
After months of frustrating deliberations, and a threat from the White House that President Obama would write his own legislation, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has finally circulated a draft of a health care bill--one that does not create a public option, but allows for the creation of health care co-operatives.
According to the New York Times, Baucus' plan is calculated to win the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). But Snowe supports a public option affixed to a so-called "trigger mechanism," raising questions about why this plan doesn't at least propose something along those lines.
One potential answer is that this legislation--if it passes the Finance Committee--will have to be reconciled with Senate HELP committee legislation, which does include a public option. And it can be argued, perhaps, that the half way point between a public option and no public option is a triggered public option.
The Baucus plan also includes weaker subsidies than the HELP committee proposed, raising some concern that, if enacted, it would require uninsured people of modest means to spend a significant percentage of their income on expensive private insurance.
Late update: Just a few more details on Baucus' plan. It is expected to cost somewhere in the vicinity of $850 and $900 billion, to be paid for with efficiencies wrung from Medicare and Medicaid, along with a tax on insurance companies aimed at their high-end health care policies.
According to the Times, "[t]he hope is that employers would buy cheaper, less generous coverage for employees, thereby reducing the overuse of medical services."
It would also provide some protection for people with incomes from 300 percent to 400 percent of the poverty level (up to $88,200 for a family of four), so they would generally not have to pay more than 13 percent of their income in premiums....To compare health plans, experts often focus on the percentage of medical expenses paid by insurance, on average, for a given population. This figure ranges from 70 percent to 95 percent under the House bill's options, but it would be less than 70 percent under Mr. Baucus's proposal.
Thirteen percent of $88,200 is just a hair under $11,500 a year--a ceiling of sorts on the vulnerability of the 2.7 million uninsured people, between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty line, who would be mandated to buy private health care with no subsidies.
Later update: An earlier version of this post reported that the Baucus plan would create neither a public option nor private health care co-ops, but, according to CNN, it would allow for the creation of private health care co-ops.
vamonticello
September 7, 2009 9:05 AM
Does it include mandates for individuals? Hopefully it doesnot....that would be a good reason for weaker subsidies. No mandates...it would substract 100's of billions from the total cast
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plaidsportcoat
September 7, 2009 12:47 PM in reply to vamonticello
"The Baucus plan also includes weaker subsidies than the HELP committee proposed, raising some concern that, if enacted, it would require uninsured people of modest means to spend a significant percentage of their income on expensive private insurance."
Yes. That is a mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
September 7, 2009 9:09 AM
It is definitely not the bill we want, but at the same time, it's not going to be the bill Obama finally signs into law. So as far as I'm concerned, we're making progress now that Baucus isn't gumming up the works any more and we can move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Observerinvancouver
September 7, 2009 11:46 AM in reply to Xantar
Getting a bill out of the finance committee is the only thing that matters at the moment because it can then be amended and combined with the HELP committee bill. But unless the finance committee comes up with a bill, any bill, in the first place, health care is pretty much on life support (at least as far as I can figure out).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
impik
September 7, 2009 1:07 PM in reply to Xantar
Exactly. Thank god it's out of this stupid committee, and now we can move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
September 7, 2009 1:58 PM in reply to Xantar
I agree. After hearing about Snowe's "trigger" bs last week, co-ops ain't sounding so bad anymore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arugulachomper
September 7, 2009 9:30 AM
The trigger is total BS - it's a trigger that will never be pulled. Just look at how a trigger worked in the disastrous prescription drug plan - the GOP worked hard to ensure that the trigger was so weak that it'd never be toggled.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
September 7, 2009 9:35 AM
Did anyone expect anything else from Max Baucus, health care reformer! What a joke.
Obama and Reid will respond by asking for Olympia Snow's approval. If she does then they will be happy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
September 7, 2009 10:22 AM
Since the Finance Committee is hoplessly deadlocked and worthless, at least this might get us out of that nightmare and toward moving the process forward.
What they are essentially saying on the committee is, we can't do anything. So we're going to check. Let everybody else do the heavy lifting. What a bunch of retarded cowards.
Unable to come up with anything because they are owned by the health insurance industry and scared to death of the backlash from the Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity freaks in their own small, rural, conservatie states. Never mind that the kind of reform we're talking about, benefits those stinking states the most.
Please!!! Spare me.
