Why Olympia Snowe Should Vote Against the Baucus Plan

How is it that a decision next week by a single senator from Maine will almost certainly determine whether America's future healthcare system is still in the hands of private for-profit insurance companies and Big Pharma or enables more Americans to get better health care at lower cost? Bear with me, because you need to know what's likely to happen if she signs on, and if she doesn't. The next few weeks are crucial.

Scenario One: If Olympia Snowe votes in favor of Max Baucus's plan -- which is favored by the medical-industrial complex because it dramatically increases their customer base without a public option that squeezes their profits -- the Baucus plan will be the bill that goes to the Senate floor. Why? Because her vote will give enough political cover to waivering Dems Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Jim Webb, and Evan Bayh to gain their support for the Baucus plan. Which means the White House and the Democratic leadership in the Senate will have a good chance to get the 60 votes they need when the bill goes to the Senate floor in a few weeks.

That Senate vote will push Nancy Pelosi and the House Dems toward the right. That's because it will embolden conservative and Blue Dog House Dems to threaten to vote against the far stronger bill that's already emerged from House committees -- which, in contrast to the Senate Finance bill, includes a public option, an employer mandate, significant expansion of Medicaid, and larger government subsidies to others with lower incomes. Pelosi knows she can't get a single Republican vote, so has to count on the support of at least 218 out of 256 Democrats. That means winning over at least 38 conservatives and Blue Dog Dems-- many of whom were elected from swing districts and some of whom face strong Republican challengers in 2010. With Baucus's bill gaining momentum, or perhaps already having been passed, the conservatives and Blue Dogs in the House will demand a bill that's closer to it. House progressives will put up a fight but there's little question that the emerging compromise will be to the right of where the House is right now.

The two bills then go to a reconciliation committee where the White House can put some final touches on it before it goes back to the two chambers for a final vote. The White House likes this scenario because it keeps private insurance companies, Big Pharma, and the AMA from bolting. It enables the President to call the resulting bill "bipartisan," and to claim that it marks real reform. And maintains the possibility of Republican support for financial reform and environmental legislation next year.

Scnenario Two: If Snowe decides not to sign on, history moves in a very different direction. Most importantly, the Senate Dems know they won't possibly have 60 votes they need. So they'll have to say goodbye to bipartisanship -- perhaps even farewell to Nelson, Landrieu, Webb, and Bayh -- and bundle healthcare reform into a "reconciliation" bill that can pass with 51. This new goal post strengthens the hand of Senate progressives on the Finance Committee, like Rockefeller. It also gives more weight to the version of health care reported out by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension committee -- which includes a public insurance option, employer mandate, and more generous subisidies to the poor and lower middle class. Hence, the bill that goes to the Senate floor is much more progressive, and the final Senate's vote (with 51 votes) better reflects the values of the Democratic base.

This Senate vote, moreover, gives more momentum and legitimacy to the House version of health care -- which also includes the public option, employer mandate, broader Medicaid coverage, and more generous subsidies to the lower middle class. That Senate vote thereby reduces the power of House Blue Dogs and conservative Dems to influence the bill that goes to the House floor. It also enables Pelosi to say to them: It's either this or nothing. If you vote against this bill you're voting against health care reform. The more progressive Senate bill, plus the stark choice Pelosi poses, garners enough votes from the conservative and Blue Dog Dems to pass a strong bill.

The White House doesn't like this scenario because the use of a reconciliation bill in the Senate poisons relations with Republicans and risks their support for financial reform and cap-and-trade. It may even make it more difficult for Obama to rely on Republican support for more troops in Afghanistan. But as we move into the gravitational pull of the 2010 midterms, congressional Republicans won't support Obama anyway, on anything. And remember, George W. Bush used reconciliation early in his first term to enact his huge tax cuts, mostly for the very wealthy. It's a tried-and-true strategy.

I don't know about you, but I'm hoping the Senator from Maine votes no next week. If she does, America has a fighting chance of getting real healthcare reform.

Cross-posted from Robert Reich's Blog.

Comments

[TheScarletPimpernel]

I still think many Republicans will vote for the bill in the end. These yo yos are just looking to see where the polls are at the end of the year.Pelosi and Ried would be wise to push it off to the new year allow the pressure to build on goof ball Dems and Republicans.Make them vote in an election year after voters start to get the feeling they are getting the shaft.

