Senate Finance Committee's steaming bowl of dogsh*t

Wonderful. (0.00 / 0)

Time to dump Dogshit Boy, Mini Barfus!  Someone needs to step up now.  Maybe Republican Bob Brown could run against Dogshit Boy.  He's all FOR single payer, and he's a friggin' Republican ferchrissake!  Am I the only one who's had it with Mini?  Never again!

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 15:58:00 PM UTC

Start the anti-Baucus movement now (0.00 / 0)

I'll be introducing a resolution to the Beaverhead County Democrats urging the State Democratic Party to identify and support a primary challenger to Baucus in 2014.

He has apparently killed the public option (which was a compromise already).  He needs to pay for it.

Our committeemen will carry our resolution to the convention in Bozeman in August.

Maybe other county Democratic groups can do likewise?

---

by: Turner @ Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 18:59:05 PM UTC

This is all fine and dandy, (0.00 / 0)

but where was the Democratic party last fall demanding that Baucus uphold a strong health care reform position? Why did the dem party blindly allow Baucus to get this far without reining him in?

Baucus can get away with this sort of behavior exactly because the dem party in Montana is unable to pressure Max into doing what is right for his constituents and the dem party.

The dem party can jump up and down all it wants about what Max is doing for the republicans, but truth be known, he looks at accountability doled out in the form of a primary opponent in '14 as, yawn, no accountability at all.

What would make more sense would be a recall petition.  

---

by: JC @ Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 19:28:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Recall isn't applicable for Federal Offices, only state and local office. There is no recall in the US (0.00 / 0)

Constitution. I wish there were, but there isn't.

Best we could do is run a statewide no confidence/censure that would carry no force of law beyond public humiliation.

---

by: Steve W. @ Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 23:02:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not yet (0.00 / 0)

He has apparently killed the public option (which was a compromise already).

He hasn't killed anything yet.  Just because he and his small band of Republithugs put forth a competing proposal does not mean Public Option is dead.

I applaud the efforts of the Beaverhead Democrats.  I simply find it unfortunate that this comes two years too late.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 19:31:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...it could be a gambit... (0.00 / 0)

...it could be the bill would persuade moderate Republicans to join the effort, even after the Finance Committee's bill is altered before it hits the floor.

But then it could be Baucus that's being played by the Republicans. Or Baucus preferring this kind of cr*p.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 00:35:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, if anybody expected (4.00 / 1)

Baucus to do anything different, then they were deluding themselves.

This is the ugly part of the whole process. The goal being, if reform is to proceed, is to get the bill, as bad as it is, voted out of Baucus' committee.

Obama has already stated that his goal is to get the deal done in conference committee. He wants this process out of Finance as badly as the next reformer. The problem is, is that he has basically said "trust me" to get it done in conference. And that is putting himself out there on the plank. His whole presidency probably rests on his ability to strong-arm a good enough bill through that he can sign and sell to the American public as true reform.

That's one hell of a strategy, and it can either work, or go down in flames, along with the rest of his term. And who knows what the final outcome will be. But one thing is certain, allowing Baucus to proceed with his republican-oriented plan will not produce a bill that can get through Congress, as he will lose more democrat votes than he will pick up republican votes. The progressive caucus in the House has already said they will vote against any bill that doesn't have a public option, and that is good enough to derail any Baucus/Grassley co-op placebo (though I do believe that a properly designed and capitalized national health coop might serve as a starting point for a new health care insurance model--emphasis on "properly designed and capitalized").

Howard Dean last night stated that Baucus' bill is not health care reform--it is insurance reform. Which is to say there is some important stuff in there--community rating and guaranteed access. But it should not be confused with true health care reform.

If I were in Obama's shoes, I'd ignore all of the bad stuff in all three bills (HELP committee, House  tri-com, and Finance), and focus on the good. Take the good from all three bills, add it up, throw out the bad, and maybe beef the whole thing up a little bit. That is what the admin is hoping to do. And we'd all be better off if we were to look at it through Obama's strategy, otherwise we're just going to all sit here and throw sh*t at each other, which ain't going to help anything at this point of the battle.

If you can't support what might come out of conference, given what we see going in and knowing Obama's strategy, then sure, keep up the pressure, and try to kill the whole deal--that's your prerogative. But if you can see a product coming out of conference that may be a substantial (though obviously less than a progressive's ideal) reform then work towards supporting that.