Again, at least this MIGHT get us past them and moving forward.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
am4
September 7, 2009 11:23 AM in reply to willia451
Thanks for using the word "retarded." That really helps the self-esteem of people with disabilities and improves the quality of this discussion. Yea, "retards" are to blame for the Democratic failures on health care. Nice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
September 7, 2009 12:26 PM in reply to am4
Apologies. My bad. I strike the offending language and we'll simply go with cowards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beetlejuice
September 7, 2009 10:24 AM
Okay. This first draft is for those corporations that donate heavily to his campaign fund. Where's the one for us? The public?
Sorry, but the free market has never stood up to the plate on the issue so Congress has to make the tough decisions the marketplace won't. It's Congress's responsibility to the people who elected them to stand tall and firm and go toe-to-toe with the business community and tell them they have got to change the way they do business with the public.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
September 7, 2009 10:41 AM in reply to Beetlejuice
right on beetlejuice: we are either a government "for, by and of the people," or we are "the united corporations of america."
either those we elect to represent the will of the people in this representative form of government, or our representatives only represent those who filled their campaign coffers.
if this past month has shown us anything, it is just how much those like baucus, conrad, the two nelsons and landrieu are being paid to obstruct and block any reform that might jeopardize the huge profits from the health insurance industry.
fine, get your bill out of committee baucus and let us get onto the conference and reconciliation without you. you and all the others will meet the will of the people in your next primary and believe me, no amount of campaign donations can defeat the will of the people. you can take that to the bank!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
September 7, 2009 11:03 AM in reply to Beetlejuice
The market did not put a man on the moon in ten years...NASA did.
The model we are looking for here is one like the space program.
The government (we the people) decide that universal coverage of all citizens is the goal....
Then we organize market forces to accomplish that goal.
We pay for the goal with taxes...and we let the private sector compete for contracts.
What has failed is letting the market decide what the goal should be.
Burger King's goal is not nutrition.
Medical Insurance industry's goal is not universal coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
September 7, 2009 10:39 AM
Health care 101 for our dimwitted representatives:
1. There is no such thing as health "insurance". Everybody WILL need care at some point or other, and in fact everybody needs preventive care, so expenditures for care are a certainty, not a "risk".What we are talking about is health care financing.
2. Health care is a textbook case of market failure. It is logically impossible to have quality care delivered and paid for efficiently to everyone who needs it by relying heavily on "free markets".
Eh, who am I kidding. The only numbers these whores ever look at are their campaign contributions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 7, 2009 10:43 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Health care is a textbook case of political failure. We now have a one party system consisting of two factions of oligarchs fighting over the spoils they receive from the plutocracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 7, 2009 10:47 AM
"I do so love being proved right (left) in my rants:
The Baucus plan also includes weaker subsidies than the HELP committee proposed, raising some concern that, if enacted, it would require people of modest means to spend a significant percentage of their income on expensive private insurance."
I told you so! This is the screw the people bill brought to you courtesy of the Democratic Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 7, 2009 11:09 AM in reply to bluebell
Wow. Now that's a shocker!! Baucus' plan is weaker than the HELP committee plan!!
Only Bluebell in her infinite wisdom could have seen that coming!
It's not as if Baucus has been raked over the coals for the past three months by Democrats, liberals and progressives for giving away the store to Republicans. It's not as if Rockefeller and Schumer have been given up on him. It's not like the rest of the Democrats walked out of the negotiations because they were bullshit or anything.
Only Bluebell could have called this one. LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
September 7, 2009 1:01 PM in reply to FreeRider
The only thing of interest in BlueBell's comment is the admission that she takes pleasure in hearing bad health care news.
That explains a lot...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 7, 2009 3:23 PM in reply to Stroszek
C'mon Stroszek! You're not just figuring this out, are you?
Bluebell LOVES seeing things go badly for Obama and the Democrats. It makes her feel righteous and superior to say "I told you they are assholes." She claims she wants "real" healthcare reform but what she wants is something to gripe about.
What a miserable, bitter soul.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
September 7, 2009 11:18 AM in reply to bluebell
Wow! How were you able to tell the senate bill would suck? man, you should get your own 1-800 number like Ms. Cleo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 7, 2009 11:37 AM in reply to Viva!America!
