It's not ironclad, but it's the first strong sign that Sen. Max Baucus' health care reform bill might win the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) when all's said and done.
She, along with Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) have released a joint statement 'commending' Baucus' efforts and saying, basically, if consensus is to be found, it will be here.
"We commend Chairman Baucus for his efforts to forge a health care reform proposal that has the potential to gain broad bipartisan support," the statement reads. "While we each have outstanding concerns we wish to see addressed, Senator Baucus has taken an important and critical step forward with this legislation, which is budget neutral and reduces future health care costs according to CBO."
This isn't the same thing as a wholesale endorsement of the bill, but it's a step in that direction from Snowe, who just yesterday was emphasizing her concerns. You can read the entire statement below the fold.
Late update: Chuck Todd reads a bit more into the statement than I do.
"We commend Chairman Baucus for his efforts to forge a health care reform proposal that has the potential to gain broad bipartisan support. We are encouraged by his commitment to work with both Democrats and Republicans in the Finance Committee, and believe there is a responsibility for both sides of the aisle to work together to develop a bill that will earn strong support from the full Senate."Despite the differences that have emerged in this health care debate, there is much that we all agree on, including insurance market reforms that bar insurance companies from discriminating against people based on their health status or denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. We also agree on prevention and wellness investments, critical delivery reforms like paying for quality rather than quantity, increasing access to care by improving health care provider training programs, and reducing uncompensated care by extending tax credits to American families to help pay for their health care coverage.
"Each of us has an obligation to put aside partisan views and to consider how health care reform addresses the needs and challenges faced by individual citizens and our economy as a whole. While we each have outstanding concerns we wish to see addressed, Senator Baucus has taken an important and critical step forward with this legislation, which is budget neutral and reduces future health care costs according to CBO. We will continue to work together in the full Senate on bipartisan health care reform that reduces costs, improves care, and expands access."

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 17, 2009 3:27 PM
Well, if I ever harbored any doubts, now I know it's atrocious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 17, 2009 3:28 PM
beach front property in Arizona going for cut-rate prices as well, I hear
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
September 17, 2009 3:31 PM in reply to Indie Pro
... like keeping the gravy train rolling for Senators interested in blocking meaningful reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 17, 2009 3:37 PM in reply to agio
yes, and how commendable for these guys to notice that the industry love fest bill is the one proposal that has the potential to gain broad bipartisan support!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 17, 2009 5:41 PM in reply to Indie Pro
the wonk room lays it out nicely:
REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR – NO PUBLIC OPTION
BAUCUS BILL – NO PUBLIC OPTION
REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR – POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES: “Interstate competition allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.” [Sen. John Thune (R-SD), 9/8/2009]
BAUCUS BILL – POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES: Starting in 2015, states may form ―health care choice compacts to allow for the purchase of individual health insurance across state lines…. Once compacts have been agreed to, insurers would be allowed to sell policies in any state participating in the compact.” [pg. 12]
REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR – HIGH RISK POOLS: “Senator McCain has a proposal sometimes called high-risk pools at the state level…These are efforts I think we can have bipartisan agreement on and deal with the question of pre-existing conditions.” [Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), 9/10/2009]
BAUCUS BILL – HIGH RISK POOLS: “Within a year of enactment, any uninsured individual who has been denied health care coverage due to a pre-existing condition can enroll in a high-risk pool….The high-risk pool will exist until 2013,” until the Exchange is established. [pg. 2]
REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR – VERIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP
BAUCUS BILL – VERIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP
REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR – NO PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION
BAUCUS BILL – NO PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION
REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR – HIGH DEDUCTIBLE POLICIES: Ways for “individuals and businesses could purchase high deductible policies, create a fund for their first dollar benefits could be greatly expanded.” [Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), 6/28/2009]
BAUCUS BILL – HIGH DEDUCTIBLE POLICIES: A separate ―young invincible policy would be available for those 25 years or younger. This plan would be a catastrophic only policy in which the catastrophic coverage level would be set at the HSA current law limit, but prevention benefits would be exempt from the deductible. [pg. 21]
Republicans, in other words, have moved the goal posts on reform. Despite Baucus’ many concessions, the GOP is still arguing that the proposal “simply leads to more government, more spending and more taxes” and “spends too much.”
