Max Baucus Has Only Himself To Blame

The big news today on the healthcare reform front is the health insurance industry attacking such reform by releasing an industry-written report, one day before Senator Max Baucus' committee is (finally) scheduled to vote on their version of a healthcare reform bill. The report, from America's Health Insurance Plans (an industry group), has already been called a "hatchet job" by Democrats, because the industry is threatening to raise the average premium for health insurance by 110 percent -- more than doubling out-of-pocket costs for American families. A spokesman from the AARP shot back: "I really don't think [the AHIP report is] worth the paper it's written on." A spokesman for Senator Baucus fumed: "It's a health insurance company hatchet job, plain and simple."

But Baucus really needs look no further than his own mirror to see who is responsible -- if not for the report itself, then at least for the report's timing. Because Baucus has been almost as obstructionist as the Republicans in getting to the point we are at now. Meaning he is responsible for the dwindling amount of time we have left to get healthcare reform passed this year.

Consider this: we were supposed to be at this point at the beginning of August. Actually, that's not even true. President Obama originally gave Congress a timetable for passing healthcare reform legislation. It called for getting the bills through a floor vote in both houses of Congress before they took their five-week break in August. This proved to be unreasonably optimistic, so he later dialed it back to just getting a bill out of the five committees before the extended summer break. So, after moving the goalposts once, in August we were supposed to be at the point where we will (hopefully) be late tomorrow, after Baucus' committee (finally!) votes a bill out.

Four committees did achieve this goal, it should be pointed out -- three in the House, and one in the Senate (Teddy Kennedy's committee). One committee in the Senate didn't make it -- Max Baucus' Senate Finance Committee. That was two and a half months ago. Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid then strongly pushed for a deadline of September 15, for Baucus to produce. Mid-September came and went. Mid-October was actually another deadline -- when Reid was going to start using "budget reconciliation" to move a bill with just a majority vote instead of the 60 votes needed to reach cloture to override a filibuster threat. We are now way behind on that schedule, too.

There are only two and a half months left in Congress' legislative year. In this short period of time, Congress usually takes enormous chunks of time off for Thanksgiving and Christmas. So there just aren't that many weeks left to pull this thing together. Reid, to his credit, has already cancelled a Senate week off for Columbus Day, but cancelling Thanksgiving and Christmas is a whole different ball of wax.

And we've still got a long way to go. Once Baucus' committee (Finally!!) votes a bill out, we will then have a total of five bills. The two in the Senate will have to be melded into one, and the three in the House will also have to be combined. Then a floor vote for each of these, and if both make it through, finally a conference committee between the houses and a final floor vote for a single piece of legislation. That's a tall order for the amount of time we have left.

One idea being floated is a good one, which is to do the conference committee right away. Instead of having a separate House bill and Senate bill, combine all five bills and try to get a single piece of legislation through both houses from the start. If both houses could manage to vote on the same bill, then there would be no need for a conference committee later on, and it could go straight to the president's desk.

This is not likely to happen, I should point out. But it's still a good idea. Start in both houses with the same bill, and then whatever amendments pass in both houses will be the only thing the conference committee will have to deal with. In other words, the differences between the two will be far fewer, and less sweeping. Making the whole conference committee process a lot easier to get through.

But whatever the chances are, and however it is handled by the congressional leadership, the point is we just wasted two and a half months. And by "we," I mean "Senator Max Baucus." Before August happened, the talk was all of "bipartisanship" (ah, those naive days of early summer...) and the "Gang of Six," who were going to hammer out a bill that lots of Republicans would vote for. By the end of August, the Republicans were all but smirking into their sleeves on national television saying: "We were never going to vote for anything that would help Obama politically, and we just burned up a month proving that to the Democrats."

But then, even after we got to that point, we then sat through another month and a half of delay. And that delay can be laid at the feet of Max Baucus. Is the bill the Finance Committee going to vote on tomorrow substantially different than what they had at the beginning of September? No, it is not. Is it substantially better? No, it is not. Is it going to win over any Republican votes (other than, perhaps, Olympia Snowe)? No, it is not. Were those six weeks wasted? Yes, they were.

Which gave time for the healthcare industry to mobilize against Baucus' bill. Meaning Baucus is largely responsible for the attack coming now.

Now, to be fair, the industry may have had this report up their proverbial sleeve for months, and have just been waiting for the crucial moment to unveil it. If Baucus had voted in late July along with the other four committees, it may have been released then. Meaning the whole town hall period in August may have been even more focused and white-hot than it already was. Which could have changed the whole debate in unknowable ways.