ROTFLMAO!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Printzton54
September 7, 2009 10:50 AM
PLEASE ENCOURAGE everyone TO LET CONGRESS and PRESIDENT OBAMA KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT IN HEALTH CARE REFORM. ONE EASY WAY THEY CAN DO THIS IS BY USING THE PDF FORM AT GOOGLE DOCUMENTS THAT I CREATED USING THE HOUSE RESOLUTION 3200 OFFICIAL SUMMARY, AS WELL AS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S LIST OF WHAT HE WANTs IN HEALTH CARE REFORM. THIS IS AN EASY CHECKLIST OF FEWER THAN 50 ITEMS. We, the government, of the people, by the people, and for the people must stand up and SPEAK! DO IT TODAY....BE VIRILE...OR VIRAL....BUT USE THE FORM AND SPEAK YOUR MIND. We CAN, we MUST, we WILL!
http://tiny.cc/YH7UH
Thank you.
--
DonnaMarieEllington
http://healthyrickets.blogspot.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Observerinvancouver
September 7, 2009 11:50 AM in reply to Printzton54
If you really expect people to read your comments, ditch the full caps.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plaidsportcoat
September 7, 2009 1:13 PM in reply to Observerinvancouver
I'm okay with a GOOD comment being in full caps. Speak for yerself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dan K
September 7, 2009 10:57 AM
It looks like Baucus and Finance are essentially withdrawing from the debate. That's good news/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 7, 2009 11:24 AM in reply to Dan K
Nope. You're forgetting that the Finance Committee hasn't actually done a damn thing yet. Baucus stiff-armed the rest of the committee while he and his bipartisan BFF's did the whole thing all by themselves. The plan was to present the rest of the committee with a bipartisan fait accompli. The rest of the committee Democrats were supposed to go into mark-up knowing that they could tinker around the edges but serious changes would make it impossible for any health care bill to pass the Senate.
That plan went down the crapper when Hatch withdrew from the Finance Bipartisan Baucus Buttbuddy Group, but Baucus kept trying and trying and trying long after it was clear it was futile. Then, finally, August heated up and Enzi and Grassley saw a) all the attention all their Republican pals were getting by trashing reform and became jealous and, b) began to fear that some of the trash was going to stick to them. So they started running their mouths, making it clear that they were nothing but saboteurs the GOP had infiltrated into the sausage factory. And were surprised to discover that the days when Republicans could dispense with code and talk to the base in the clear without it being noticed by the Democrats or the MSM were (more or less) over.
So this is where the Committee--i.e. the Democrats on Finance--start this week. We don't know what their bill will look like by the time they're done. And we definitely don't know what the Senate bill will look like by the time the HELP and (assuming they ever report out a bill) Finance bills are merged.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarsThorwald
September 7, 2009 10:57 AM
This is me giving a sarcastic, overly dramatic golf clap to Max Baucus for basically asking for the summer, getting it, and then jellydicking the entire thing.
What an asshole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 7, 2009 11:10 AM in reply to LarsThorwald
LOL!! Hilarious AND 100% correct!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
September 7, 2009 1:39 PM in reply to LarsThorwald
Ha! Jellydicking! I've never heard that one. That's funny as hell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 7, 2009 11:07 AM
This isn't a bill. This is as far as he and his bipartisan lovefest pals got before Grassley and Enzi blew it all up by admitting they just acting as saboteurs rather than negotiating in good faith. (Hey, in Rove's day, right wing politicians used to tell the the base exactly what he was doing all the time without Democrats noticing or the MSM reporting it. How were they supposed to know the rules had changed?)
So basically, he just handed in an incomplete project for partial credit. He already had an "I," ran out the clock on his extension and still couldn't finish so, like innumerable undergrads before him, he decided a D+ or a C- was better than an F. (The grading professor being the MSM, not us).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
September 7, 2009 11:13 AM
Such a bill would be worthless, and would cost the Democrats their majorities for certain. Why propose it? Could any politician believe that the money s/he would get from insurance companies is a guarantee of their re-election? I know that Wall Street once was quoted in the NYT as saying, "One dollar=one vote" when speaking of the spending they did to sway elections.
Latin Americans used to lament Dollar Diplomacy. Now we lament Dollar Democracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
September 7, 2009 11:34 AM in reply to MyMy
I think it was done with a simple recognition that his committee was holding up progress. I think he realized that a classic, romanticized "bipartisan compromise" was not in the works. So, the best thing to do is to quit forestalling momentum.