But if anybody thinks that an industry tool is going to do anything but placate insurer and republican goals really hasn't been honest with themselves about Baucus' plans since he unveiled his white paper last fall.

---

by: JC @ Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 19:20:52 PM UTC

I think the Dems should pass guarenteed issue, pure community rating, and cas (0.00 / 0)

(outlaw lifetime limits on coverage) and implement the law immediately. They should leave in the Kucinich amendment that allows states to start their own single payer systems.

And that's it.

It would be revenue neutral for the Feds, but it would help a lot of uninsured get insured (since they wouldn't be excluded for pre-existing, or previous claims, and it would drop the price for the most costly people.

Then they should repeal the no -importation and the no price negotiation parts of the Medicare D benefit bill. Again, price neutral.

---

by: Steve W. @ Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 23:19:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

best analysis I've read... (0.00 / 0)

...about this thing yet.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 00:37:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A Boondoggle (0.00 / 0)

This is nothing more than a huge boondoggle for the insurance companies...a pathetic, piece of shit, bill that sticks it to the middle class, and does NOTHING to lower health care costs.

I am disappointed, angry, frustrated and motivated. The Democrats are cutting their own throats...it started with Clinton and the DLC boys, and now this...the final slice.  

---

by: big sage @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 00:02:29 AM UTC

"This is not the Finance Committee's bill" (0.00 / 0)

Klein adds a nice perspective to the "Max Baucus Committee's Bill":

In a Senate of 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans, the health-care reform bill is being written by three centrist Democrats, one centrist Republicans, and two conservative Republicans...

This is not the Finance Committee's bill. This is the Max Baucus Committee's Bill. And there's not a liberal -- or even a Democrat traditionally associated with health-care policy -- working on it. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of Finance's health subcommittee, is not included in the negotiations. Nor is Ron Wyden, who has written the Healthy Americans Act. Chuck Schumer isn't in the room, nor is John Kerry, Debbie Stabenow or Maria Cantwell.

The question is whether Baucus's final product will matter. Rockefeller and the other Democrats on the committee have felt excluded from the negotiations and will want major changes before they can sign onto the final product. Then the Finance bill will have to be reconciled with the more liberal legislation built by the HELP Committee. Then it will have to go to the floor, where it will need the support of people like Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown just as much as it will need Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh. And then, if it passes those tests, it will have to be reconciled with the House's legislation.

All of which is to say that the Baucus process is attracting an immense amount of interest, but the product may not look a lot like the bill that Congress eventually considers. And the reason is simple enough: Baucus's process doesn't look a lot like Congress. Baucus, Enzi, Snow, Grassley, Bingaman, and Conrad all think of themselves as dealmakers, but right now, they're not cutting a deal on behalf of anyone but themselves.

"The question is whether Baucus's final product will matter."

Um, no. Why?

"Baucus's process doesn't look a lot like Congress [or the country. They]  think of themselves as dealmakers, but right now, they're not cutting a deal on behalf of anyone but themselves."

Pretty basic concept. A solution in search of a constituency--lawmaking at its worst.

---

by: JC @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 00:44:07 AM UTC

Dance with them that brought ya (0.00 / 0)

Well, speaking as a non-Montanan (who loves visiting your state), I think that powerful Democratic Committee Chairs like Max Baucus too often forget they wouldn't be Chair of DiddleySquat without all of us Democrats - liberal and otherwise - around the country that they apparently despise.

Does Max think he personally gave Democrats a 60-seat majority? Hello? If you can't be grateful, how about you get your thumb out our eyes (refusing to even discuss your plans with other Dems!) and quit carrying Republican water?

When Democrats pass an industry boondoggle, as someone aptly described Baucus' bill above, it's not the change we all worked for last year.

I understand the need to peacefully coexist with conservative Democrats but it's not a courtesy they extend in return. When con Dems prefer to work with Republicans over their own party, as Baucus and Conrad have said, anger is appropriate.

Just sayin.  

---

by: AlphaLiberal @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 00:59:29 AM UTC

the bear is out and he is furious... (0.00 / 0)

tearing up stumps and flinging boulders  
http://problembear.wordpress.c...