[TotalRecall9]

We already know that democrats in conservative states or districts are hiding behind "bipartisanship", especially when their vote is bought by healthcare opposition groups/cor­porations.

I believe Jim Webb is all for the public option. The democrat senators that are "maybe" for the public option are Begich, Lincoln, Pryor, Carper, Bill Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu, Baucus, Tester, Conrad, Ben Nelson, and Wyden. Warner and Byrd are kinda maybe, but I think they will vote for a public option.

[Matt7]

Thank you, Professor for the break down.

[LightningJoe]

Bipartisanship was a good idea, but with the Republican mindset on rank display in DC, it was never more than that. We need to deal with these backward obstructionists as they lie (literally), and steamroll them with our majority.

They would do it to us in a heartbeat, and it is the only way left to make change happen. So let them whine about bipartisanship, and just get 'er done.

[Doofus]

Weirdly enough, Sen Snowe & all the other Repos and all the Demos
(including Baucus) on the committee should vote against this turkey.
Let's hope, dearly, that Snowe gets with the program to vote for a good
bill once it appears. There are certainly other bills in the Senate that are
better than this one. Like Bernie Sanders', for instance.

The issue for the moment, unfortunately, is to stop this one awful bill.

[illinoisan]

I'm with you, Professor, and I have been since your segments on APR's "Marketplace" back in the 1980s.

[oldgeek1]

The Democrats can totally avoid a filibuster so that is not really a driving force.
They have chosen to use the conventional bill process to pass heath care BUT that is by choice. Health care could be past as part of the reconciliation process. For those who think that is back door or a trick, then they need to look at how many major laws have been passed that way, its just a procedure that often has been used to avoid haggling.

Both Collins and Snowe hold major trump cards. Each are 1 bad day from switching parties as did Specter without the downsides of paying the price in a primary or election. They wield influence within their party and have a voice with the Democrats, a great position to be in.

The GOP is in a world of hurt and if they continue to behave badly they will lose Snowe and likely Collins.

[Doofus]

As much as I revile Repos, if you prefer 'small government' (as I do),
it is tough to be a Democrat (as I am not), 'mainely' for that reason.

[oldgeek1]

Well, the Republicans when they controlled the Presidency and both the House and the Senate showed me they do not prefer small government. They just use small government and fiscal responsibility as campaign slogans. The Republicans like the Government when they use it as their banker.

[Jannsmoor]

President Obama does not need Republican support for cap and trade and financial reform.

There are serious questions about cap and trade. First, will the bill actually reduce global warming. Second, since it is a corporate give away, is it the best way to move forward. Third, this may not be the right time for legislation. I hate to say that, as every day that passes makes the problem worse, but it may be the political reality.

Regarding financial reform, the democrats are better off forcing Republican's hands. Main street anger over the Wall Street Profiteer bailouts is not going to abate. And it is not just progressive anger, right wing anger in this area is real. That is because the government has failed to deal with the two great issues facing America, home foreclosures and unemployment. We're not going to forget what Wall Street did so easily. Better to force a vote without Republican support and paint the Repubicans as paid for stooges of the Wall Street Profiteers.

[myrddin]

Here's a third scenario: The Baucus plan is amended by Senator Rockefeller for the better and passed with a partisan vote in the finance committee. Massachusetts appoints the 60th Democratic senator. Non of the conservative senators dare to vote in favor of filibustering health care legislation though some will not support the final bill. The bill passes with a public option albeit with a trigger. The bill is further strengthened in conference by having the trigger removed. Votes in both houses go along party lines but possibly with a couple of Republican votes. Obama signs the bill before the new year starts.

[IDIOTA]

Professor -- I just don't get it. Why is Snowe so thoroughly courted? What is so scary about a filibuster? Talk about teachable moments. The majority leader can suspend Senate Rule 22 making the filibuster is more than filibluster. The Senate has changed cloture rules a number of times in its history for political purposes. Perhaps now is the time to change the rules once again because they stand in the way of reform.

I relish watching the Republicans filibuster on the Senate floor. There could be a filibuster watch. After a week or two of that, the Republicans will look stupid. After a month or two of that, the people will be fed up with obstruction. If reconciliation is subsequently employed, it will be seen as just and necessary by most.

[OneLiberalLady]

Doesn't it take 60 votes for cloture and wouldn't we have them (especiallly if Mass. appoints a Senator)?