Once he puts something forward, we can at least start talking seriously about what the Senate and House will vote on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
September 7, 2009 11:16 AM
Dear Max,
Thank you very much for a job well done. Check is on the way.
Sincerely,
AHIP
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
September 7, 2009 11:59 AM in reply to cawleybo
I hope the people of Montana ride him out of town on a rail.
It's a small state. 50,000 liberals could move up there and vote him out of office in the next primary where he comes up.
All the millions of dollars in bribes that were given him won't cover up his complicity in a most brazen act of payola.
The man is a traitor to his party, his people, his state and this country. Obama should make him ambassador to Greenland.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texar
September 7, 2009 11:19 AM
Baucus --thanks for nothing. Now get the hell out of the way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
politicjock
September 7, 2009 11:21 AM
What a sham!
Any fee on insurance companies is going to be passed right onto consumers. Another government giveaway to wealthy corporations. This is not what these clowns were elected for.
Split the party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
capeJoe
September 7, 2009 11:28 AM
I have to say I was actually fooled by the Democratic party. I really believed Obama would push hard for real healthcare reform, end the wars, act responsibly with the budget by rolling back tax cuts, support unionization, punish lawbreakers in the previous Bush administration, support immigration reform, close Guantanamo, pass meaningful environmental reform etc.etc. So far nothing except giving more taxpayer money to irresponsible corporations. I'm not hopeful. Will vote for Green Party candidate next time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 7, 2009 11:40 AM in reply to capeJoe
Great! Run along. You're late for a Nader meeting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
capeJoe
September 7, 2009 3:24 PM in reply to FreeRider
May not get elected, but at least he is someone who stands for something and willing to fight for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 7, 2009 3:34 PM in reply to capeJoe
But, but, but. I thought you wanted actual results. So supporting a guy who has no chance of getting elected and is guaranteed to make good on 0.00% of his campaign promises is preferable to supporting a guy who makes good on only 50-60% his campaign promises?
That makes so much sense. NOT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
capeJoe
September 8, 2009 12:47 PM in reply to FreeRider
Makes sense to me.
Vote for Democrats=get nothing done that I care about and support liars and wimps.
Vote for third party candidiate=won't get elected=get nothing done I care about but support someone who is genuine.
By the way, I'm not a Nader supporter, and I think all politicians (humans) do what's best for themselves with rare exceptions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spencer_f
September 7, 2009 5:55 PM in reply to capeJoe
The only thing Ralph Nader stands for is what's best for Ralph Nader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 7, 2009 11:56 AM in reply to capeJoe
Y'know something? Even in countries where "change" means armed revolutionaries taking over the presidential palace, killing or imprisoning the old regime, liquidating the ruling class, and redistributing all their property to the peepul, it turns out it still takes time to get shit done.
Even Castro a couple or three years after Batista fled to get the Revolution fully institutionalized and somewhat more than a decade to before tings like improvements in literacy and health care started solidifying. And that was all with the USSR footing 80% of the bill.
So yeah, sorry it turned out that its taking a little time to get shit done in a mature democracy full of vested interests because Barack didn't have a magic wand that could instantly transform us into a utopia. No doubt the Greens have a direct link in to Hogwarts that will make things go easier after they win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 7, 2009 12:13 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Steve, you have a real problem with dates and history. The healthcare issue dates back far before Castro to the Truman era at least. Yes, it took Cuba, and Canada, and France, and the UK and Israel, and Germany (repeat 100 times or so) awhile to accomplish universal healthcare. It did. It was a 20th century accomplishment. Taken for granted by most of the civilized world.
