, and a guy in Buffalo name sandy beach (no capilization for these folks) and then I turn on the evening news and listen to the same diatribe verbatim. I swear all the networks are anti OBama. CNN disgust me the most. I call them turncoats. Thankful that I found TPM and its wonderful contributors.
I say ram this bill through and let the chips fall where they may. If the American public don't like it then we will all know in 2010, won't we?, but as of now, these pundits will continue to lie and deceive the undereducated to their advantage. I feel for Americans who have to pay so much for health care. You guys must be nuts. Do you know how it feels to NEVER think about health care?. Again, you guys - some of you - must be nuts.
Jah walks
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
August 25, 2009 11:42 AM in reply to truthspeaker
Thanks for the comments from Up North there, eh.
No, we don't know what it's like not to fear needing health care. It's a daunting prospect and one that can ruin a family's finances for life. It's the number one cause of bankruptcy.
Which is all the more reason our political discourse is so insane to be enthralled to these jackasses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
August 25, 2009 11:39 AM
But whether he truly supports a public option or not, the aide says that the bill the Finance Committee eventually unveils will represent "what he thinks can pass the Senate."
Can you imagine a statement like this coming from a Republican Finance Committee chairman? When Republicans are in power they start with what they want first, then if they can't get the votes, they threaten, cajole, and finally negotiate. With Democrats, they start with the assumption that they won't get the votes they need, and propose watered-down legislation which they have to negotiate down further, since Republicans will oppose it anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spytheweb
August 25, 2009 11:51 AM
I don't want a public option, i want single payer. Any plan that involves insurance companies is a loss cause. You pay the government by payroll taxes and you go to any doctor, any hospital, no copays, no preexisting conditions, no denials. Single payer would make the US health system the best in the world. America could be the leader again in something.
http://www.hr676.org/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scarpy
August 25, 2009 12:08 PM
It seems to me that too often folks don't distinguish between the Gang of 6 bill -- what Baucus is working on -- and the ultimate Finance Committee product that will come after folks like Chuck Schumer, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry, Maria Cantwell, and Bob Menendez have their say. It will be vey, very interesting to see if Baucus, Conrad, and Bingaman vote with the GOP to block liberal amendments, or if the Dems on the broader committee are able to pull the bill back to the left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
atticus1104
August 25, 2009 12:51 PM
Have you all seen this video of Neil Cavuto saying that it is not Obama's moral obligation to make sure Americans have health care, but it is his moral obligation to protect the American dollar?
This is unbelievable! here is the clip.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2640
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?