If HCR = BaucusCare, No Bill Is the Best Result

The Hill reports:

Obama administration officials tout the progress that has been made on healthcare reform, but as the debate heads into October, neither chamber has passed a bill. Some Democrats are privately concerned that the calendar is slipping away from them, noting that finishing healthcare reform in the election year of 2010 would be nearly impossible. In May, Obama stressed the need to act soon, saying, “If we don’t get it done this year, we’re not going to get it done.”

If "getting it done" means BaucusCare, better to NOT get it done. And if there is any doubt that the Obama Administration is considered to be wimpish:

[T]he White House is trying to light a fire under congressional negotiators, but it doesn’t appear to be working.

Once Obama let Max Baucus take over the process, this was inevitable. That was the price of "formlessness".

Speaking for me only

< Whose Nose is Longer Than a Telephone Wire? | Lanny Davis Loves Him Some Jim Cooper, Also Loved Lieberman >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If Baucuscare (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    aka Obamacare passes then Obama will have managed to do what George Bush and Karl Rove never could deliver: a veto proof majority for the GOP.

    hopefully not OT (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:23:35 AM EST
    what do you think of the Rocky/Franken amendment to force the insurance companies to spend 90% of the 490 billion in subsidies they will get on health insurance for citizens and not for pay raises, airplanes or anything else?

    it made sense to me.  for whatever its worth.

    95% is the number I wpuld have picked (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:28:49 AM EST
    Starts at 90% on passage (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:30:21 AM EST
    While continuing to progress to the final goal of 96%.

    It's incrementalism :) (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:31:07 AM EST
    Starts at 90% on passage (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:30:21 AM EST
    While continuing to progress to the final goal of 96%.

    Bad negotiating is my point (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:38:26 AM EST
    If you want 90, you ask for 95.

    I'm never going to be worth spit on negotiating (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:41:30 AM EST
    I'm just going to have to accept this.  It didn't even occur to me why you would want 95% when we can maybe perhaps if lucky have 96%.  I quit!

    Typical Dems (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:42:16 AM EST
    They have a history of giving away the store before negotiating (see "taking impeachment off the table" and "public option not necessary to pass this bill)

    I think I heard (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:43:42 AM EST
    Rocky say last night that the house version was 85%

    OMG....but medicare is 96% (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:48:38 AM EST
    For profit insurance gets to come in at 85%.  That's disgusting and you couldn't find that figure anywhere else in the entire free world and some of the third as well.  Why is my country so psychotic right now?

    That puts him in a bind then (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:44:53 AM EST
    85% is the max then.

    Though I love and support the amendment (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:40:53 AM EST
    I think it has about as much chance of being passed as Medicare for All. Too many bought and paid for Dems for it to become part of the legislation. Would love to be proven wrong on this.

    If it doesn't pass (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:43:38 AM EST
    How will Ezra choose to talk down to me on this one?

    Why do they get 10%? (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:41:58 AM EST
    $49 billion is a lot of money not going to actual healthcare.  There's ten percent going largely to executive compensation and share holders.  I think it calls out how ridiculous it is that we are allowing the private insurers to run what is essentially an accounting and payment system that government is perfectly able to run for less money.

    For the same reason (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    That the banksters are going to pay themselves bonuses of around 9 billion (during a depression they caused) while paying out dividends to their shareholders (their "owners") of around 3 billion.

    This tiny handful of sociopaths believe they should be compensated three times as much as the combined millions of shareholders.

    But, to answer your question, Why?

    Because they can, of course.


    Franken bill (none / 0) (#76)
    by norris morris on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 08:21:50 PM EST
    Big Insurance will never spend as instructed. This is naive. Unworkable, and not enough.

    These stinking bills without a well conceived Public Option are worse by far than what we have [or haven't].

    We the people should put pressure on congress to SCRAP anything without a PO. Triggers,coops, are all faux fantasy schticks created to confuse. Impractical, uninforcable, and a dozen other reasons for failure.

    Only real competetion and choice created through a  public option can deliver true healthcare reform. Otherwise, we must fight to scrap it and go back to the drawing board again.