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 17, 2009 5:42 PM in reply to Indie Pro
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/republicans-oppose-sfc/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beetlejuice
September 18, 2009 7:27 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Then let's move'em back where they belong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
September 17, 2009 5:02 PM in reply to agio
Moderate Dem position= There is much that we agree on, so let's pass a bad bill.
Republican position= There is much that we agree on, so let's kill the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
September 17, 2009 7:03 PM in reply to fbacon2
Um, I have a general nit to pick with buying the line that these Dems are "moderate." I feel almost every last one of them are DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) or (my preference) ConservaDems.
Wolves in Wool. They are conservatives (like new "Dem" Spector) who joined the Dem ranks just to ride the wave of the last couple of elections. At least, they certainly behave and vote like their conservative brethren and sistren on the other side of the aisle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
September 17, 2009 7:15 PM in reply to TheRealFish
The labels were self-applied. I don't take them very seriously since the thinking they reflect is absurd, as noted in the post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Captain Dan
September 17, 2009 10:05 PM in reply to TheRealFish
Yes, what unbiased person would ever consider Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Claire McCaskill mogerate! Further; Lieberman is not a Democrat as in "Moderate Dems"!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mc mark
September 17, 2009 3:31 PM
The Baucus bill is a joke
No public option
Lower subsidies for the poor
Protections for the insurance industry
No employer mandate
No taxpayer funding for abortion services
Double, extra restrictions on illegal’s
Unfair changes to Medicaid
No real incentives to curb costs
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
daveincolorado
September 17, 2009 3:50 PM in reply to mc mark
yet this is what will probably be the end product - or something close to it. It's where the lobbyist money is being spent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
impik
September 17, 2009 5:34 PM in reply to daveincolorado
No way. Obama will not sign this shit. He is not stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
September 17, 2009 3:54 PM in reply to mc mark
Agreed.
(Individual mandates and fines) - (Employer mandates) - (robust public option) - (adequate subsidies) = BULLSHIT.
This garbage is going nowhere fast.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
September 17, 2009 7:06 PM in reply to mc mark
Nice list, and accurate too. However, I believe that when you blend all those things together you get to the real punch line: It's a bill that mandates that health insurance will cost more if it were passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mc mark
September 17, 2009 10:34 PM in reply to TheRealFish
The President said he would sign no bill that will add one dime to the deficit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rosebowl
September 17, 2009 3:35 PM
The Baucus bill would be a HUGE tax burden on the middle class. An sham, unaffordable bill for the working class and a huge gift to the insurance industry.
Obama should say no to this monstrosity and fight for a better bill, or 2010 would be very ugly for the Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Obama1st
September 17, 2009 3:37 PM
"Each of us has an obligation to put aside partisan views and to consider how health care reform addresses the needs and challenges faced by individual citizens and our economy as a whole.
I will support your opposition in your next election cycle; especially McCaskill of MO! Shame on all of you for wanting to have public policy drive people to private insurance companies! STUPID POLICY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave Bowman
September 17, 2009 3:40 PM
Ugh, 'moderate Dems' must be dog whistle for 'DINO.' If Joe Lieberman supports it, then you can bet the farm it's a bad idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 17, 2009 3:45 PM
McCaskill is an embarassment to the state of Missouri and to the Democratic Party. It's painful to see what a two bit egomaniac she is let alone to watch her bow and scrape before power and money as she does. It's flat out disgusting. I hope she has a primary challenger next time around because if she doesn't there's no reason for her constituents to re-elect her when they could have a real Republican insteadof Republican Lite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Aunt Sam
September 17, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to oleeb
What happened to McCaskill? She was such a fervent Obama supporter and in last few months has been one of the loudest naysayers? And clues? Did she not get an appointment she wanted or .......?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 17, 2009 3:56 PM in reply to Aunt Sam
She's a nit wit and one of the richest members of the Senate. Her hubby is a rich Republican who made his money in nursing homes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Venerable Rinpoche
September 17, 2009 4:52 PM in reply to oleeb
Thanks. That certainly explains it! So much for McCaskill's public service attitude
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 17, 2009 4:17 PM in reply to oleeb
Don't exaggerate. McCaskill has broken ranks with the party ONCE this entire year and that was on Clunkers.
She made her political career long before she married her current husband in 2002. His business partner is a Republican but he's not.
