
The Senate Finance Committee will soon begin debating a health care bill that will likely be unveiled this week, and already, a tug of war is emerging between committee Democrats who want to bolster a number of measures and Republican negotiators who want to see the bill get smaller.
Democrats are largely concerned that the plan won't offer uninsured Americans the sufficiently generous subsidies they'll need in order to afford the health insurance they'll be required to buy.
Addressing that issue, though, seems mutually exclusive from meeting the goals of ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), both of whom want the price of the bill to be significantly lower than it is, and also object to a plan to pay for it by imposing fees on insurance companies.
How solicitous Finance chairman Max Baucus is of those Republicans may depend on Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who is the only other Republican on the committee involved in negotiations over the bill, and may be uncomfortable voting for a bill without any other Republicans.
However, any snags will have to be resolved promptly. Leadership is pressing for a swift vote, even if that ultimately means passing a Democrat-only bill out of Finance, and resuming negotiations with Snowe later in the process.
Baucus, meanwhile, thinks the bill will emerge from committee looking quite a bit like the summary he circulated last week.
"I don't see any deal-breaker amendments," Baucus told The Hill. "Put it this way: It's unlikely that any amendments, which basically change the framework, will be accepted."
Walter Mitty
September 15, 2009 9:37 AM
I hope Enzi and Grassley vote against it. Because how could the White House walk away from it if they supported it, along with Sen. Snowe and maybe even a couple more Republicans? That would make it a truly bipartisan bill, the only one of the five. So President Obama would be painted into a corner - either he backs the bad bill because it is bi-partisan, or he doesn't and his calls for bipartisanship is ridiculed as nothing more than cheap politics and lip service by the Right from here on out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
September 15, 2009 9:49 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
Screw that, i disagree that Obama is going to get into a corner by their version. The sooner the finance committee is not holding back progress on the bill the better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
September 15, 2009 9:49 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
i disagree that he'd be painted into a corner (though i don't disagree that the right will bitch and moan about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING obama does).
while obama obviously prizes bipartisanship, he has not, i don't think, elevated it over the need for competition and accessibility. reminder:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 15, 2009 10:07 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
More ridiculous concern trolling and absurd political analysis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redshift
September 15, 2009 1:32 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Nope, not gonna happen. We're talking about committee votes here. Grassley and Enzi may vote Baucus' bill out of committee if he waters it down far enough, but they've both said that even if they do, they won't vote for their own "compromise" if it comes to the floor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
September 15, 2009 10:31 AM
Why Baucus still being allowed to dick around with politicians whose only aim is to kill health care reform is beyond me.
When all is said and done, this is the whole ballgame. If legislation passes that forces Americans to buy something they can't afford, health care reform will be a policy failure and a political disaster for Democrats. No matter what piece of crap Baucus presents to the Senate, leaders of both houses have GOT to make that the final bill they pass includes subsidies and cost controls that will work. Whatever it takes, they've got to make this happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBJs Brain
September 15, 2009 2:57 PM in reply to Moose49
I tend to agree with this. In a sense: why require purchase of something that you are going to subsidize anyway? I'm sure I'm missing something...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
September 15, 2009 3:08 PM in reply to LBJs Brain
The reason for making health insurance mandatory is to get universal coverage and to spread the risk to all segments of the population, which should result in lower rates overall (because without a mandate, chances are that younger, healthier people wouldn't buy it and you'd have an older, sicker insurance pool).
My point is this: If you're going to have a mandate, you've got to have sufficient subsidies so people can actually afford what they're being required to buy. Without that, you'll have a full-scale revolt on your hands.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBJs Brain
September 15, 2009 3:30 PM in reply to Moose49
Thanks for the clarification.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 15, 2009 11:26 AM
Dean Baker weighs in on the Public Option, or atleast, the lack of argument against it:
Liberals believe that the government can be used to improve the lives of ordinary people. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the government should redistribute money to the wealthy. This philosophical difference has come through very clearly in the debate over giving people the option to buy into a publicly run health insurance plan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-public-plan-option-an_b_286790.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 15, 2009 11:31 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Poll: Most doctors support public option
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
September 15, 2009 11:45 AM in reply to Indie Pro
You beat me to it. I don't think we're trumpeting this enough. A few weeks ago, I kept hearing the MSM chatter on and on about how the public trusts doctors so the AMA's position matters.
Now we have the truth: the AMA doesn't represent doctor's real views, and doctor's overwhelmingly support a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
September 15, 2009 12:13 PM in reply to Indie Pro
You beat me too. Why is it that we can't get the rest of the MSM to focus on this point and also the fact that most Americans also want a public option?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
September 15, 2009 11:34 AM
I don't see why Talking Points Memo, of all places, needs to keep the pretene that there is some sort of bipartisan negotiating process going on in the Finance Committee -- when it's bleeding obvious that no GOPer, including the Snowe queen, is going to vote for ANY health care reform bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neesy08
September 15, 2009 1:00 PM
I've said so already, and I will say it again: I beleieve any bill that is passed will contain the PO. If he votes for anything less, bye-bye 2nd term
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redshift
September 15, 2009 1:29 PM
I just hope the Dems on the committee who have been shut out while Baucus "negotiates" with GOP members who have never offered anything but more demands, and who say they won't vote for the bill even if they get everything they're asking for, have been preparing for what happens when Grassley and Enzi refuse to vote their product out of committee and try to create more delay. At that point, Baucus will have to try to get all the Dems to vote for his GOP-appeasing piece of junk or admit failure.
If I were them, I'd have an amendment ready to replace Baucus' bill entirely with the HELP Committee version, and dare him to block it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
September 15, 2009 4:19 PM
Process people, it's all in the process.
Something, anything, needs to come out of finance. Doesn't matter what. If Baucus can't get his pie in the sky bipartisan bill, then the Ds, alone, will pass something out of committee. Again, Doesn't matter what.
Then, the HELP and Finance committees' bills will be glommed together in some way. And again, doesn't matter what, it will eventually be passed by the senate. If no R's will support even a grossly watered-down bill, it will not only invite but force the Ds to push ahead through reconciliation.
Then . . . after the senate passes something, anything, the House will take up the issue. The House will pass a bill with a robust public option.
Then, it will go to reconciliation. It is likely a final bill will have insurance reforms preventing exclusions based on the status of the insured, pre-existing conditions, or prior yearly or lifetime payouts. There will be some sort of mandate requiring all or most to obtain insurance, and some method of subsidizing costs for at least some. Beyond that, all bets are off. Anyone telling you whether the final bill will have a public option with or without triggers, co-ops or something else is lying or just blowing smoke. No one knows. Obama hasn't publicly announced any bright line requirement, his chief of staff, Emmanuel is opposed, or at best luke warm to a public option, 70% of Americans want to be able to choose between a public option and private insurance, and the msm runs around inside the echo chamber squawking that the public option is dead, is alive and well, and acting as if a rump of vocal loonies represent the rest of us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?