| I got a surprised email last night, surprised because Max Baucus in a recent conference call with Demo county chairs endorsed a public option. The emailer was looking for confirmation.
I should clarify, though. Max, of course, didn't endorse a public option in this call. He reiterated his support for a reform he has publicly supported since the release of his white paper last November. As far as I know, what is surprising is not Max Baucus supporting a public option, but anyone thinking he doesn't because, as far as I know, his office has never told anyone that they don't support it.
Let me add some caveats now. I don't think his office puts the public option as the keystone of reform. Neither, clearly, does the White House. Nor do a ton of reform "experts," a stance that either undermines the meaning of that word or explains the prioritizing of Max and the White House.
There are other concerns as well. First, we actually have to pass a bill. Joe Lieberman is now being an extraordinary douchebag (like Max Baucus and the public option, this is not a new stance, but merely the reemphasizing of a long-held position) and saying we can't afford health reform (as Ezra explains in that link, Lieberman is full of crap).
Lieberman is hardly the only problem in the U.S. Senate. Kent Conrad appears to be a pain in the ass. Evan Bayh has been quiet for a while but could almost certainly rear his ugly head. Check the full whip count, spot Tester and Baucus as public option supporters, and you're still a few enchiladas short of a combo platter.
Assuming Joe Lieberman is willing to filibuster health reform for containing a public option (a stance that would not surprise me in the least) and that a handful of other Senate Democrats would consider it and that Ted Kennedy may be too sick to make the vote...we probably get Snowe to support cloture and maybe Collins. After that...where do the votes come from?
In comments recently, someone said something along the lines of "as I've said all along, if Democratic leadership could just get their caucus in line, none of this would be a problem." Well sure and if we already had a functioning universal health care system, none of this would be a problem either. Assuming the solution to the problem usually solves the problem.
The problem is that the Democrats haven't united. The second problem is Senate rules that let us pass a public option with 50 votes but would probably make it difficult to get meaningful insurance regulations with any fewer than 60. We have a solution here, too: split the bill into multiple bills. Reconciliation is an option going into motion, an option that may also force the hands of Lieberman, Grassley, Enzi, etc.
The third problem is that some Senators, including Max Baucus, are damn committed to including Republicans like Chuck Grassley every step of the way. But let's be extremely clear right now, this is only a problem if we take care of problem 1. If we have 60 votes except for one or two D Senators who are balking while waiting for more bipartisanship, then this third issue moves from "potential" to "actual" problem.
Right now, Max Baucus is blocking healthcare reform in the same way that I'm fighting a land war in Asia.
I'm down in Billings briefly, having just celebrated my grandmother's 80th birthday. She's a hell of a woman, I should note. She taught me the value of generosity and family. If I become one-tenth the person she has been in her life, it'll be an accomplishment.
Although I try to avoid talking work too much with my family, we had a short conversation yesterday about healthcare reform. There had been a number of jokes about death panels and someone asked me what I honestly thought was going to happen. I responded, as I often do, that the decisions at this point are largely outside my control and not anything I can really know, but that I hope we get something passed soon.
This surprised my family, which has (reasonably enough) bought into the argument that more discussion and debate is good, which it would be if discussion and debate are what we would get with more delay. But as the whole death panel episode shows, more delay doesn't mean more reasonable disagreements or good faith efforts to improve the bill. It brings new rounds of bullshit arguments used to divide and scare the public into opposing a bill that I think a majority would find, on net to be an improvement.
And the resources being used to answer questions and clarify this stuff is simply a pittance right now compared to the bullshit filling the airwaves.
But let me end on a positive note. The work that Max Baucus has been doing for months (years?) will prove helpful, I think, as we move closer to resolution. He'll be able to help keep wayward Dems like Conrad in the fold and pull over the Snowes and Collins of the world if this stuff changes gears quickly. A split the bill option for legislating is being taken more seriously, with folks like Chuck Schumer talking it up publicly.
We're still well on track for passing significant and meaningful health care reform this year, including a public option. That fact is pretty astounding. It is good news for this country, for all the currently insured who risk getting screwed by their insurance companies or risk losing their employer-provided insurance due to inflation, for all the currently uninsured who will have far more affordable access, and for everyone else who will, over time, benefit from improved quality and cheaper services...
It is bad news for some others. It isn't yet clear who exactly, although various pieces of the health industrial complex will hurt over time. It is bad news for Bill Kristol and probably for Mark T.
But for the vast majority of us, this will be progress of an historic sort. And, yes, even Max Baucus will be due a shit ton of credit. |