But even if all of that were true, we would be a lot further down the road at this point in Congress than we are now if Baucus had acted in a timely manner. We would now be having floor debates about healthcare reform bills, and perhaps something may have even been passed by either the House or the Senate by now. We might even have already been in conference committee, hammering out a final bill.

But we are not. We are still waiting on Baucus. That wait is supposed to be over tomorrow. When his committee finally (FINALLY!!!) votes a bill out. But I have little sympathy for Baucus at this point, when he complains that his adversaries have had time to put out a report attacking his bill. Because there is one reason that they've had all that time. And Max Baucus needn't look further than his own mirror to see it.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

 

 

Comments

[TommyMcCarthy]

I don't know whether or not the President has Harry Truman's famous "The Buck Stops Here" sign
on his desk as most Oval occupants since Truman have.
(Ironically, even ABSURDLY including Bush Jr.)

Mr. Baucus is a bought-and-paid-for lobbyist for the health insurance industry who happens to be a US Senator as well; so his obstructionist machinations,stall tactics, and phony "compromises" should come as no surprise.

I'd hate to think similarly about the President (and DON'T as yet).
However, the revelations about his pre-emptive closed door meetings with industry representatives
(from which doctors and health care professionals advocating "single-payer were excluded)..and the cozy deals cut in these meeting do give me pause with regard to Obama's motives.

Obama's maddening inaction and failure to LEAD this summer have been explained away by his now-famous addiction to compromise, conciliation, and of course bi-partisanship.
I have seen a cartoonist's depiction of Obama in a striped shirt with a whistle trying to impartially "referee" thevarious health care debates.

If I could draw, I would depict him as "grandma" in a rocking chair on the porch, shouting (feebly) "You boys play nice!" as armed gangs destroy the neighborhood around us all.
Ineffective, impotent, irrelevant.

As to the "buck"? I'm not even sure it passes through his office.

It appears that despite all the lovely speeches(words), and exciting pep rallies (theater) it may turn out after all that in fact

No, we can't
tm

[Mach8]

Baucus is a paid lap dog for the insurance industry. The legislation that came out of his committee is a joke and a clear example of overt authoritarianism.

This bill is taking us down a slippery slope. The government is making it a REQUIREMENT for the people to purchase from private corporations in a particular market. That is MARKET MAKING and runs contrary to the supposed ideals of capitalism. This is COERCION plain and simple.

Conservatives are complaining about "government run" healthcare but none of them are complaining about THIS particular issue. But, then again, these are the same hypocrites who cried "freedom" while ushering in the Patriot Act.

This is all a dog and pony show. Republicans are in a win-win. They can act as "champions" of freedom by not having to add their names to this sham legislation while their corporate masters are given bigger spots at the trough. Dems have proven that they are just Republicans who don't give a s@#t if gays get married and women have abortions.

This system is irreparably broken. The US is done.

[Mildmannered]

Maybe the industry report will galvanize those who are on the fence into voting for the public option, to keep insurance company prices down.

[Doofus]

What is very cool, in a ghastly sort of way, is that (according to what Big
Insurance & Big Medicine are telling US) costs are going up, and a lot,
whether we have 'universal healthcare' or not. More if we (dare to) have
a plan, less if we don't, for sure. They promise!

Blackmail? Yes, it sounds like it.

Or, in other a words, a Win-Win for the Bad Guys.

[shanne32]

It really baffles me as a young American that the citizens of America can be mad at a President that is in all honesty trying to assist OUR Great Nation at becoming a truly viable force. We need this to attract the Corporation back home that we have allow through bad leadership to Outsource everything but the history of the founding. It scares me that We a nation can sit and see "no" wrong in the Bush Administration or the Clinton Administrattion for for the backroom trickery they implimented through out their administrations. I amd sad that as acountry WE take no responsibility for our role in the Financial Fiascal that we encouraged. It is sad that the foundation that this GREAT NATION was founded upon has become astranged to all that was fought for. I Pray, yes I said it " I Pray", for this Nation and OUR leader daily, and it is time that you do the same. Stop it with the bipartisan agenda and think of a Better future for you Grandchildren and their grandparents.

[CaScientist]

The idea was to delay the insurance industry ghost-written Baucus plan until the waning days of the session, so they could ramrod it through without any amendments that would make the thing actually have any positive benefits for us peons, getting enough traction to stick. Problem was, Obama under-estimated how long the american attention span really is and completely discounted the possibility that any of us serfs would actually pay attention to what was really in the package. Under blistering criticism, he and Baucus have had to scale back some of the most egregious giveaways to the insurance industry. Now what they were trying to avoid has happened, the insurance industry wont get ALL their candy, so now they play schoolyard bully.

