TPMDC

Dems, Republicans Begin Tussle Over Baucus Bill


Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

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."

Comments (17) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

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?

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?

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:

Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare. (Applause.) So let me set the record straight here. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That's how the market works. (Applause.) Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage, and by jacking up rates. Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations." Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. (Applause.) And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up. Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities. (Applause.) Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated -- by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. (Applause.) The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. (Applause.) For example -- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. (Applause.) And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need. (Applause.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on