United we stand, divided we fall.

power to the polite people!

---

by: wolverine6 @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:18:34 AM UTC

What did you expect, Jay? (0.00 / 0)

WAY back when we started this discussion Jay and Matt were loathe to even marginally criticize the Baucus effort, somehow confusing health CARE with health INSURANCE.  

Many of us were tremendously disappointed to see the supposed "Left" settle for so little so quickly instead of going into the fight with a good strong position that may have provided the leverage to wind up with something close to real health CARE reform.  But no, with full backing from LiTW -- despite the outcry from many of the blog's long-time readers -- why wouldn't Baucus simply toodle on his way down the dollar-paved aisle with Big Pharma, the insurance industry and the rest of the scoundrels who have bought and paid for Max?  Of course, that's exactly what he's doing and only now, arguably when it's WAY too late, do we see LiTW going WTF?  And even now, you're still wailing on those who post what you don't want to read.

This attitude -- go along to get along -- plays politics with important policies.  There's a difference, a big difference, which some of the younger folks here don't seem to grasp.  Politics is R vs D in this country, but that's just a game.  Policy is what comes out of Congress and the White House -- and right now, what's coming out of Congress for POLICIES on health, energy, and wilderness is a FAR cry from progressive.  You know it -- and so do we.

So Jay and Matt, when we wind up with "shitpile" policies, just take a long look in the mirror and you'll see the folks who started lame, got lamer, and are now wondering what happened to the "change and hope" we were promised as the status quo garbage continues to spew from a Democrat Congress and White House.  You gave it away -- playing go along to get along and now pay the price for your naivete.    

---

by: ochenski @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 18:30:13 PM UTC

Reality check (0.00 / 0)

It seems beyond odd to me to suggest that a blog and the two guys behind it are responsible for the outcome of the legislation.  If they had taken the strident bullwhip to Baucus, what would have changed??????   The need to blame seems to overwhelm rational thinking.  If LiTW makes an enemy of Baucus, as ochenski seems to suggest, who loses in the end?  Baucus will still be there.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 18:43:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hmmm.... (0.00 / 0)

...look. The only person to suggest we should enact single-payer healthcare reform -- Kucinich -- during the last election was completely wiped out during the primaries.

Tell me, exactly how you decided to pin your hopes on policy that was never mentioned, let alone promised, that you're so quick to shout "betrayal" to a couple of bloggers who have been analyzing actual legislation bandied about by Congress?

And tell me, when exactly did I ever claim to support the Baucus plan? I must have missed that post. Because all along I've been advocating for a meaningful alternative to private insurance. And now we have a robust public option suggested by the House (but still with limited access) -- which is a helluva lot more than what was proposed in the beginning -- and an apparent threat against Baucus' chairmanship because he's working to excise it from the Senate bill.

I think some of us "younger folk" (o were that true) do get it. And maybe we don't think rolling about on the ground and frothing at the mouth and insulting our allies in the fight for decent health care reform is such a great tactic. Even Mark T admits this when he says working "outside the sytsem" (a charitable description of his own rhetoric) doesn't work. (To be fair, he also says working inside the system doesn't work either.)

Yes, I wasn't surprised when single-payer was dropped. No, I didn't raise a fuss, even though I've been advocating for single-payer health care for years. I admit I never thought it was a real option, politically. (Again, whatever gave anyone the idea that it had enough support to reach the bargaining table?) I thought it would be more constructive and more beneficial to analyze the actual proposed policies and our Senator's involvement in them rather than berate Baucus and advocate for something that wasn't going to happen.

Again...tell me. How do you consider us to have "rolled over" for something that NO ONE promised or even talked about?

(Now, the wilderness bill is a whole 'nother ball of yarn.)

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 20:11:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm trying to remember Jay, which candidate ran on the Public Option during the primary or the general? (0.00 / 0)

As I recall two candidates ran on single payer during the primary, and our eventual nominee never ran on public option and ran specifically against a mandate.

By your analysis, that would mean that public option and mandate couldn't be part of the discussion. But why not? And also why not single payer, too?

But I'll answer my own question. Single payer couldn't be a part of the discussion because some people in a back room late last November decided that single payer wasn't supposed to be talked about, promoted or really discussed.

