Health Care

The Baucus Health Care Plan: Who Will Vote for THIS?

Published September 16, 2009 @ 03:58PM PT

You’ve heard endlessly about how you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. (It’s the number of votes required to end a filibuster.) You’ve even heard the number 60 used to justify why the Senate Finance Committee is jettisoning something as popular as the public option from their bill. As Sen. Kent Conrad said again and again on TV, there are “not 60 votes in the U.S. Senate” to pass a public option. But given the reaction to Sen. Max Baucus’ bill, crafted in secret with a bipartisan “gang of six” including Mr. Conrad, the magic number is not 60. It’s 12.

That’s the number of votes it would take to vote this mess of a proposal out of the Senate Finance Committee. And it’s not at all clear that it will get those 12 votes.

In a post later tonight, I’ll go over my reactions to the policy, although I’m going to have a hard time besting Shadowfax’s summary, “As for the bill itself: it pretty much sucks.” Or even Ezra Klein’s reaction to the “free rider” provision: “This isn't just the worst policy in the bill. It's one of the worst policy ideas I've ever seen.” We were expecting this bill to be substantially weaker that what we’ve seen from the House, the Senate HELP Committee, or President Obama’s less detailed blueprint. But we were expecting them to be weaker for a political end –- to get the 60 votes needed for passage, and entice bipartisan support.

Yeah. That’s not going to happen.

The gang of six was originally a gang of seven, with more Republicans than Democrats. But then Orrin Hatch dropped out. The end result of the gang of six's months of negotiations -- months where their deliberations stalled reform and helped its popularity sink in the polls -- is that very few of the members now support the compromise they helped create.  Mike Enzi and Chuck Grassley are openly airing their disunity after spending most of August bashing health care reform. Look for them to bring hundreds of amendments to the table. Olympia Snowe, the best hope of a Republican vote, said she won’t immediately support the compromise she had one of the biggest hands in crafting. And Republican leadership, in the form of Sen. Mitch McConnell, calls it “yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program”... even though the actual Chairman’s Mark is a mere 223 pages and the CBO says it will only cost $774 billion.  (I understand.  Math is hard.)

The co-op meant to replace the public option as a compromise to Republicans and the insurance industry hasn’t solved the politics of the situation either. Republicans have been deriding it as government-run health care all the same. AHIP warms over the same language they used for the public option, calling it, “a new untested government-created co-op that could disrupt the quality coverage on which millions of Americans rely today.”

But the best part is Democrats and progressives are not amused either. Sen. Jay Rockefeller -- excluded from the secret negotiations despite being the #2 ranking Democrat on the committee, as well as chair of the Subcommittee on Health -- says there is “no way” he can vote for it. Sen. Ron Wyden, also on the committee, seems to also have big problems with how the bill defines “affordable health care”: “I don't know very many working-class families who you can look in the eyes and say: 'Do you have that kind of money in your checking account?' -- because they don't.” Sen. John Kerry has expressed milder reservations, but it’s not a home run for him. We haven’t even heard from Sen. Charles Schumer yet, who’s been an outspoken supporter of the public option and against the co-op. Ditto Sen. Robert Menendez.

Normally you would count on progressive organizations to push reluctant senators to back health care reform. But that’s a huge question mark for the Baucus plan. The AFL-CIO, AFSCME, and MoveOn have all unleashed highly critical statements. Health Care for America Now called the bill a failure and “a gift to the insurance industry.” So count them out.

If there are zero or one Republican votes, then the bill can’t even be voted out of committee without holding onto 11 or 12 of the 13 Democrats. Ironically, the huge concessions to get to 60 votes may kill any chance Baucus has of getting to 12.

(Photo credit:  The Senate Finance Committee home page).

Share this Post

Related Posts

Comments (10)

  1. Rev Bookburn

    Baucus needs to be sent to political retirement. Public option already is a compromise from single payer. The Dems need spines and to stand strong. Failure to support public option is totally unacceptable. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

    Posted by Rev Bookburn on 09/16/2009 @ 04:14PM PT

  2. Rachel Russell

    I completely agree. If they don't like HR 3200, then we the People got to Single Payer!

    Guess What? The US Constitution states the US Government MUST Promote the GENERAL Welfare! What amazes me are the numbers of people telling the US Government to stay the Heck Out of their Medicare! LOL! The Irony! Promote the General Welfare is quite different from Do Nothing when Health Insurance CEO's ration and dictate your care for the Almighty Dollar, NOT Promoting the General Welfare!

