Max Baucus Celebrates Labor Day by Ruining Health Care Reform
The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Democrat Max Baucus, is circulating what he calls a bipartisan proposal for health care reform. The proposal contains neither a public option (not even "triggers,") nor a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Baucus refuses to support the public option even though a majority of constituents from his state of Montana say they approve of the public option idea, while a majority disapprove of Baucus' actions on health care reform, and a majority of Americans support the choice of a public option.
Additionally, Republicans like Charles Grassley are unlikely to support even this woefully watered down proposal. If Republicans are refusing to vote no on reform regardless of what the final health care bill contains (Republican Senator Jim Inhofe says he is going to vote no without reading or knowing what the bill includes,) why does Baucus continue to compromise reform into total meaninglessness? The Republicans insist on throwing chronic tantrums and have made it clear they're not interested in compromise, so one can only conclude Baucus is tossing out the public option -- triggers and all -- because of demands from the private health care industry with perhaps some other Centrist Democrats serving as proxies for private industry wish lists.
Baucus's proposal will cost between $850 billion and $900 billion, which he plans to pay for by taxing insurance companies on their most expensive policies. "The hope is that employers would buy cheaper, less generous coverage for employees, thereby reducing the overuse of medical services," according to the New York Times. This means employers will provide less health care coverage for their employees, who will then have to pay for their health care out-of-pocket, which effectively passes the cost for Baucus's plan to hardworking men and women.
In July, former health care executive Wendell Potter told me about these kinds of "consumer-driven plans," a euphemistic term for shifting the financial burden from insurance company to consumer. Potter explained that these plans feature high deductibles and are really just another way for the insurance companies to make money from the suffering of their consumers. Baucus isn't proposing a reform solution that will benefit a majority of Americans in his latest proposal. He's literally shifting the burden from the insurance companies to employers, and ultimately employees. Baucus is actually maximizing the suffering of a majority of Americans.
California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi told the Associated Press in 2005 when he was serving as the state's insurance commissioner, the movement toward consumer-driven coverage will eventually result in a "death spiral" for managed care plans. Unlike "death panels," "death spirals" are the real deal. Garamendi explained that this will happen as consumer-driven plans "cherry-pick" the youngest, healthiest and richest customers while forcing managed care plans to charge more to cover the sickest patients. The result, he predicted, will be more uninsured people.
"In other words," Potter explains, "a high-deductible plan might be exactly what you're looking for if you don't really need decent insurance now and can afford to shell out thousands of dollars of your own money in the event you get hit by a bus. The rest of us, however, might want to steer clear of this sort of plan -- if we had the choice."
Baucus attempts to address the financial worries of Americans by including another section in the proposal where poor people receive assistance from the government in order to pay for their insurance. People with incomes from 300 percent to 400 percent of the poverty level (up to $88,200 for a family of four) would generally not have to pay more than 13 percent of their income in premiums. Currently, 37 percent of low-income people and 22 percent of middle income people with private coverage spend more than 10 percent of their household income on health care, compared with 8 percent of high-income people.
Baucus's proposal is a government subsidization of the private insurance industry. Nothing in his "solution" controls cost or regulates the insurance industry. In fact, coverage under Baucus's plan would be less extensive than the most modest of three levels envisioned in a bill approved by three House committees. Poor people pay taxes into a system in which the government then cuts them checks to purchase insurance on the private market. It's more expensive for average citizens, and it's a boon for the private health care industry.
In the past six years, nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by Baucus and his political action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical supply firms, health service companies and other health professionals. These donations total about $3.4 million, or $1,500 a day, every day, from January 2003 through 2008, according to the Billings Gazette.
Baucus would have to be insane to drain the pockets of his most generous campaign contributors. So it's no surprise that this proposal -- rather than placing the onus of reform on the private healthcare industry -- places the burden on the shoulders of average, hardworking men and women. It's not surprising, but it sure is evil.
Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog. Also available on Facebook and Twitter.
Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny
M.S. Bellows, Jr.: The New "Hope" of Barack Obama
These are troubling times for those who supported Barack Obama for President.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
And if they pass some version of this insurance company welfare program and it fails miserably, as it would, they will all sit back, collect their payoffs and blame it all on Pres. Obama.
President Obama had better decide that it is benign to use Baucus as the Scapegoat.
Everyone knew Baucus was a bought entity, just like all the Republicans, and why was there not a specific plan to use some real presidential power on those senators who were going to cause problems?
Had there been some real pressure put on these senate members, there would not be the problem there is now.
Was President willing to make good on his campaign promises, or was he involved in using some obstruction to sabotage the health care reform?a strong 'public option' is the only real reform.
Does the President realize, that standing up for something that would help the majority of Americans would, end up winning the hearts and minds of the country.?
Most of us know a "Trigger effect" is just a new term for "Stall".
Ultimately, the "Buck stops with the President".
Do the right thing, President Obama.
What's that sound?
It's the sound of America dying...
After being sold to corporate interests for a percentage.......
I am a self-employed person and after being uninsured for many years managed to get myself health insurance in 2002. I opted for a high deductible health plan ($2400 deductible) because of the low monthly cost ($69) and my history of good health.
Since 2002 Blue Shield of California has continued to raise my premiums once or twice a year citing rising costs in the healthcare industry. As of July 1st of this year my monthy premium has now reached $411/month. That is a whopping increase of about 500% since 2002.