If you think having a Republican Senator from MO would be better than having McCaskill, I've got two words for you: Jim Talent. And two more: Kit Bond.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
September 17, 2009 4:24 PM in reply to FreeRider
That really the best argument for McCaskill. I have never liked her, even from before she ran for senate. The only thing that induced me to vote for her in 2006 was that, little regard for her though I had, I had a positive abhorrence for that slimebag Talent. I suppose that if it were another Talent/McCaskill match-up, I could turn out to vote for her again. To say, however, that she is better than Jim Talent is not saying much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
September 17, 2009 4:22 PM in reply to oleeb
On this point I will hearty agree with Oleeb. McCaskill is awful. It was only with great pain that I was able to cast my vote for her back in 2006, and only then with the awfulness of Jim Talent fresh before my mind. After she voted for FISA renewal I vowed instantly not to vote for her re-election in 2012 and she has not been doing much since to soften my resolution on that point. Sadly, however, I expect that she is probably the best that we can do in Missouri. This state grows wingnuttier with each passing year, so I am doubtful that anyone further to her left could be elected statewide. While I do not plan to vote for her in 2012, I have little hope that a primary challenge will succeed in replacing her with anyone better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ripper McCord
September 17, 2009 8:15 PM in reply to oleeb
Agreed, oleeb. She is disgusting. And I just sent her an email explaining why I am withdrawing my support forevermore for that exact reason. She needs to know how badly she has betrayed all who stuck their necks out. And I totally disagree with the comments farther up your subthread. If Democrats in Missouri can't find someone better to replace her with, we deserve to lose her seat to a Republican. I'm betting we can find a better Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MontereyDean
September 17, 2009 3:46 PM
I wonder why anyone is surprised. Except for a half dozen or so representatives and senators, the offices on the Hill are just satellites of various lobbying firms. I said during the election campaign that we were witnessing the end of the Republican party. And, whad'dya know, all that's left is a loose collection of dimwits, liars, hypocrites, carnival barkers, used car salesment, and war criminals and profiteers. (By the way, over the years I've voted for probably as many Republicans as Democrats.) Here's what I'm saying now: We're in the final decades of anything resembling either a republic or a democracy. "W" did so much damage that it is unlikely anyone can repair it. "America" is now little more than an enormous corporation. Stop fighting. It's useless. Enjoy the final days.
America: Too Dumb to Survive
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
September 17, 2009 3:51 PM in reply to MontereyDean
"during the election campaign that we were witnessing the end of the Republican party"
Ah, but the Democrats seem to be rushing in to save them by imposing a $700/month mandate on the working and middle class.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
September 17, 2009 4:05 PM in reply to MontereyDean
This is not the final bill by any stretch of the imagination. I don't get the hand-wringing. This is what was going to happen from day 1. Stop fighting? Mkay, whatev. Way to give up at half-time. Now is when we need to ramp UP our pushback.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
September 17, 2009 3:46 PM
Dear centrist senators, this legislation will not be neutral to most people's budgets.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
amber
September 17, 2009 3:50 PM
May the ghost of Edward Kennedy strike this disgusting-insurance-industry-ass-kissing bill down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
September 17, 2009 3:53 PM
If Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson are for it, that tells you all you need to know.
Apart from heading off a filibuster, I don't understand the need for bi-partisanship. What will Obama gain if one or two Republicans vote with him on this? The Republican attack machine won't be any less vicious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
September 17, 2009 4:00 PM
Remeber when Joe Lieberman used to with us "on everything except the war"?
yeah...whatever happened to that guy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
September 17, 2009 4:15 PM in reply to freaktown
Lieberman (I)CT, home of Aetna, The Hartford, CIGNA....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Prudy
September 17, 2009 4:01 PM
Health care reform 'mandate' tax burden on the middle class = Obamafail.
I seriously hope this is not how the bill ends up, but if a $700 a month bill gets handed to middle class workers say goodbye to said middle class and hello to your fully incorporated corporation of a society.
Wouldn't that just be SO perfect democracy???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
September 17, 2009 4:07 PM
This is pretty predictable. Lying Lieb & Snowe & Co. know that as harshly is the Wellpoint/Baucus Plan is getting tarred that it's about as far to the right as they can get out of committee. Once out of committee, they (and their friends like Bayh who are laying low in the weeds for fear of too much attention) then can attack it with amendments on the floor to pull it further to the right while screaming loud enough to try to prevent the Progressives from pulling it towards the HELP Bill. Then, once they have something far closer to the Baucuse Bill (and likely even more watered down to help Big Health) passed through the Senate, they'll join hands with as many Senate ConservaDems as they can round up to refuse to vote for it if the Conference version drifts towards the House's Tri-Com Bill, while at the same time the Blue Dogs in the House will latch onto the Senate Bill as the version they can support.