    If we get nothing done (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:27:37 AM EST
    And I'm fine with that.....2010 is going to be one crazy election cycle.  How many death panel ads will they make in the Red States :)?  I'm throwing my television away if this happens :)

    If BaucusCare is enacted into law, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by HenryFTP on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:48:09 AM EST
    what stops the Republicans from running against it at the mid-terms as taking away American "freedom of choice" (or any number of other trite slogans they'll whip up)? The Republicans will have all voted against it, while the Democrats will be stuck "explaining" and whining about how they had to "compromise" (without telling the truth that the compromise they made was not with the "Loyal Opposition" but rather with the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical manufacturers).

    Can someone at least describe the theory of how this scenario is beneficial to Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and the prospects for re-election in 2012? It sure makes no sense to me (or anyone else I talk to, but then they're mostly European and think we're all nuts).

    Hmmm (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:55:34 AM EST
    Did they really compromise with insurance companies and pharma, or did they just give them the store.

    I think the latter.


    They owned Obama (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:21:42 AM EST
    from the first days of his campaign.   Tha, I suspect is where the moolah really came form.

    Insurance companies and pharma (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Spamlet on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:09:59 PM EST
    own the megastore. Obama is a branch manager.

    I vote for (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:19:04 AM EST
    They just gave them the store.

    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:58:19 AM EST
    No bill is a major improvement over BaucusCare.

    The Republicans have more than once admitted they are not going to vote for any health insurance bill and did so again on Wed. The WH is evidently aware of this (how could they not be).

    In August, MSNBC's John Harwood mentioned something to Paul Krugman that stood out for me: "I gotta tell you what a White House official told me today: 'Our problem right now is, if we tell some of the Republican opponents in the Senate, 'You can have everything you want in the bill,' they still won't vote for it.'"

    Senate Republican leader made clear on Wednesday that his party, despite all its griping over the public health insurance option, abortion-funding or health care for illegal immigrants, is simply and flatly opposed to the "core" of the Democratic health care reform proposal.

    Satisfying every Republican demand short of scrapping the entire project, said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), would still not capture GOP support.


    IMO since they know that nothing they do will win Republican support, if we get BaucusCare(complete give away to insurance industry), that is what the WH and the Dems want.

    More ways to screw over sick people (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    in BaucusCare.

    By contrast, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was successful in winning a change to shield seniors from the impact of a tax increase in the bill for individuals and families seeking to exclude certain medical expenses from their income. Under current law, taxpayers who itemize their deductions are permitted to escape taxes on health costs that exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income.

    Baucus' legislation would raise the threshold to 10 percent, but on a vote of 14-9, Nelson succeeded in returning it to 7.5 percent for taxpayers age 65 and over. link

    Seems to me this would raise taxes on some middle class Americans making less than $250,000. Let's tax sick people more so that we can give the insurance industry and phrma more money. Republicans should have a well deserved field day on this one.

    BTW, Baucus thinks he will rap up his piece of crap bill by tonight.


    More details on Carper's so called alternative (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:16:15 AM EST
    Carper's proposal is, in some ways, more conservative than the "trigger" option offered by Snowe.

    Under Snowe's proposal, a new national nonprofit corporation would offer insurance in any states where affordable coverage was not widely available from private insurers. Federal officials would serve on the corporation's board, but it would not be part of the Health and Human Services Department.

    Carper's proposal would leave decisions and solutions up to the states. While Snowe's amendment sets only an affordability test for the trigger, Carper would allow states to opt-in if affordable insurance is not widely available or the insurance market is dominated by only one or two players. link

    It sounds like Carper's plan is a trigger, but a trigger that, once pulled, requires each state legislature to then act. If the state legislature acts it must then choose from three basically worthless options, a state-based public option, co-ops, or some kind of managed government partnership with private insurance companies.

    If this is the case, then Carper has the dubious distinction of coming up with the worst "alternative" to the public option so far. A trigger for co-ops. This idea is so bad, it makes Conrad's worthless state-based co-ops look robust. FDL

    Then it is not an option (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:24:03 AM EST
    If there's no universally available public plan... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:33:56 AM EST
    ...that people can opt into I really don't see a left wing point to Mandates.  Mandates would have worked very well with a public plan that unions, individuals and businesses could access. With out that Mandates are a stinking rotten corpse hung around our collective necks.

    Yup (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Romberry on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    If that's the case, then the thing to do is listen to Dr. Dean, strip all the money out of the plans, strip the mandates and institute community ratings and restrictions (read "enact strong regulation") on insurance companies preventing them from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and using rescission to shed policy holders that actually get sick.

