Max Baucus Regrets Killing Single-Payer, Sanders Says

Sen. Max Baucus met with advocates for single-payer health care in a closed meeting on Wednesday and expressed regret that he had not included them in the earlier negotiations for reform.

Health-care point man Baucus (D-Mont.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, took a statewide beating last week for dismissing the possibility of a single-payer system early in the debate -- leading to the meeting with health care professionals and Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who is the sponsor of the Senate's only single-payer bill.

"I don't like paraphrasing other people, I don't like being paraphrased, but I think it's fair to say that what he said is that when he said something to the effect that single-payer is off the table, I think he regrets having said that," Sanders said following a morning closed-door meeting with Baucus. "I think in retrospect he thinks there probably should have been hearings, it should have been part of the process, and then it would have been rejected."

Baucus is under pressure from the White House to get a health care bill to the Senate floor quickly. Those in the meeting said he told them it's too late to include them and add further hearings to the debate.

The Montana senator did, however, agree to use the power of his office to fight for leniency on behalf of the dozen or so doctors and nurses who had been arrested for demanding a single-payer program during committee hearings on health care.

Sanders and the assembled single-payer advocates said they remain committed to advancing a universal, government-run program, though without Baucus that task is much tougher.

"I find it somewhat incomprehensible that if we are serious about getting to health care reform, if we are serious about tackling the outrageously high cost of health care, that we are not engaging in serious discussion about a single-payer health care system," Sanders said.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[Marcospinelli]

"You also hear about the long wait times and denial of service thats common in countries with universal care (britain, canada, etc). A lot of their citizens come to the USA to get treatment thats denied to them in their home countries. Where's the guarantee that the same thing wont happen here? And if it does, where the heck will we be able to go then?"

There will always be fancy treatment available to those who can afford to pay for it. But I guess that you're not aware that currently, Americans are being sent by their insurance companies to India for everything from coronary bypass surgery to plastic surgery.

[Ohsherri]

Yes...yes it's true..even Universal Healthcare isn't perfect.
Nothing is.
Nothing nothing nothing is EVER going to be perfect 100% percent without problems.

But it's still the BEST of all.
61% of Canadians 12 and older reported that their health was excellent or very good.
80% of Canadians are "satisfied" with their level of access to the healthcare system.
That's according to Health Canada.

Reuters Health Information:
Canadians are healthier than Americans and have fewer unmet health needs.
Americans are one third less likely to have a reg. doctor, and one fourth more likely to have unmet healthcare needs.
Canadians cite "waiting times" as their biggest obstacle.
(See...not perfect...­but damm good)
The problem you posted about is the rare of cases and of course Republicans like to cite
the most extreme case to win their argument.

[morgan1]

Well said, and you are correct. What Canadians have applies to most of Europe as well as the Scandinavian countries. For a country so advanced, we are so caught in medieval times it is incredible.

[MDCambridge]

I am in the UK at present. When I set an appointment to see my personal physician, I have never waited more than 15 min in the waiting room. I once went to the emergency room; the wait was 20 min. The longest form that I've ever filled out was a survey on how well services were being rendered.

When I arrived at the ER, I was sent to a triage nurse FIRST before they even asked my name. There were no "insurance specialists" to check in patients. (This is generally 20 min of an ER visit.) There were no bills, no forms, just treatment, which was first class.

It's not a perfect system, but no one will ever go bankrupt being treated, and it's amazing to see how efficient doctors and nurses can be when they are not having to deal with insurance.

[quiviran]

Sound sort of like the way things ought to work.

[Chaimirija]

actually, the waiting is almost always for elective surgery, or something that involves capital equipment, like an MRI..

[Marcospinelli]

If there were universal coverage in this country, there would surely be a two-tiered system: Basic coverage for everyone and boutique coverage for those willing to pay for it.

There would be more treatment shifted to non-physician practitioners (nurse practitioners, physicians' assistants, and other allied health professionals). Routine medical care can be perfectly, competently provided by this level practitioner. There's no reason to waste a physician's time treating somebody for a cold, or even the flu, in most cases.