We all know where this is headed.
To get an idea of how Big Health and the Wealthy are being protected:
http://baselinescenario.com/2009/09/16/voodoo-cost-savings
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Startdecember
September 17, 2009 4:16 PM
I just wrote Sen. McCaskill office to tell her of my displeasure. I am from Missouri and everyone I know wants a public option. I told her I will do everything in my power to get her primaried and will never vote for her again if she passes this. If this does pass, I don't think the majority of Americans will stand for a 700 dollar a month bill. Our society is very similar to a Brave New World, but when people start feeling pain that's when people will rise up I believe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ttarleton
September 17, 2009 4:18 PM
Ugh!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
September 17, 2009 4:27 PM in reply to ttarleton
We definitely needed the frog picture in a thread about Lieberman!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ttarleton
September 17, 2009 4:34 PM in reply to fbacon2
That's an insult to me and my amphibian kin!
;-]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
September 17, 2009 5:02 PM in reply to ttarleton
cosign
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
no exit
September 17, 2009 4:59 PM
the commenters here are correct that mccaskill only looks good when compared to previous republicans from her state like bond and talent.
however, she is just as worthless.
the game is rigged.
there are no longer any meaningful choices left to the american voter as we are continuously lied to and manipulated by our corporate masters and wealthy elite.
america no longer belongs to americans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
September 17, 2009 5:03 PM in reply to no exit
whenever you have the chance vote green!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
September 17, 2009 5:07 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
Yeah, that goddamn Nader vote in Florida worked *FUCKING WONDERS* for us in 2000.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
September 17, 2009 5:05 PM in reply to no exit
appreciate the sentiment, but that's what primaries are for. if we had more legit dems in their, half of our problems would be gone. These fake crooks need to be primaried. Untl they fear us, and we can kick them out, they'll thumb their noses at us -- Loserman is the perfect example.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
September 17, 2009 5:19 PM
Now we have to follow these 4 turds like we did Baucus, Grassley, Conrad, and Enzi? ARRRGGGGHHHHH! Please shoot me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
September 17, 2009 5:31 PM
Fuck you, Joe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
impik
September 17, 2009 5:32 PM
Even the kids in Maryland University knows that this is a crappy bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
September 17, 2009 5:39 PM
Wow, a bill that Snowe, Lieberman, McCaskill, & Nelson support?
It must suck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
September 17, 2009 6:32 PM
I expect the business as usual bullshit from Bill Nelson, Joe LOSERMan and Olympia Snowe, but Claire McCaskill-lately she's been HUGE disappoint.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bob in AZ
September 17, 2009 6:50 PM in reply to ru4862
No kidding. I gave money I couldn't easily spare to McCaskill's campaign. Silly me. As W would say, "don't get fooled again!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SPENCER ADAMS
September 17, 2009 6:41 PM
we expected that, didn't we? Barring some hard bargaining, they won't change their minds.
In other UNEXPECTED NEWS:
BILL O'REILLY SUPPORTS THE PUBLIC OPTION-NO JOKE
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/oreilly-public-option/
DID HE UNDERSTAND WHAT HE SAID TODAY?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
September 17, 2009 7:24 PM
So Max Baucus is to the right of Bill OReilly??
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aikbay
September 17, 2009 10:43 PM
I am sick and tired of the "they're from a red state so that's the best we can do. The progressives just need to suck it up because wahhhhhh wahhhhhh we won't get any Dems voted for in these states wahhhh." I can go along with them not voting for progressive stuff all the time but what is the point if THEY never have to stick their necks out and vote for stuff and actually do part of their job description - sell the policy. Is that not the job of a politician - to sell policy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
September 17, 2009 11:06 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't see any MODERATE Democrats mentioned. LIEberman isn't a Democrat, and the rest are CONSERVATIVE Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
capeJoe
September 18, 2009 8:56 AM
This bill is the worst possible one could devise. The insurance company CEOs must be laughing their asses off. They will get the government to make everyone buy a health insurance policy at whatever price they set. Fines will be applied to those who don't. Subsidies will be increased (taxpayer money) to allow poorer folks to buy insurance (which will be more and more of us given the direction of government. ) Meanwhile Medicare is scheduled to go bankrupt in a few short years since they won't increase taxes on the rich by a penny.
You think 2008-9 was a financial crisis?, you've seen nothing yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?