[IDIOTA]

Yes -- but apparently Senate rules are not static. At one time cloture was achieved if 2/3 of the senators present voted for it. Senate Rule 22 allows senators to filibuster in absentia. Harry Reid could suspend the rule at his discretion and require the senators to actually speak. I would love to hear them spout empty rhetoric for weeks.

[krocklin]

Though life expectancy in America statistically has has increased, this is not only because of better healthcare or sustaining people longer who are dying.
It is because people of later generations did not experience as much stress find a job that would provide a decent standard of living.
The younger generations might adapt to current economic prospects - fewer jobs, lower wages, greater income inequity etc. - but those from earlier generations than those in their 80s and 90s, are now being subjected to more stress than ever because they are not in financial conditions as good as they thought they would be. Hence they are dying at an earlier age. It is only the generations born in the 20s and 30s and earlier that will reach the current average.
Hence the average life expectancy will go DOWN in the next few years. Too much stress; too hard to live as we thought we would be in the 1990s and earlier decades.

[harriscrl3]

Why Baucus should vote against Baucus Plan?

Answer: Its not really his plan its the insurance lobbyist plan. He is going to tax people as if we are not paying enough on premiums he wants us to pay more.

Thats unconcionable.

Carol

[ej2pi]

Sen Snowe's power in this is cannot be overstated. Interestingly, her power derives from a few enabling factors:

1. Democrats are a razor's edge away from a filibuster proof vote on the issue, and they need one or two republican votes

2. By digging in their heels, republicans can force democrats to look desperately toward any one or two left leaning republicans. Any left leaning republican in this context will get very heavily weighted attention

3. Democrats serving their corporate constituents are desperately clamoring for political cover as they legislate pro industry and against public interest. Depending on her vote, Snowe may enable them to take cover under the guise of bipartisanship while maintaining the appearance of getting something done.

If the outcome of this is a mandate to purchase an overpriced product from a morally bankrupt industry, wanted/needed or not, without any publicly funded affordable option, then it will be truly heartbreaking. All Americans, liberal and conservative alike, would have every right to be absolutely outraged.

But after all this, we will move on to energy/climate and finance. It will be very interesting to see how republican senators position themselves in these upcoming "debates". The strategy of "left leaning republican" holds great power as we see. Any one or two votes can hold very great power. So it will be very interesting to watch republican senators posturing themselves to achieve in future debates what Snowe has serendipitously achieved in this debate.

[AxelDC]

Five years from now, no one will care who voted for what. All they will care about is: Did President Obama's plan (whatever he signs) fix our problems?

My fear is that without a public option, and especially with the mandates and changes Baucus proposes, health insurance will be more expensive than ever, and Medicare will be bankrupt as a result.

Unless you have a way to control costs, our system is doomed and the public option seems the only way to do, whether or not Sen. Snowe approves.

[AxelDC]

"poisons relations with Republicans"

Republican relations with the White House couldn't be more poisoned if you coated them with Arsenic and battered them with Cyanide.

Quit talking Inside Baseball nonsense. The question is: will health care reform succeed or fail without a public option? I think without it, there is no way to control health care costs and any reform passed will just hasten the bankruptcy of our current system, no matter how worthy those reforms may be.

Letting one Down Eastern woman decide the fate of 300 million Americans who cannot vote for her is absurd.

[OneLiberalLady]

Well put, and I noticed that phrase of Reich's too ("poisons relations with Republicas"). When you have Republicans calling the President a liar to his face on the floor of Congress (along with numerous other instances of treachery) how much more acrimonious can it get is a very good question. My answer would be: not much. There doesn't seem tobe evidence that the Repubs will be willing to participate in any legislation, based on the track record thus far.

[dcjdjay]

There is one fatal flaw to Robert Reich's scenario # 2.

What if blue dog democrats and conservative democrats decide not to go with Pelosi and vote against a more progressive bill?

Healthcare reform will effectively be dead.

I'd love to know how Mr. Reich reached the conclusion that blue dogs and conservative dems who get a ton of money from the health insurance companies to fight their battles will go along with Pelosi.

As for Snowe, I've lost all the respect I once had for her. If she could vote FOR the 2003 Prescription Drug Benefit Act, a Bush era unfunded mandate that added nearly $1 trillion to the deficit, she should have no problem with the Baucus bill - or for that matter anything floating around in the House - that promise to do more for less.