I must tell you in all the years of having this insurance I have not once hit my deductible. I put an additional $250/month into an HSA to pay for what my insurance does not cover. My combined outlay per month for health care is $661/month.
Our local paper stated health insurance premiums have more than doubled since 2002. Why have my premiums increased by six times? I can only assume this is unregulated price gouging, discrimination against me because I am self-employed, or Blue Shield trying to shield themselves from some sort of potential high risk that the policy I have would make them have to cover.
I am at the point I can no longer afford the cost of my insurance and I have to find some other kind of coverage.
We need an affordable option for people like me. Having health insurance linked to employment is no longer a realistic option.
I have been watching this debate and CNN,MSM,FOX never show anyone in favour of the public option,only recently because they have to cover the President and the progressives have started to fight back. There is a whole group of progressive Congressmen/women like Maxine Waters and others from the progressive cacuses you never see.They are there and they are damn serious,at least I believe so,no public option ....no bill.Let's see how far they get,at least they are honourable.
Lawmakers like Max Baucus are dishonest,I do not care which district they come from,they do not represent the wishes of the working man and woman,the less fortunate.His idea of a bill is to screw the middle class in favour of the big insurance and drug companies,the rich and well to do.He is no Democrat,actually he is in the wrong party.His bill is utter crap.
An then there is Ron Paul.."Health Care is not a right" and Joe Liberman "Slow down ,put it off,Obama is moving too fast". It's been 60 years for christ sakes 60 years!! Take away their congressional government health care and see how they fare.
Mamalisa - a brilliant analogy! We care more about the whores on the street than we do the whores on the Hill who sell their votes to the highest bidders. Disgraceful!
Word 'round here seems to indicate that the "major contributors" may not be able to throw enough
funds into the campaigns of some of the dems turned repubg to insure re-election. Public option or out needs to become party mantra. We all know that only persons of high moral characteer would have recused themselves from key committee positions after having had such good ins co paydays.
The Supreme court will be dealing with that issue shortly, and if previous rulings by the Roberts court are any indication, corporations will be free to completely sponsor a pet candidate.
Representative Democracy removed, Oligarchy installed by an Activist SCOTUS!
I asked everyone I knew if they had heard of the 2 days,(May 5 and May 12 of this year) when Max Baucus had Doctors and Nurses arrested for asking to speak to his Senate panel on single-payer. No one knew of this major scandal. It was not followed in the MSM. Even though Matt Taibbi outlines what happened in his new article in Rolling Stone, There has still been no coverage of how this Senator kept even the idea of single-payer from being mentioned. The CBO can't mark it up to show how much money would be saved....NEARLY A THIRD, because that might cut out some corporate profits.
Unless and until we get corporate donations out of politics nothing will change. Washington has become nothing but a huge brothel with laws going to the highest bidder. We arrest street walkers for taking ten bucks and these guys pocket millions.
His plan sounds like a winner for the private insurance companies, we the public being the losers. So what else is new?? Regulation is needed over the private insurance companies, not being subsidize.
A true public option would bring true competition to the market. I like what one news person said, regulate the private insurance companies like the do the public utilities. Reforming private insurance still doesn't solve the problem with health care.
The amount of corruption on both sides in the Congress is just devastating to watch. Industry is running Congress - banks, Wall Street, insurance companies. We are waiting for the president to get Timmy Geitner to do something about all his buddies before they destroy the country's economy yet again, so we are told they are all returning to their previous practices. There will be no where to hide this time for the administraiton. However the criminals will get off scott free again, along with the masterminds of torture. Let's replace all of the Congress and start over.
I am not surprised by M Baucaus proposal we all know that he was already bought off by the Insurance industry, no public option, a proven useless and ineffective co-opt was expected. I am still waiting for Wednesday to hear what the President is going to say about all this.
This is exactly why we should have started with campaign reform! it would have been the first thing on my to-do list. It would have made this a whole lot easier!
I did not want a "public option." In my humble opinion what we need to do is to totally take over and run the whole health care industry as the British have, by and for ourselves. If our government can put a man on the moon and bring him back safely, then we can surely do this.
But never fear, I think I see the wheels falling off this bus and I doubt it will make it much further down the road. It may be just a few more years before the damn thing crashes. Then we can come in, pick up the pieces and get a totally new start. That's why we should keep saying no public option, no bill!
This health care debate provides a very clear example of the simple fact that "the American political process is corrupt". Congress members don't really work for the public; they work for the corporations that can afford to contribute (pay them) the most. It doesn't matter how honest an elected official is when first elected. To get money for re-election, they are forced to write laws that benefit their largest contributors. The only way out of this corrupted political system is to start financing national election campaigns with public financing. Every legitimate candidate should receive a fixed amount of public tax dollars to conduct their campaign. This will help each candidate remember who they are supposed to be working for - the public.
Max Baucus is on the take. That's all anybody needs to know. He has sold his vote to the criminal health insurance companies. If there were justice he would be in prison. Grassley is a Republican. That all you need................................
Let the Senate pass a version with no public option, see if the Republicans go along. If they don't (and they won't), then meantime the House passes their version with a public option. In conference, add the public option back in and jam it through the Senate then. Hopefully by that point Massachusetts allows Gov. Patrick to appoint an interim senator, the Dems get 60 again, and Obama pushes them to force the conference bill through because it doesn't matter what they do, the GOP will never back it.
And then yes, Baucus needs to be challenged in a primary.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