But, hey don't let me get in the way of your grand incremental compromise. We serfs await our opportunity to tithe to UnitedHeath or Wellpoint, our choice, of course.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
September 7, 2009 12:48 PM in reply to bluebell
Congratulations on missing the point entirely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
September 7, 2009 1:15 PM in reply to bluebell
What I don't get about the "incremental change" arguments is when the other increments are supposed to happen. Face it guys -- we're going to get one bite at this apple for at least a decade. Something will be passed and it'll be called healthcare reform and that will be it. There's no "healthcare Part deux" on the horizon. The country and the congress won't have the stomach for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 7, 2009 3:37 PM in reply to destor23
Social security and Medicare have both improved greatly since they were first implemented. The same can happen for healthcare but we've got to pass a bill first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 7, 2009 3:29 PM in reply to bluebell
Sometimes even I am suprised by your complete stupidity. This is one of those times. To totally misinterpret Steve's comment the way you did is nothing short of breath taking . . . even for someone as nuts as you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 7, 2009 4:26 PM in reply to FreeRider
Thanks for the support, but, honestly, I think maybe she just assumed I was on topic, read it in a hurry and missed the fact that I'd gone OT and was being macro. Having done that a time or ten myself, I know how it happens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 7, 2009 6:38 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Actually, my post wasn't written to support yours (with which I agree). It was written solely to highlight Bluebell's ignorance, which is only exceeded by her self-righteous arrogance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
September 7, 2009 2:05 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Obama isn't as magical a negro as Quackers would like. And before you flip out about the magic(al) negro reference, look it up. It's a literary term.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
capeJoe
September 7, 2009 3:28 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I respectfully disagree. The 345-page Patriot Act was drafted, debated, and passed in 45 days. That's because the people with power wanted it, and the Republicans have discipline.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 7, 2009 4:22 PM in reply to capeJoe
And you don't think there were any overwhelmingly potent external factors working in their favor on that one? Some completely unanticipated bolt from the blue, a seismic catastrophe that issued such a profound systemic shock to the nation that it swept aside all possibility of dissent, made it possible to enact legislation that would have been inconceivable before and is, in fact, barely conceivable now? Something that was so hugely traumatic to the nation as a whole that it deranged our politics for five years?
Ringing any bells? Something that happened oh, maybe like about eight years ago? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
capeJoe
September 8, 2009 12:59 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Not a good excuse, in my opinion. The Patriot Act was drafted in response to a crisis. The current healthcare financing reform movement is supported by people like me who correctly note that the amount of death, suffering and bankruptcies that are taking place in our country have and will affect many more thousands than were affected by 9/11. It is the fault of the Democrats and Obama for not educating the populace about reality.
The Republicans are very skillful about mobilizing people by fear of issues that may not even be true; Democrats certainly could at least try to muster up some urgency about this issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
September 7, 2009 12:59 PM in reply to capeJoe
With fascist Cheney and witch-hunting evangelical Palin's running America - there won't be any Green party. I like Nader. I wish I lived in a country where he could get elected. But in order to make things happen you have to stop being a liberal and become a progressive. Handing America over to the Assembly of God church is what defection looks like to me. Get pissed and fight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
September 7, 2009 11:31 AM
Which begs the question -- what if the Senate HELP Committee had put forward a Medicare for All bill? Then, the midway point would be a public option.
Did our side just completely blow this from the start?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 7, 2009 11:59 AM in reply to Moose49
It's probably too soon to tell, given that we don't have anything final yet.
But starting from the crazed fringe socialist position might have resulted in something stronger than what we're apparently going to get now.
The Republicans were going to go batshit crazy no matter the plan, so why not aim high?
(And for everyone who keeps insisting that there are reasonable Republicans out there: name one who has stood up to the crazies. Just one.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
September 7, 2009 12:05 PM in reply to CT Voter
Ummm . . . . I'm thinking. One repuke that stood up to the crazies. Ummmm . . . . Barney Frank? Oh, that's right he's a dem. Ummmm. Can't think of one off hand. Pathetic.
They should run right over the repukes and ignore them at this point. So, the dems have two years in power. They have two years to get sh*t done. Get it done and forget about the consequences. This is really pathetic.
Medicare for all is the way to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
September 7, 2009 12:08 PM in reply to Moose49
Yes.
As in "Yes, We Can."
Unless you're talking health care, then it's "No, We Can't."
Estrange you can believe in.
Thank you, Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
September 7, 2009 12:51 PM in reply to Tim
What's the good of having sixty Senator Barack Obamas if they're just going to act like a loose coalition of moderates and progressives from a variety of culturally distinct regions?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 7, 2009 11:37 AM
People. One more time. This is not the Senate Finance committee bill. This is the stack of paper that Senate Finance will start working from when they (finally!) begin mark-up.
Baucus is basically just pushing the hard part out onto the Democrats on the SFC. (Damn, let the whole committee hold mark-up hearings and propose and vote on amendments in public. What an amazing concept. Why didn't someone suggest that to Max earlier?)