    This whole "it's not a tax" thing when they are talking about mandating that citizens fork over dollars to private corporations for junk insurance they can't afford to use ain't gonna fly.

    (Is Obama consciously trying to kill the Democratic Party, or is he just clueless?)


    Post-partisan clueless. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    Throw in the towel (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:34:14 AM EST
    Enough of the "new Proposals". They need to work on an exit strategy to scrap the entire HCR fiasco. The longer the discussion has gone on, the worse it gets.

    Obama went into this without a plan or even a desire  to steer the debate. He's let the momentum slip away and now we're faced with all these different plans that only help corporate American, when the original concept was to help the people.

    He'a allowed the Republican's to sucker punch him and HCR is down for the count!

    I'm pretty sure that almost all Obama's ... (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:46:08 AM EST
    ...utterances on health-care going back into the primaries were mischief. His sickeningly cynical team on Dkos and other websites who fear-mongered about mandates+public option.  The fliers in Iowa, the revival of Harry and Louis in Pennsylvannia, the way he tip toed around the issue in debates with McCain and finally the neglect of the issue he's shown in public for this issue over the last year of legislative wrangling.

    All of this while his people demagogued about Iraq whilst the plans were afoot to escalate troop presence in Afghanistan and ratchet up the tension with Iran anyway.


    My exit plan would be (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by mg7505 on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:33:43 PM EST
    to put HRC in chare of HCR.

    Since HRC is tied up... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Romberry on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:49:11 PM EST
    ...with foreign affairs as our Secretary of State, how about bringing someone to DC who actually knows a thing or two about health care to work on the issue? Maybe a doctor...

    Can't have that! (none / 0) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 02:47:06 PM EST
    Can't have a practicing physician, former governor and former head of the DNC sticking his interloper nose into this.  What could he bring to the discussion?  He's obviously not a serious person.

    here! here! (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Bornagaindem on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:36:12 AM EST
    But it is not just the Baucus bill that is bad-even HR 3200 is pretty bad. It has an individual mandate with fines, a WEAK public option - limited to 10 million and an employer mandate that is limited to 8%. With family (of 4) premiums for healthcare alone running $12,000 a year that is already NOT affordable and right now my big employer pays more than 8% of that. How long before they decide that 8% of a rising premium is looking pretty good and switch to that.

    If democrats pass any of these bills as is with no limits on how much premiums can rise they are going to get nailed and nailed badly.  Though of course it won't affect the "precious one" because it won't even start until 2013. And that is already going to be a problem for the 2010 and 2012 elections because how much fun are democrats going to have explaining to people who are going to expect subsidies  right away that oh sorry you have to wait until 2013. Are these guys really this stupid?

    Proud to be 37th!

    Answer (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:44:33 AM EST
    Are these guys really this stupid?

    Stupid or greedy/corrupt, the typical two choices when it comes to politicians.


    Watching the markup on CSPAN (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:39:55 AM EST
    is like watching pro wrestling...a lot of camera-conscious posturing and preening and some phony dustups but the end is predictable, though not entertaining.

    Thank goodness (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:54:55 AM EST
    They aren't wearing spandex.

    Are you sure? How can you tell? (none / 0) (#64)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:57:13 PM EST
    Oh, you mean visibly...

    Can't blame this on the Republicans. (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:41:05 AM EST
    The Republicans could have staged a complete boycott of the proceedings and the Democrats would still managed to louse things up.  Without a leader to counteract the effects of the lobbyists' siren songs, the Democrats will take the path of least resistance - to fat donations to the their reelection warchests.

    I'm not sure Congress deserves the (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    entire blame.  Wasn't it the Obama admins. that cut secret deals with big Pharma and insurance industry?

    I believe (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    that falls under "leadership".  If Big Daddy is making sweetheart deals with the Industry, why shouldn't Congress follow suit?

    Obama's Drug Deal (none / 0) (#71)
    by norris morris on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 07:40:52 PM EST
    Yes, Obama cut a "deal" with Big Pharma. And he has the stones to do it behind our backs with NO discussion, and none of the transparency he promised.  Stinko.

    The deal stinks because the devil offered him 150 mil. etc to not fight whatever ads Dems run for HC, meaning, er....the re-election of Barack.

    He has entirely underestimated the professional political venom and rapid response mischief that the Republicans are ALWAYS prepared for.

    So now President of Chicago is out of town, and HC is royally screwed.