[Amplifryer]

I really don't understand why most individuals don't see that it's the Democrats bowing to the big insurers and big business. The proof is really quite available to anyone that wants to cut through the propaganda and get to the heart of the matter.

The Sherman Act was passed over 100 years ago to protect citizens from monopolies. The only industry that is protected from the effects of the Sherman Act is the Health Care insurance industry and major league baseball (I kid you not).

The Democrats have blocked this repeatedly from being repealed as well as the McCarran-Ferguson Act. It's very important to understand that the reason we have run away insurance costs is because competition has been stymied by these acts allowing monopolies to arise. We have 1300 health care providers that will fight for getting the consumer from their rivals and lower our costs but "government" won't allow it. Specifically Democrats. Now isn't that an irony? It puts the Democrats in collusion with protecting these monopolies, not to mention powerful lawyers.

[vfdowner]

And now the party wants to CREATE a monopoly with the bargain basement public option.

By the way - this is government health care in action:

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/10/11/massachusetts_plan_could_limit_patients_hospital_choices/

[JB1977]

Wow! Thanks for that insightful article! The article says that the Mass. state plan could place some limits on what hospitals the patients go to. "Government health care in action" huh?

Please wake up to reality. What Mass. has suggested is already common in private health insurance plans across the country, including the 3 plans I've been a part of over the past ten years working for 3 corporations. It's called going to an "in-network" hospital or physician. If you go to hospital A, you get 80% coverage reimbursed. If you go to hospital B, you get zero coverage reimbursed.

Why do people act like private health insurance provides an unlimited number of options for choosing healthcare providers and treatments (when it clearly does not) and the public option would be far inferior to these private plans?

[mjwca]

What we have now is a defacto monopoly by private health insurers who don't really have to compete with each other. Adding a public option to the mix, available to all if they choose it, would not be creating a monopoly but breaking one.

[Doofus]

Massachusetts has many teaching hospitals which are even more
expensive than the ordinary garden-variety. One of the reasons why
healthcare is so expensive here. Looks like the providers are trying
to restrict access to those more expensive places. A desperation move?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Amplifryer -

Some newspapers are exempt from monopoly law as well. But I get your point.

-CW

[jrutle]

Nice article on the foibles of dealing with a corporate power structure which indeed rules America. Why the insurance industry, and big Pharma for that matter, have even had a place at the table on the health care reform debate should be beyond any one who cares about the independence and integrity of Congress. It speaks volumes about the sad current state of affairs in Wash DC, however. If the Dems are to maintain any credibility on this issue at all, the leadership in both houses should convene and push a common bill through to floor votes, as Mr. Weigant suggests. I hope it contains a strong public option because that is the lynchpin to achieving meaningful cost control over a system frought with inefficiency, waste, and greed. Without it, the private insurers will continue to rule the roost.

[Gelfling]

The Senate Finance Committee's bill is largely drafted by current and former executives at Wellpoint, the largest private health insurance provider in the country. I agree with WethePeople3884, "...(The insurance industry) is criticizing it now to make it look legit." Don't believe the Finance Committee's lies!

Contact your representative today and ask him or her to vote "yes" on the Weiner and Kucinich amendments for single payer. You can find out more about the amendments and take action at www.pnhp.org/amendment. The Congressional Switchboard number is [phone].

In the Senate...

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will introduce two single-payer amendments to the Senate bill, one to create a national single-payer plan (along the lines of S. 703), and the other to allows individual states to adopt single payer. Urge your senators to vote "yes" on the Sanders' single payer amendments. The Congressional Switchboard number is [phone].

[Zen0469]

It appears that the master of treachery, Uncle Max himself, has been out-foxed.

Sweet.

[bronceye]

This threat by the ins. co.'s is absolute reasoning for single payer. They are showing their callous disregard for health in order to make profits. Why allow them to have such power that exists in no other society on the planet? this is insane. They are showing their trump card(blackmail), what do we, the people have? Senators and Congressional shills, I suppose. Baucus has reaped a fortune as a toady and will laugh all the way to the bank.

[Amplifryer]

One can scream at the Price Waterhouse analysis all they want but let's use some common sense here. By lowering the fines for not having health insurance the government in effect creates incentive for individuals to remain off health insurance. Why? Because it's cheaper to pay a $1k fine than the total cost of a policy. These individuals can just wait until they get seriously ill then purchase health insurance to pay for their illness. They would be able to do this under the proposed legislation because nobody can be denied insurance. Wow, is that hard to figure out?

Let's get real, because we need reform we have ill conceived drafts of legislation that will ultimately be onerous to the American people being put forth. It's insane to believe costs will actually go down with what's being proposed as we ultimately subsidize non insurers. Nobody believes that we can achieve a huge health savings by choking out waste and fraud either. Why? Because we can do that now without legislation.