For all I know,what comes out of markup may not be much different. Finance has more than its fair share of Barelydems so maybe the plan is to just report out a bare-bones mealymouthed consensus POS and put off the heavy lifting onto whatever process they use to reconcile the Finance and HELP bills. But this is NOT the Senate Finance Bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ctal
September 7, 2009 11:39 AM
Mother F*cking Wh0re.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MichaelG1986
September 7, 2009 12:04 PM in reply to ctal
He prefers the term "Belle du Jour" - it's a little more classy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
September 7, 2009 2:13 PM in reply to MichaelG1986
Lovely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
September 7, 2009 11:40 AM
Is it too late for the Medicare for all bumper sticker? It would be a two page bill, one for signatures. It would get rid of all the people complaining to keep the government out of medicare. It would get rid of the "death panels" another republican dirty trick. I really think that was a set up by repukes, because it was completely unnecessary and was an amendment promoted by republicans. It would get rid of all this bs back and forth on the public option.
I say just throw everything out and make medicare for all. Then go back and throw out the prescription drug plan/welfare for the drug industry and start from scratch on that one. Hearing on the obscene profits of the drug industry and shed light on the fact that the US subsidizes world drug prices.
Make the bumper sticker "medicare for all" and see what the repukes can do with that one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neesy08
September 7, 2009 11:54 AM
I need to know more. I can't tell if this is a good plan or a bad one. I find it interesting tha Baccus releases this jst prior to Obama's speech before both Houses
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
September 7, 2009 12:04 PM
All of us who have been saying to ourselves, "I'm covered through my work, so this debate doesn't really affect me" take note.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 7, 2009 12:10 PM in reply to agio
That statement is disconcerting on multiple levels.
"The hope"? We "hope" something will happen? Maybe if we click our heels three times while wearing ruby red slippers?
Second, "less generous coverage"? As if the problem is the "overuse" of medical services? Maybe that's a problem for Congressional members, with their gold-plated medical insurance, but I don't see evidence that it's a widespread or even universal problem. And who's doing the overusing? Patients, or doctors, who get paid for services provided, and not outcomes?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
September 7, 2009 5:34 PM in reply to CT Voter
Nearly everyone in this country regardless of whether they get their insurance through their employer or acquire it themselves have seen their coverage decreased, their deductables increased and their premiums increased over the last ten years. This has resulted in people using less health care already. The Baucus plan simply means more money for the insurance companies and fewer claims being filed because people will not able to afford to invoke their benefits. Treason means selling out your country, your fellow citizens and your principals. That's a pretty good description of the Senator.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 7, 2009 12:31 PM in reply to agio
Yes, one of the most pathetic things about this is that there is actually some truth in the Republican rants about this whole fiasco. The Democrats with souls of beancounters are building legislation designed to please accountants not care for people.
I wouldn't be on such a rant these last few months if I didn't know so many people just this year who had to fight like hell just to get that "unnecessary" test that proved they have cancer.
There is no heart or soul in this fight. You can't find a Democrat except for Dean and a couple of others who even seem to remember they are talking about the lives of real Americans not just their personal political well-being.
Even Reagan had enough sense to put a human face on issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ceedeecee
September 7, 2009 12:06 PM
Dear Senator Baucus
Your proposed Health Care Reform Plan has "Triggered" the following response.
ROLL YOUR PLAN INTO A TIGHT TUBE AND STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!
Also STFU and get the hell out of our way.
Signed
A real Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davis_X_Machina
September 7, 2009 12:27 PM
And since the committee is group work, and the Senate is group work, he'll mostly get the grade the people actually, you know, doing the work in the best group will get.
I hated group work in school.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Azdak
September 7, 2009 12:37 PM
OK, this may be simplistic, but sometimes, I'm a simple-minded guy. The story claimed that subsidies were being set so that no one would pay more than 13% of their income in premiums. First of all, that seemed really high to me. Based on the upper-end figure of $88,200 in income reported in the story, that translates into premiums of $955.50 per month.
I have wondered throughout this entire debate what some of the final numbers would look like because no one has defined what "affordable" health insurance actually would cost.
Right now many of the employer subsidized rates I am seeing are $250 per month for family coverage (which includes dental). Deductibles have now risen the $500 per person, $1500 per family. Which means that basically, you are out $4,000 before anything is covered (except covered preventive services).
In my world, this is not "affordable" by any stretch of the imagination.