    The most cogent analysis (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by rennies on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:24:28 PM EST
    of the HC debacle on this thread, especially the One's lack of sincerity.

    We don't believe you (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ric Locke on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:07:17 AM EST
    Progressives, the bottom line is we don't believe you. We don't believe your proposals (demands!) will do any good, and in fact we think they will make things worse. Maneuvers like this just help convince us that you don't believe it either, and are just cynically manipulating the political system to your own advantage.


    The Canadiain system works. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:20:39 AM EST
    The British system works.  France, Japan, Germany etc etc all work--significantly better than the American "Dysystem"

    This method of private insurance has probably killed about 1,000,000 Americans since Bill Clinton's attempt at reform was shot down bty jackholes like Baucus and Gingrich.


    I deleted your comment on Grayson (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    as it was off topic. An on topic on Grayson in THIS THREAD would note that he is betraying progressives on health care reform.

    I've been asleep at the wheel. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:27:33 AM EST
    has he been opposing all the sorts of things I try to stand for (ie he's really just supporting Baucus?) but also giving the GOP a couple of good punches too?

    Ah the paradox of the politician.


    That's exactly what he is doing (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    Absolutely agreed (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:33:05 AM EST
    I said yesterday that he's pulling a MoveOn move and putting his own fundraising interests ahead of advancing the issue.

    I disagree. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    "There is no absence of knowledge, there is no lack of wisdom, as to what to do in Great Britain. What is lacking is that the power lies in the wrong hands and the will to do it is not there. We want to tell our friends on the other side that the men in the Services are not going to allow a repetition of what happened between the wars. We are not going to allow our financial resources to be sent all over the world, and idleness and starvation to exist in Great Britain. And we warn them we are entering this fight with this in our hearts. We were brought up between the two wars in the distressed areas of this country, and we have such biting and bitter memories we will never be erased until the Tories are destroyed on every political platform in the country. We have been the dreamers, we have been the sufferers, now we are the builders. We enter this campaign at this general election, not merely to get rid of the Tory majority. We want the complete political extinction of the Tory Party."

    This is radical stuff and healthcare refomr needs radicals willing to say radical things.


    Grayson is no radical on HCR (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:02:26 AM EST
    he fooled you with his creaming.

    He will vote for a HCR bill that does not contain a public option.

    He is a Blue Dog on HCR.


    fair enough. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:35:11 PM EST
    The rhetoric is worth a bit of praise. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:39:56 PM EST
    The vote he intends to cast is something else.  I think I was refering to the stunt.  I mean we know that Obama will ratify any polished t*rd that Baucus evacuates from the senate.

    Radical is one this (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:59:47 AM EST
    stupid and misinformed is another.

    Go fact check his CNN interview. He comes off looking quite stupid.

    And that's apart from the bad politics of his special order speech.


    Obama on CNN (none / 0) (#75)
    by norris morris on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 08:13:56 PM EST
    Yes, he looked and sounded stupid, but what was worse, is that he bombed. He was unprepared. He was talking generalities for political cover, and then fell into the cringe making hole of the Gate's affaire.  Then a beerfest.

    In short, Obama has wimped out of the debate and allowed the republicans to control and frame the debate. Baucus is nothing but a conservative from a small state who takes lots of money from Insurance and is on their payroll.

    Obama did not want to explain therefore he didn't, and so far hasn't.

    Hopefully when the Preisident of Chicago returns from his trip he may blessedly stay off TV, and hopefully [but not probably] get to work in earnest on the PO and vigorously fight for it.

    I can dream, can't I?


    Not talkig about the stunt (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:01:41 AM EST
    I'm talking about his willingness to vote for HCR without a public option.

    He clearly doesn't care much about the issue (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:24:12 AM EST
    because he wasn't able to competently discuss it on CNN.

    CNN Discussion (none / 0) (#73)
    by norris morris on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 07:49:34 PM EST
    Obama haasn't been able to explain his healthcare plan clearly to anyone at any time. He's been waffling for cover, and backdealing with the Drug Cartel.

    We really have to exert pressure on Congress  and the WH to make them understand  they'll have to face us at the polls.

    I'm upset.


    Obama will sign a bill with no public option... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    ...and I think that's the greater crime.

    HC Reform (none / 0) (#74)
    by norris morris on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 08:05:39 PM EST


    Why is the WH allowing this charade whilst we get screwed?