It's true that if universal health coverage were to become an official reality, we would need to expand training programs for both MDs and non-MD providers to insure there were enough to go around, but in the long run it would probably mean cheaper and more effective service.

[Chaimirija]

we could also reign in the ridiculously expensive specialist­s...

[sueinmn]

Thatsbalready happening. Today we receive treatment from practitioners and only see the doctor for more serious issues! So what changes will their be? Doctors are suppose to be present for surgical procedures and often are not either!

[Marcospinelli]

"I think universal healthcare will be a disaster. Medical practictioners are quitting all across the country or refusing to accept medicare payments because they dont cover their costs."

This is a popular misconception.

Most physicians do take Medicare. Medicare pays better than most private insurance companies pay. The problems with private insurance plans is that between 20% & 30% of the subscriber's dollar goes into administrative costs, contrasted with a little over 5% in the Medicare system. So in that sense, Medicare is a lot more efficient.

Private insurance plans cherry-pick the people that they sign up, leaving many as uninsured & uninsurable. Just because this group doesn't have insurance doesn't mean that they don't cost society for their medical treatment. They typically wait until there's an emergency before they get treated & require more expensive intervention as a result.

Taxpayers pick up the tab, either through Medicaid payments or through hospitals charging insured and the well-off people more to cover their losses. If you have an emergency medical condition, whether or not you're insured, a hospital must treat you. So, in a very real sense, we already have universal coverage; it's just that it's poorly planned and very inefficient.

[TJCole]

This guy and this whole so called reform is just one big disgraceful fraud, being perpetrated by our corrupt disgraceful sold our elected officals from top to bottom and they call this a democracy.­..

How is this a democracy when our representative ignore over 60% of what the public wants..?

Still this is the greatest quasi Constitutional pseudo democracy in central north America!

[Marcospinelli]

My response to Baucus's 'regrets'?

No, he doesn't regret killing single-payer. He regrets that he may have to pay a political price for doing it.

Both he and Obama can put single-payer on the table. Better yet, they can make single-payer the plan and the law of the land. It's the only one that makes sense.

[unite4change]

Montana, is Baucus the type of man you want representing your and the rest of America's interest. He's running and hiding from any questions regarding a public option for healthcare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mc8ueX-_tE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3wXPwdgcqA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLe9vB9YqKg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7x_LlahIoA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dq4UyCvmoo

[Heartlight3]

Okay, Montana, if they pass something that doesn't have a single payer option, you know what to do. VOTE HIM OUT!

[unite4change]

Our current healthcare industry is concerned about profits only. They don't want us to have a public option because they would loose money. Check out what the Friends of the US Chamber of Commerce are saying:

http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/news/view_article.cfm?ID=18424

Any politican voting against a public option is being paid to do so! We must let our congressional members (our employees) know, it a new day in America. We will rid ourselves of any politican we elect, only to have lobbyists buy.

[NearTheCenter]

The far left please give it a rest, Obama never said one word about single payer during the primaries and as the Democratic nominee. You should have voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries if you wanted single payer. Thank heavens that did not happen for she would have lost anyways in the general election. Obama did not break on this campaign promise at all.

[ChelseaC]

You can use the same logic on the torture issue and restoring habeus corpus--what did he say in the primaries, huh?
Obama's stance in 2003 was PRO public health care option here's a link, scroll down to the bottom of the page and see the video:
http://www.pnhp.org/change/

Anyway, this is NOT ABOUT OBAMA, this is about what is best for the American people AND the economy.Mo­reover, this is NOT a "far left" stance--this is the will of most Americans--wake up and smell the coffee!

[Carolab]

Published on Friday, May 22, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Rx and the Single Payer

by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

In 2003, a young Illinois state senator named Barack Obama told an AFL-CIO meeting, "I am a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program."

