Finance Committee Prepares to Debate Baucus's Healthcare Plan
So far, the goal of a bipartisan healthcare bill remains elusive
Sen. Max Baucus arrived alone last Wednesday to unveil what was supposed to have been a collaborative, bipartisan healthcare bill. He was smiling, maybe because as a marathon runner he's familiar with solitary races. For whatever reason, he sounded optimistic. He all but promised that his proposal would be able to win Republican support when the Senate Finance Committee, which he chairs, starts debating it tomorrow.
Republicans and some of the Democrats on his committee quickly criticized the proposal. Still, what seems to have gotten lost in the reaction is not that people can find things they don't like in the plan but rather how much it shares with two other proposals—the House bill and the Senate Health Committee bill—that came out this summer. As Elizabeth McGlynn, a top health policy expert at Rand, says, "The bottom line is that it is very similar . . . with respect to the approaches to expanding insurance coverage."
All three bills would give subsidies to lower-income Americans to help them buy insurance. All would expand Medicaid to cover more of the poorest Americans. All would stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions. All would set up exchanges to let people comparison-shop for policies.
But there are also glaring differences. On the question of how to make the insurance market more competitive, the Baucus bill doesn't set up a government-run health insurance plan, the so-called public option. Instead, it puts up $6 billion to start health cooperatives, which would be run by consumers, not the government. It also takes a much different approach to raising money to pay for itself. The House bill would tax people making more than $350,000. The Baucus bill would tax insurance companies on their most expensive insurance plans—any costing more than $8,000 for an individual or $21,000 for a family—and make medical-device makers, insurers, and some other industry groups pay more in fees. But there also concerns that the taxes on expensive plans could be passed on to regular middle-class workers in the form of higher premiums.
Baucus put the cost of his bill at $856 billion. That's significantly cheaper than the House's version, which tops $1 trillion, but apparently is still too much for Baucus's Republican colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, none of whom have endorsed it. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who had been a lead Republican negotiator with Baucus, complained about being "pushed aside" by the Democratic leadership. Meanwhile, President Obama pressed ahead last Thursday with a rally at the University of Maryland, and followed it up with a blitz of television interviews on Sunday.
But Baucus seems to think, or at least is publicly saying, that he can bring Republicans on board. That will be tested in his committee this week. So far, Baucus, a centrist, has tried to strike middle-ground positions on divisive issues, leaving both sides asking for more changes. "Some want more," Baucus said, referring to progressive groups that have attacked him for dropping the public option. "Some want less. I think it's a very good beginning." But rather than bringing people behind him, it's just making a lot of people angry.
- See a gallery of political cartoons.
- See photos of anger at town hall meetings.
Reader Comments
Compromise doesn't mean compromising the essence of policy, all know it !!
Compromise doesn't mean compromising the essence of policy, all know it !!
1. As regards a make-believe scheme, the source of funding coming from a middle class is utterly against the commitment of Democratic party.
2. No cost-competitive advantage does not clear the grave concern about the unsustainable cost of overall health care program in the long run.
3. Even with some benefit for primary practitioners, the baseless scheme does not come with fundamental payment reform, or a pay for value reimbursement formula. It means that the insurer-friendly scheme is not cleaning up the concerns over a quality issue and $9trillion of deficit over the next decade.
((Here is some of CBO analysis : While the costs of the financial bailouts and economic stimulus bills are staggering, they are only a fraction of the coming costs from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that each year Medicaid will expand by 7 percent, Medicare by 6 percent, and Social Security by 5 percent. These programs face a 75-year shortfall of $43 trillion--60 times greater than the gross cost of the $700 billion TARP financial bailout)).
4. For Medicare & Medicaid system to survive from the most wasteful structure on earth, enough savings by ways of fundamental changes need to be secured, in return, the savings thereof suffice to meet the goal of well-planned public option.
((Even with far less visits to docs, which average a half or a third of them in any other free states, Americans pay roughly twice as much per person right now)).
5. For the record, prior to nation-wide deployment of reform, The State Of "Yes We Can", Minnesota influenced by Mayo clinic spends "20 percent" less per patient than the national average and 31 percent less than in the highest cost state. It highlights that no substantial tax raise is needed at least for sure.
((The $583 billion of revenue package, and the astronomical savings of public option aside, "20%" of $923.5bn (the combined Medicare and Medicaid cost per year, as of July) represents around $184.7bn per year and 1.847trillion over the next decade, and this patient-centered value alone could be sufficient to meet the goal of public option)).
6. In brief, the long-awaited and most hopeful health care plan is to meet these criterias : Affordability, Quality, and A Check function against runaway premiums thereof.
Clearly enough, due largely to its lower overhead cost, purchasing power and fundamental payment reform, the well-planned public option would be doing moore than the fabricated scheme by THE INDUSTRY in these aforementioned regards.
Now is the moment to turn page to contemporary energy and financial upgrades glossed over in 8 years.
Thank You !
Baucus . . .
He arrived alone because he was the only one who could stand the stench of the thing and it was his own creation.
What's with Dems? They have the numbers. Just pass the thing already. They won't because they know they will politically fall on their sword when it goes to hell in a handbasket and they know it will. Even here in Idaho, I can feel the desperation from the Dems as they scramble to win at least one Republican so they can say their blunder was "bipartisan". That's why several articles have devoted mention of Olympia Snowjob as the lynch pin.
She's the female version of Arlene Specter. How's that working out Arlene? How does it feel to be relegated to spectator. You aren't even on the sidelines. You're up in the nose bleed, cheap seats now. Don't worry, you won't have to get used to it because you'll be gone after the next election.
Democrats seriously underestimate the smoldering anger of "We the people." Reid recently announced that he threatens to use a nuclear option. How droll coming from a Nevada Senator. Just beware of the nuclear fallout. Even a reed can't stand in that nuclear wind.
Polls, polls, polls
Look at the polls and how those numbers were collected. I do not know if it is possible to take a public scientific or honest poll anymore at one time in history maybe it was possible.
Maybe polls should only be taken in person, So certain facts can be verified like voting cards and place of residents.
Polls are taken from people who are manipulated and are not truly educated on the subject and the pollster has no idea weather the person is a voter or not. So the poll generally will say what the pollster wants it to say. Do yourself a favor ignore polls and do a little research.
Research from studies might even prevent Alzheimer's disease (6 Ways to Protect Yourself Against Alzheimer's (http://www.usnews.com/listings/protect-against-alzheimers/6-ways-to-protect-yourself-against-alzheimers-and-dementia)) Is that why America Has Alzheimer's disease we rely on others to do our responsibilities?. If polls interest you enjoy your years of confusion and lack of memory and being easily manipulated.
Myself I will try and hang on and make my own decisions by doing my best and research so I can form a somewhat educated opinion it may not be the right opinion but at least it will be my own opinion and not some biased pollsters opinion. And I believe big business will never have our interest at heart only our money. That is why I do not trust them to track me on the Internet and will not go to sites that require tracking cookies. Big business will sell there own mother into slavery if they could make a big enough profit and not get caught. So any control we can get over them is better than letting them have anymore control.
My Name is Mr. Don D. Brock Not Mr. Pollster
advertisement