    Dems don't mean it? (none / 0) (#72)
    by norris morris on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 07:44:55 PM EST
    Ric, As a lifelong Democrat I have to agree that what I've been seeing and hearing is more than incompetent, cowardly, bumbling, mumbling confusion and disarray.

    I am not happy with Obama, and my party needs a high colonic.  They deserve to be criticized.

    Unfortunately we  all suffer at the hands of a pack of political whores on all sides of the aisle.


    IF what Ezra (none / 0) (#28)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:29:51 AM EST
    says is true here, then I think we are in a good position:

    This is, I think, half right. The public option stuff has been left for the leadership. The Senate Finance Committee doesn't have the credibility to broker the relevant compromise here, in part because few of its members are trusted by liberals. Rather, the merger between the Finance Committee's eventual bill and the legislation produced by Tom Harkin's liberal HELP Committee will be the venue for that deal. The HELP folks have the credibility to bargain for liberals and Baucus can represent centrists.

    That sounds like the Senate would come out with a bill with a weak public option.  Then that would be merged with one of the House bills, resulting in a strong than the Senate public option but possibly not a robust public option (which would be ideal).

    I really hope this is true.

    With leadership like (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:39:45 AM EST
    "Triggers are a pretty doggone good idea Harry", I don't feel all warm and cozy regardless of what Ezra says. Oh BTW, did I mention that I don't find Ezra a stalwart of good health CARE legislation.

    now Harry Reid (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:46:42 AM EST
    is I believe Mr. Formlessness.  Maybe someone can tweak him for getting all that Medicaid funding and get him to fight a bit harder for the public option.  I think if we can kick the debate out to the entire Senate we'll be able to hear a lot more support than we currently are hearing for the public option and that's a good thing.  Plus Harkin claims he WILL get a strong public option.  Better playing field.  

    Although what credibility (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:32:22 AM EST
    Baucus has to represent anyone, I have no idea.  But if the Baucus bill is labelled as "the most conservative possible bill" it's possible we could push through a public option in the Senate.

    Blue Dogs are well represented by him (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:34:00 AM EST
    I guess on the public option (none / 0) (#35)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:37:53 AM EST
    but even Baucus' bill screws over the blue dogs with the whole Medicaid funding issue.  

    As long as they don't call it reform (none / 0) (#57)
    by Manuel on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:38:43 PM EST
    There are some incremental gains that would be worthwhile.

    My back up plan would be as follows.

    • Drop mandates without a public option.

    • Require insurance companies to accept patients with preexisting conditions.

    • Put a cap on the premiums insurance companies can charge.

    So simple. But then again, you aren't (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:42:24 PM EST
    running for reelection. Who to please--big donors or constituents.

    Unions (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    Labor unions are also big contributors. This is a fact that too many in DC are forgetting.

    That's hard enough to do (none / 0) (#60)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:41:36 PM EST
    and all they wil do is find holes with which to loot money anyway.   The problem is that 30-450% of the premium is "administrative" or pure Profit.

    Public Option (none / 0) (#70)
    by norris morris on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 07:33:29 PM EST
    It's obvious to me that Obama has screwed this up.
    He started by defensively seeking republican approval rather than being bold and clear about what he wanted in Healthcare Reform, and outlining the specifics  he wanted  in a final bill.

    He's dodged,mumbled, stated  the public option was not necessarily...er, uh,...and while his vagueness has offered him political cover, it hasn't done a thing to bring about meaningful HC reform legislation a step forward.

    This Baucus crap is an insult giveaway to big pharma and insurance. It delivers more victims to the healthcare industry without any safegards, and literally subsidizes the rape of the American public.

    The Baucu Healthcare scenario played out in the Senate is an abomination and a profound insult. Obama is gadding about as President of Chicago along with Oprah, and we still haven't heard exactly what he wants in  a HC bill. He's wimped out so far.

    Hopefully I'm wrong and Obama will get off TV and spend sometime at  showing his sincerity about a PO.  What also gets me going is how Obama struck a private [?] deal with bigPharma and Insurance industry back some months ago.  Were we consulted? Do we know about his Faustian bargain?
    Do we know how come he went behind our backs and struck "a deal"?  It's absurdly cynical.

    Then there's the matter of Afghanistan which Obama tells us he needs 2 more weeks to consider.
    Among other things.