Like the Iraq War, Medicare Part D, various oil and agricultural subsidy programs--this is just another structured transfer of wealth from taxpayers to corporations. I can pretty much guarantee that nothing I see coming out of this "reform" process will do ANYTHING to lower health care costs for individuals. It will just lock us all into a higher price scale---the rules will be set so that out of pocket costs will remain the same as they are now, but taxpayer $$$ will be used to put more people into the system in order to subsidize insurance company profits.
We have reached the point where our economic system has become a kind of Bizzaro Socialism where government does NOT control the means of production, but where the forces of government are used primarily to control the flow of SPENDING from private citizens to corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 7, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to Azdak
I think you've put your finger on the utter unseriousness of this entire effort. The untold story remains the lack of funding for the bill. You can't do fundamental change on the cheap. With no money to fund the transition, you're dropping a coercive mandate on people to buy lousy private policies. Meanwhile, they're still paying payroll tax for Medicare. They have stagnant or declining wages. They have a mortgage they can barely pay. The sad reality is that the teabaggers aren't all wrong about this. They fear they are being screwed and they are. What do you think the public reaction is going to be when their fears are confirmed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plaidsportcoat
September 7, 2009 1:19 PM in reply to Azdak
I like this analysis. It sounds about right to me! crapola.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hidden Oak
September 7, 2009 12:59 PM
Max, You get paid for doing this?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winski
September 7, 2009 1:10 PM
Please get word back to Max - take this plan and stuff it where the sun don't shone - you gutless jerk. After all the needless whining and hand waving and LIES, your actually think you are gonna get people to support your work?? HA! You're a bigger idiot than I thought!!!
Best you stay in big sky conutry where you may be a bit harder to find, because they are gonna laugh you out of DC...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Quackers
September 7, 2009 1:15 PM
If the Democrats want see a revolt, let them pass a mandate requiring everyone to buy a POS private plan that covers next to nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiggers thotful spot
September 7, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to Quackers
You got that right.
The best way to grow the Democratic Party would be to pass the Employee Free Choice Act and real health care reform.
The best way to destroy the Democratic Party is to pass a piece of shit bill that subsidizes insurance companies out of the pockets of people barely making ends meet; providing them with plans that will still bankrupt them if they actually need to see a doctor.
In my view if the Democratic Party cannot see these truths it really does deserve to die.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JoeTheMechanic
September 7, 2009 1:21 PM
I think this is about as good as could be expected from Max Baucus. Let's face it, none of the proposed health care plans even begin to put a dent in the massive redistriution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich that has occurred over the last few decades.
Frankly, I'm pleased that the poor are not being asked to subsidize the rich. Of course, we haven't seen the final bill yet...
Some how, some way, we need to figure out how to get to those who would benefit from universal health care but have fallen for the the right wing disinformation campaign. Logic and reason have not worked too well.
I sure hope health care reform includes mental health. Perhaps all the wacko stuff is some kind of a plea for help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
puarau
September 7, 2009 1:38 PM
What a surprise. An individual mandate and no public option. This is corporate welfare. This is just like the bushboy's big pharma giveaway. There must be a comprise that will ensure cost-controls.
The Swiss and German health care systems are not single-payer, but they do regulate the industry like public utilities. Maybe the Widen plan needs to be revisited.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
revjim1968
September 7, 2009 2:00 PM
Could see this coming. Can't wait to vote Green or Worker's Socialist or something besides lying Democrat next time around. Then I'll have no horse in the race as our (lol) government turns this country into a legalized plutocracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
September 7, 2009 2:17 PM
It's a gambit, not a plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jay
September 7, 2009 4:20 PM
There is no doubt the public option would be best. However if a compromise is necessary why not both a trigger public plan AND seed money for health care cooperatives. If the combination of private insurance and health care coops don't meet the objectives of 95% coverage by 2013 then the public option kicks in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
September 7, 2009 5:31 PM
The Max Baucus plan is some of the weakest shit i've read in a long time. It's so bad the REPUBLICANS could of written the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
revjim1968
September 8, 2009 12:35 AM
Why not just change the Presidential Seal to a white flag? Let's not stand for or fight for anything substantial whatsoever. Wow, to imagine I once was excited at the prospect of this man's presidency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
capeJoe
September 8, 2009 12:52 PM
My prediction about the Democrats: now that everyone seems to be caving in and declaring victory about having a ill-defined TRIGGER for an OPTION for health care insurance, we'll have to have a phased in DELAY of the TRIGGER for the OPTION to appease the minority party. Pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?