TPMDC

Reid: Finance Committee Draft Represents "Critical Momentum"

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says, "Although we don't agree with everything in this bill, Finance Committee's mark represents critical momentum in this process."

In particular, leadership approves of the bill's efficiency and cost-cutting measures including changes to Medicare, and promotion of preventative care.

The goal for leadership at this point is to get a bill out of committee, ideally with Olympia Snowe's vote, but, alternatively, with Democrats only. What remains unclear is the extent (if any) to which the bill would become more liberal if zero Republicans ultimately vote for it. Already, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has said he can not support the bill as it is, and, if no Republicans vote for it, Rockefeller's the only vote Max Baucus can afford to lose on the left and still pass a bill.

Join the Conversation!

20 comments

Recommend Recommend (1)

September 16, 2009 10:55 AM   

Going backwards has a certain momentum.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 11:02 AM   

soon, it'll be out of the hands of Baucus,

and he can concentrate on watering down the Climate bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 11:29 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

You betcha! Also too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 12:37 PM    in reply to CT Voter

In addition, moreover, supplementally. *wink!*

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 11:15 AM   

He's probably right about the momentum thing. I hope his precious insurance companies are okay with his bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 11:19 AM   

Is it actually required that this committee pass a bill?

If so, then just pass it through ASAP; otherwise kill it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 12:25 PM    in reply to Kevin Sutton

It is not an absolute requirement, there are legitimate ways of getting a full bill based on some combination of HELP and House Ways and Means to the Senate Floor. Still it would be nice to let the libs on Senate Finance have a whack at this to see if they can at least shape this turd into something that doesn't stink up the whole process.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 11:37 AM   

Nicely crafted Baucus. A bipartisan shambles that you crafted with republican help that zero republicans support. I really hope Montana's Dems are watching.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 11:47 AM   

Bigger point is subsidies, or lack of -- via Marcus in WP:

"Under the Finance Committee proposal, individuals would be required to obtain insurance. But to drive down the cost of the package, Montana Democrat Max Baucus's Gang of Six -- a gang that pointedly does not include Wyden -- trimmed the size of the subsidies available for those who could not afford insurance on their own.

Now, a family earning three times the poverty level -- $66,150 for a family of four -- would have to pay up to 13 percent of their income for health insurance. And that's just the premiums -- not counting deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket expenses. "

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 11:56 AM    in reply to AnswerFrog

here's more:

An estimated 25 million Americans are now underinsured for two principle reasons. First, the high-deductible plans many of them have been forced into by their employers require them to pay more out of their own pockets for medical care, whether they can afford it or note. Second, more and more Americans have fallen victim to deceptive marketing practices and bought what essentially is fake insurance.


The insurance industry is insistent on being able to retain what it calls "benefit design flexibility." Those three words seem innocuous and reasonable, but if legislation that reaches the president grants insurers the flexibility they claim they must have, and requires all of us to buy coverage from them, millions more of us will have little alternative but to buy policies that appear to be affordable but which will be prove to be anything but affordable if we become seriously ill or injured.


The big insurers have spent millions of dollars acquiring companies that specialize in what they call "limited-benefit" plans. Not only are the benefits extremely limited, the underwriting criteria established by the insurers essentially guarantee big profits.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/wendell-potter-public-opt_n_287733.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 11:48 AM   

So we need Sen Rockefeller plus at least one other Dem to push hard enough to turn this bill into something worth the paper it's printed on to the American people rather than it's extreme worth to the health care industry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 12:37 PM    in reply to JohnAH

Blog whore alert! My post this morning addresses this.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/09/meet-senate-finance-committee.html
(G) = Gang of Six (H) = Health Sub-Committee
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS, MT (G)
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV (H-Sub-Committee Chair)
KENT CONRAD, ND (G)
JEFF BINGAMAN, NM (G) (H)
JOHN F. KERRY, MA (H)
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR (H)
RON WYDEN, OR (H)
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NY (H)
DEBBIE STABENOW, MI (H)
MARIA CANTWELL, WA (H)
BILL NELSON, FL (H)
ROBERT MENENDEZ, NJ (H)
THOMAS CARPER, DE (H)

The arithmetic: 13 Democrats 10 Republicans With no Republican support Rockefeller and either Kerry or Wyden can block passage out of Committee. With Snowe backing Baucus those three or any two plus Schumer or Stabenow can block advance of the bill.