And the biggest irony is that Democrats want monopolistic power in the health insurance field. Why? Because they refuse to repeal the protections monopolistic insurance companies have from the Sherman antitrust act. The GOP has been for this for years. Break those monopolies up! Then you have real competition. I can only guess the reason Dems are against it is that if insurance costs actually go down it ruins their chance for government control of health care.

[josephebacon]

Bottom Line--Max Baucus traded away an orchard to the Republicans and he got nothing in return.

[flatus]

Again, I ask you. If the will of the People is already warped by giving senators from sparsely populated states an equal vote then why (oh why) do we allow these senators to sit on committees?

Cheers!

[kering]

Two things: the insurance company's report is practically blackmail! Whether you like Baucas' bill or not, the industry is threatening us - we either give them the bill they want or they will take even more of our money. Really, shouldn't congress react and tell them that they can't blackmail the country and dictate legislation? Second, what is this about the bill forcing us to buy insurance? I buy car insurance because i drive, but I rarely go to any doctor (consider that doctor-caused deaths are the number 3 cause of death in the US...) and avoid pharmaceutical products as much as possible. The success rates of internal medicine (take away emergency medicine and post-natal care) are very poor. Why should i be forced to pay regularly for a very faulty product? Baucus might as well sell me into bondage.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

kering -

You're right, this is more of a classic case of extortion than what Letterman just went through. Can't argue with you there.

Secondly, I hate to break it to you, but you're screwed. Everyone's (or just about everyone) is going to have to buy health insurance, or else you will be penalized on your income taxes. This is the big ugly issue that (for some reason) the media, and even the Republicans, have not been focusing on. Because it is going to annoy (if not enrage) millions of people like you.

The health insurance industry seems to have released this report as a bargaining chip to up the fines for not having health insurance. They were quite high originally, then there was a backlash (from Olympia Snowe, I believe), and the penalties were reduced. That's what the insurance industry is annoyed about -- that and some CEO pay stuff that is unrelated to the main subject.

But the big news that will break some time or another (media? hello?) is that health insurance is about to become the same as auto insurance -- if you don't have it, you're going to have to pay a penalty.

-CW

[chaszer]

The comparison to auto insurance isn't quite accurate. We are not required to have auto insurance. Rather, we are required to have auto insurance to drive a motor vehicle. Many Americans do not own cars, are not required to have insurance and don't have auto insurance. Its a choice-maybe not a realistic choice for someone living where there is no public transportation, but still a choice.

The health care mandate will be unique in that it will have the government requiring everyone to buy a product from private companies.

Where does the government get that authority?

[Lochmon]

"...is that health insurance is about to become the same as auto insurance -- if you don't have it, you're going to have to pay a penalty."

With, of course, one big difference... for many of us, it is possible to arrange our lives so that we can do without an automobile. We can hardly do without a body.

[vfdowner]

Auto insurance is regulated at the state level - not the federal level. The reason for this is because it doesn't make sense for Washington to decide everyone's fate on Auto insurance. The other problem with drawing any parallels between health and auto insurance is the fact that the primary goal of auto insurance is to PROTECT THE OTHER GUY. Sure, you can buy all kinds of add-ons, but the meat and bones of the coverage is intended for the protection of people you may injure or whose property you may damage. Having a license and owning an automobile are also privileges, not rights - if you fail to abide by the requirements, you lose your privileges to drive.

[upriser]

The fact of the matter is that in every other developed country in the world, EVERYONE, but the very poor, are required to pay for health care. They do that with what we call TAXES. They are not required to purchase health insurance from private "for profit" insurance companies. Therefore, this makes the PUBLIC OPTION and a ROBUST, strong public option all that more important.

[mjwca]

Except nobody forces you to buy a car if you don't want it or need it. We have a government who is going to force us to buy a crappy product that won't do the very job its supposed to do (bring down costs and protect us) but will enrich already bloated corporate profits for insurance companies and big pharma. Meanwhile, you can starve to death because you can't afford groceries but get fined if you don't have health insurance. And while 65% of voters favor a viable public option and regulation of insurers to bring down costs and protect the consumer, we are going to end up with something worse than we started with because of all the money flowing into Congress. Anyone think we still have a democracy????

[scottowego]

If we don't get the public option I'm planning on dropping my private insurance and paying the fine. Then I'll be on the governments plan whether they want me or not! period.

[Mildmannered]

And, kering, when you get in that auto accident, or have the appendicitis or gall stone attack, or develop an adult onset disease and you can't pay for the healthcare costs to make you better or take care of you, who is supposed to pay?