Single payer. Universal. That's health coverage, like Medicare, but for everyone who wants it. Single payer eliminates insurance companies as pricey middlemen. The government pays care providers directly. It's a system that polls consistently have shown the American people favoring by as much as two-to-one.

There was only one thing standing in the way, Obama said six years ago: "All of you know we might not get there immediately because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate and we have to take back the House."

Fast forward six years. President Obama has everything he said was needed -- Democrats in control of the executive branch and both chambers of Congress. So what's happened to single payer?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/22-4

[ChelseaC]

FYI,
Hillary Clinton was not for a public universal health care option, she was for a MANDATE purchase of private health care--No, we don't want that either.

[unite4change]

NeartheCenter, apparently you haven't been following Obama. He said, "We must be involved". It's what we want, and we want a public option. Obama wants us to help him fight to get it.

[springsm]

Baucus made the arrogantly sent his staffers out to five different towns this past week to discuss the heatlh care issue. (he didn't have the courage to do this himself) and those people were really verbally beaten up. AHA..he heard from his constituency. Too bad Baucus. Your alliances were in the wrong place and will you get re-elected? Probably.

[EyeballKid]

Baucus is an outright phony and a corporatist (read: fascist). He's heard the howls for weeks about single payer. He's done nothing because he's in bed with the insurance industry.

Welcome to fascism, folks. This is what it looks like in the 21st century. We vote officials into office so they can bend over for big business. Aren't we a generous lot? Don't you love it when trillions of our money and credit go toward enriching billionaires who couldn't give a rat's ass about YOUR plight?

As much as I like Obama, he's nonetheless right there with the corporatists like Geithner and Summers and the insurance lobby until he proves otherwise by his ACTIONS, not his words.

[maxfax]

Bernie Sanders is one smart cookie, unlike Baucus.

[ChelseaC]

Sen Bernie Sanders is a good man--a real hero.
I saw him tonight on The Ed Show on MSNBC.
Sanders wants to pass HR-676, Medicare for ALL AMERICANS--a man for the People unlike
Baucus being a man for the health insurance industry and big pharma.

How can Baucus support GREED over human life?
His "regret" are empty words without actions to back it up. If he is really sorry and wants to make a brave stand, he'll support Bernie Sanders and HR-676, otherwise any apology he has muttered is meaningless to me.

[JustAThought56]

Baucus is sorry all right because the outcry from his home state convinced him that his career is actually in danger because of that move. He only had the meeting as a CYA maneuver. I hope he gets challenged in the primary over this and gets tossed out.

[maxfax]

Is only regret is he got caught! What a disingenuous slub.

[Mekarri]

What is the difference between bacus,blago or most politician? It is all pay to play.

[ChelseaC]

Actually, even Blago helped the poor get health insurance. Yes, he's most likely a crook but a step up from Baucus or any politician who would try block real reform.
Given the choice of who seems like a more stand up guy-- Blago or Baucus-- I'd take Blago hands down.

[Ohsherri]

that's pretty sad.
And true.

[maxfax]

Chelsea's right, Baucus helps himself because who he is beholden to, no matter how much it hurts real Americans. Blago on the other hand was allegedly helping himself, but the fact remains he helped Americans in Illinois too. Whoda thunk you could compare politicians and Blago would be the better guy? Oh well, there it is.

[LeftCoastLarry]

I called both my Senators yesterday and Senator Cantwell again today after hearing of the trigger option.
The trigger is a fraud instigated by the insurance companies. They can't be allowed to get away with it. The pharmaceutical companies wrote Medicare Part D and since the Democrats regained power they have done nothing to correct the glaring deficiencies. A health care trigger written on behest of the insurance companies wouldn't be any different.

[ChelseaC]

Thank you--yes Medicare part D(not regular Medicare) is a disaster because it's tainted by the private insurance industry.

[maxfax]

Larry, good point, as well, insurance companies' "trigger option" is another hoax on Americans, just like their insurance coverage that they change daily.