Baucus gambled that his 'Logic of 60' would get him 3 R's to offset the loss of as many as 4 D's to still get 12 out of 23 votes on Committee. Looks like his attempt to isolate big state liberals blew up in his face.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 1:14 PM    in reply to Bruce Webb

If you had to pick a sub-group of Finance to negotiate a true bipartisan bill on health care you would want it to meet the following criteria:
1) choose from people with a demonstrated interest in health care, who would probably be from those Senators who asked for a seat on the Health Care Sub-Committee
2) include the leadership of the Health Care Sub-Committee
3) balance out the interests of large and small states
4) respect the party balance in the Committee
5) respect the seniority system (not that I give a shit, but Senators do)
6) include full Committee Chair and Ranking member (because they kind of have the final call anyway)

What would a Gang of Seven meeting those criteria look like?

D: Baucus, Rockefeller, Bingaman, Kerry R: Grassley, Hatch, Snowe

A) Five senior members from the sub-committee plus Chair and Ranking Member of Finance. Okay check off items 1, 2, 5 and 6
B) Four Dems and three Reps. Okay check off 4.
C) Montana, New Mexico, Maine, Kansas, Utah, West Virginia, Massachusetts. Well a little skimpy on the big state side but that is how the Senate rolls, blame the order of admission of States to the Union. Put a question mark by 3.

But five out of six ain't bad.

Not a bad group. And if you added ideological range you would have two conservatives, three centrists, and two liberals. You know the thing people imagine defines 'bipartisanship'.

Instead Baucus originally convened a Gang of Seven (prior to Hatch dropping out) and it looked like this:
D: Baucus, Conrad, Bingaman R: Grassley, Hatch, Snowe, Enzi

A) Four R's to three D's violates criterium 4.
B) Adding Conrad violates criterium 1 (he is one of four committee members not on the Health Sub-Committee)
C) Excluding Rockefeller violates criteria 2 & 5
D) Adding Enzi violates criterium 5 as well (he is ranking member on HELP but 2nd from bottom on the R side of Finance)
E) Not including Schumer, Menendez, Nelson, Kerry or Stabenow on the D side or Cornyn on the R side makes a mockery of criterium 3

Score? One out of six.

So in what weird screwed up world was the Gang of Seven turned Six ever one of bipartisanship? One where a group of three conservatives: Grassley, Hatch, Enzi plus four centrists: Baucus, Conrad, Bingaman, Snowe represent 'real' America, you know that Center-Right country of small, rural, overwhelmingly white states. 'Murica.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 11:52 AM   

I have the utmost confidence in Harry Reid to make sure that the Senate passes a bill that secures affordable health care for the American people in . . .

Oh, who the hell am i kidding? We're hosed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 11:52 AM   

oh god I cant believe our future is being decided by HARRY FREAKING REID. we are sooooo boned

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 12:02 PM   

We need a bill, any bill, from finance for only one purpose; to serve as a floor for further negotiations. (Hopefully Rockefeller can barricade the door to the basement stairs). The final senate bill, merged with the HELP bill, is largely irrelevant and a middle step. We already know what the house bill looks like, and it likely will be approved without substantial change after the senate votes on whatever. THEN the real process begins behind closed doors to reconcile the house and senate versions. Anyone who tells you they know what that bill will look like is delusional or blowing smoke.
Me, I want lower costs and guaranteed, mandated access. The more, the better.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 12:06 PM   

Max Headroom can now revert to being a talking head in the Senate!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 12:09 PM   

With all of these committees working onis healthcare reform, which is the most important? Do they all have to include PO or will the committees all combine to make one bill? I never understood this part of the process.
If they all combine to make it into one bill, does it matter if the Senate bill does not inclde PO if the other bills do? Nobody has fully explained that

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 12:33 PM   

I am entirely convinced that the entire push for bipartisan support has made it LESS likely that the bill or any other bill will receive any Republican support. If the Democrats and Obama did not appear weak indecisive and opportunistic, instead concentrated and defended THEIR ideas on what constitutes good health care reform, the public at large would have been more enthusiastic and I think the political dynamic would have pressured Republicans and others to support serious change. Instead we get an object lesson in how not to govern and how to squander political support and advantage. Obama may be a good politician; he does not have a clue on how to lead.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 16, 2009 1:17 PM   

Baucus is really loving the attention right now. Isn't it absolutely appalling that a man who represents less than 1% of the population of this country is a major decisionmaker on health care?

I also found it hilarious that the first couple of questions from the press were about "bipartisanship," because we all know that it is SO important that the rump minority be appeased by the Dems. Contrast that with 2001-2009, where Democrats were constantly being accused of "obstructionism" every time they raised any objection to Bush's agenda, with the media playing along.

Everything about this process is obscenely anti-democratic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

PollTracker

More polls »

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on