    Posted by Rachel Russell on 09/16/2009 @ 06:55PM PT

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

    • 2 people like this comment.   Like
  3. Norman Hahn

    Promoting the general welfare is a lot different that forcing people to buy insurance.  Note the difference with the requirement to PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE.  Active versus passive.  Healthcare is not a right, it is a service, (although now some want it to be a requirement).  The government needs to stay out of this.

    Posted by Norman Hahn on 09/18/2009 @ 04:06PM PT

  4. Martin Bring

    Hello Norman,

    Rights come with responsibilities. If everyone pays into a system that covers everyone, then by definition, the care of everyone becomes a universal right.

    Though the details of health insurance reform are still being negotiated, its principles are a reprise of previous reforms—addressing access to health care by expanding government aid to those without adequate insurance, while attempting to control rising costs through centrally administered initiatives. Some of the ideas now on the table may well be sensible in the context of our current system. But fundamentally, the “comprehensive” reform being contemplated merely cements in place the current system—insurance-based, employment-centered, administratively complex. It addresses the underlying causes of our health-care crisis only obliquely, if at all; indeed, by extending the current system to more people, it will likely increase the ultimate cost of true reform which I believe will be a Single Payer system.

     

    Posted by Martin Bring on 09/18/2009 @ 08:22PM PT

  5. Tim Thomas

    "promote the general welfare" does not mean free healthcare.  If the writers of the constitution intended that the government would provide healthcare for all, they would have written it.  Perhaps Rachael would then extend "promote the general welfare," to mean that the government should provide free shelter, free food, free transportation, free child support, etc.....  Sadly, it appears that this country is headed for total dependence on the government for things that the individual should work for.

    Signed,

    An Independent Minority Voter

    Posted by Tim Thomas on 10/07/2009 @ 01:34PM PT

  6. Reply to thread
  7. Wade Stanley

    This bill will not fly (or even crawl.) We want the public option.

    We want the Insurance Companies out of our healthcare decisions so our doctors can make the correct treatment decisions without be coerced.

    This bill was deliberately delayed by Baucas until the death of Kennedy because he knew that Kennedy would have chewed him up for it. Looks like we will need to find a new leader in the Senate......possibly Jay Rockefeller.

    Baucas owes too much to the insurance companies and is working on their behalf.

    Let's have a vote, up or down, on the House bill that has the public option in it and see who we will need to remove from the House and the Senate next year.

    I'm fired up, and ready to go. If it takes a march in Washington to make our position known, let's do it.

    Posted by Wade Stanley on 09/17/2009 @ 10:41AM PT

  8. Martin Bring

    Keith Olbermann on Mad Max's plans for health care reform.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJegh9G_xk0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHK_OYjUvjA

    Posted by Martin Bring on 09/17/2009 @ 10:42AM PT

  9. The insurance companies love this bill so that means it must suck! Now they're going to force you to buy a defective product or else pay a fine. Then what? Go to jail if you don't? Whatever. f*ck this! 

    Posted by Melissa Latessa on 09/17/2009 @ 02:31PM PT

  10. Norman Hahn

    Requiring that people purchase healthcare insurance has got to be one of the most un-American things I have ever heard.  The argument that this is akin to car insurance is bogus since the requirement for car insurance is not to cover you, but to cover the guy you hit.  Oh, and you don't have to drive, it is in itself a choice and privelege.  This bill requires you to cover you.  In a free society it is your right to decide what is best for you.  Young, healthy people will spend very little on healthcare.  They may want to spend their money saving for a house or college instead.  And let me guess, most of you who support this idea are "Pro Choice", right?  Well, not always, huh.

    Posted by Norman Hahn on 09/18/2009 @ 04:01PM PT

  11. Martin Bring

    Most other industrialized democracies provide health care for all their citizens from cradle to grave while spending less per capita and achieving better outcomes. Canada and Taiwan have adopted a Single Payer model, the U.K. has a socialized system, the National Health Service. Still, many other nations include private health insurance in the mix. They mandate that all able bodied citizens purchase health insurance and they mandate that all private health insurance companies be nonprofit.

    Health insurance refrom, as it has thus far been proposed, is looking more and more like a rotten health insurance industry scam to line their shareholder's pockets.

    Posted by Martin Bring on 09/18/2009 @ 07:56PM PT

  12. Reply to thread

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Twitter Feed

Timothy Foley

Tim has been an online organizer and blogger on health care policy for the Obama for America campaign (during the primaries) and currently for the Committee of Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare, a labor union for intern and resident doctors. Views expressed here are Tim's, and don't represent the positions of CIR or SEIU.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.