After all, health care and health care reform isn't about us, the people, it's about the Union president, the US president, the speaker of the house, the president of the Senate, some committee chairs, and it's especially about the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the hospital associations and the equipment manufacturers.

It's not about us except as cheerleaders. That's what we the people are supposed to be in this giant kabuki theater we call managed "representitive democracy."

I remember walking into the Badlander on a cold night last January, and most of the people there wanted to talk about single payer. But we soon found out we weren't supposed to talk about single payer. Instead we were supposed to talk about Baucus' white paper. This is what Forward Montana, the Union guys, the DNC person, and the Baucus staff people told us.

It really didn't matter what we wanted because what we wanted wasn't going to be discussed much, and the decision had already been made without our input that it wasn't going to be organized on.  All that mattered was what Baucus wanted. And he didn't even run for president. And of course we couldn't figure out what Baucus wanted which made it hard to talk about. But we found out that in his white paper he mentioned a "public option." That was the first i heard about it. We still don't know what Baucus wants except we now know that what he wants, we don't want.

So I'm not sure what your point is here, Jay. i know what people want when I talk to them. They want single payer. Every last one of them, including you. Most people want to organize on it. But you don't. Why not?

By the way, The CBO says that the "public plan" in HR3200 will maybe cover 10 million people by 2019. That's ten years from now. Why do you refer to that as "robust?" That sounds anemic with a faint pulse and no color to me. It's got one foot in the grave yard and one foot one the train.

Robust it ain't.

Perhaps we should take David Swanson's advice?
http://journals.democraticunde...

And here is a great history of the public option and the selling of the public option. It's a great read.
http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/...

---

by: Steve W. @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 22:15:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's the difference? (0.00 / 0)

If LiTW somehow "made an enemy of Baucus" what would be the difference between his policies now and then?  Far as I can tell, nothing.  But when you don't lean on the tiller -- hard -- how do you expect the ship of state to turn? Too many readers here have been scratching their heads for months now to call this "blame" -- it's just reality and a rather grim reality at that.

---

by: ochenski @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 18:58:53 PM UTC

No George. (4.00 / 1)

Too many readers have laid the failure of their own expectations at Matt and Jay's feet.  Any that might not agree with those, or in many cases agree with them enough, those readers have driven off.  Whatever community might have been here has been hijacked.  There is no longer any seeking for information or consensus or even discussion.  There is only the constant demand for Jay and Matt to publicly flagellate themselves for having the audacity to disagree with the enlightened few ... pre-assuming of course that they ever even did.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 20:22:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the target is not jay or matt (0.00 / 0)

the target of people's anger should be max baucus. he is the dickless wonder who blundered us into this mess either by stupidity or total lack of judgment or both. i can't decide. but i do lose my temper once in awhile and lash out unfairly at whoever gets between me and my target. that is not right and i apologize for it.

am very much liking the latest posts of jay's -especially wilderness bill revisited. damn good writing, jay.  

---

by: problembear @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 23:13:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wulfie - (0.00 / 0)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but WAY back when, many of the posters here were told by Matt and Jay that "single-payer was off the table" -- the exact same thing they were told by Max.  Now, in some opinions, that might be prescient political foresight.  But in others -- mine and others, to be specific -- that was immediately caving in to the entrenched interests in the health industry.  Notice, I didn't use the word "care" in that description.  

When you start at half way -- you don't wind up with more.  C'mon, you know this.  You don't say "I'll settle for this" right out of the chute and then wind up with a pile of shit and say "well, I guess this is what we get."

IF (big IF here) you want to turn the ship of state, you DO have to lean on the tiller and you have to lean HARD.  All this baloney about these middle-of-the-road, half-Republican (or more) policies will not get us to where we need to be.  Note the word, NEED, Wulfie, because I know you look closely at the words.

This is not a political game.  

This is the future we're talking about here.  This is my future and your future and the future for our kids.  

You want to spend $1.5 TRILLION to keep the health insurance industry in charge of American health care?  If so, why?  Because Bought Off Baucus tells you this is your only option?  Give me a break, dude.

If you ain't leaning on the tiller, you're along for the cruise.  Which is fine, if that's what you're into.  Just don't pass it off as leading some kind of progressive thought and policy scene, because it isn't.  

---

by: ochenski @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 23:17:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]