BaucusCare Will Never Include Public Competition

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:16:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Time:

[O]ne place where Baucus does not appear to be so flexible is on the question of adding a government-run "public option" to the measure as an alternative for providing coverage to the uninsured.

Thus, if as Paul Krugman endorses, BaucusCare is the template for health care reform, what that means is that Democrats will enact a huge tax increase on the middle class with no real reform of the system.

Because that is what an individual mandate means. That is political suicide. If BaucusCare is the template, what must be removed is the mandate. Forget about health care "reform." Just expand Medicaid, provide subsidies and enact the meaningless unenforceable regulations that people seem to think will work. But forget about the rest of it.

Speaking for me only

< Krugman's Absurd Column On the Baucus Bill | Friday Open Thread. >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

BaucusCare Will Never Include Public Competition | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Baucuscare (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 10:27:29 AM EST

Such a misnomer, actually implies "care". Bugs me every time I see it.

I'd call it Baucus(-)care

Marcy's calling it (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Anne on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 10:47:34 AM EST

Max Tax...

Maybe "Max Baucus" is Latin for "Huge Corporate Profits, Little Individual Care."


: Being crude (none / 0) (#20)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 11:01:44 AM EST

How about "FaucusThere," because that's exactly what it will do.
Max-Tax is good too.

As a life long liberal Democrat, I am Ready . . . (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Doc Rock on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 11:04:49 AM EST

. . . to abandon the party and look for another to support. They have sold out both the middle class and the poor once too often.

Process questions (none / 0) (#1)
by magster on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:23:55 AM EST

Someone posted a diary on Kos wanting to know if it's better to pass anything out of SFC so that something gets voted on, as opposed to the bill not getting out of committee, and asking what the consequence is to no SFC bill. She didn't get any answers answered by anyone who definitively knew the answer (just a bunch of people talking out of their *). Does anyone know here for certain how sausage is made? Can the SFC be bypassed if they don't pass a bill out of committee, by say voting on the house bill?

It seems that progressives need to have a clear strategy to direct calls/faxes/e-mails during the SFC markup.

Passing out of committee is better (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:26:30 AM EST

SO LONG AS everyone understands it is DOA.

That is what I would have recommended prior to the jump start BaucusCare has gotten from unlikely sources.

For example, the Dems like Wyden, Rockefeller, Cantwell and Kerry could vote Yes while saying we only vote Yes to move the process forward. We will not vote for this bill on the floor under any circumstances.


I just wonder about that (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:40:47 AM EST

My feeling is that the best option may be to deadlock in committee, assuming there's a way to bring the bill to the floor otherwise.

It will be deeply damaging for any number of Democrats to vote for BaucusCare.


At this point (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:47:54 AM EST

It needs to be bottled up.


Damaging (none / 0) (#22)
by Steve M on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 11:18:47 AM EST

even if it doesn't pass? If a different bill passes, no one is going to care about scary ads based on voting for a bill that didn't happen, I think.


: No, I mean that it will legitimize (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 11:21:07 AM EST

BuacusCare. I don't want any Democrat voting for that in committee, because it makes passage on the floor more likely.
I'd rather they passed a piece of paper with "Health Care Reform" printed on it.

Lawrence O'donnell (none / 0) (#3)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:35:27 AM EST

said that the first amendment Baucus would offer was the public option but he sounded like it was only a formality and he just wanted to get it out of the way by offering it and having it defeated.

: oooo (none / 0) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 10:17:38 AM EST

I see we disposed of him in the last thread
never mind

Frankly (none / 0) (#4)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:37:22 AM EST

at this time I'm going for no HCR. Apparently Baucuscare is going to the be the template and according to an article in Slate Obama has been advocating for Baucus care privately so I guess Obama doesnt have a problem with it either.

: Status quo is better than (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by magster on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:49:47 AM EST

a mandate without a meaningful public option. The progressives need to characterize BaucusCare as a health ins. corporate bailout.

Do we need to start counting (none / 0) (#5)
by nycstray on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:37:37 AM EST

casualties for them to get it?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

Well (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:42:15 AM EST

body counts never got us out of unnecessary wars. Why would they get us out of something where politicians, CEO's and media personnel stand to get rich, while saying they're providing "care" to Americans?


: Correction (none / 0) (#10)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:42:58 AM EST

rich -- ER

Baucus Plan would develop Coop Growth (none / 0) (#6)
by Exeter on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:39:57 AM EST

...exponentionally. This is what they have in Germany and it works very, very well. And it provides regulations of the privates insurers like they have in the Netherlands-- which also works very well.

Look, the pink elephant in the room is 2010 ten election. Five retiring GOP Senators in blue purple states and redistricting at stake at state legislatures accross the country.

If done right, we can achive universal health care and all the other goals we want AND have 2010 look like 1964 instead 1994.

HAH (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:41:54 AM EST

Are you going to recreate the German and Dutch regulatory structure in two years?

I have a Ukrainian bridge I can sell you!


: Good point (none / 0) (#27)
by Exeter on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 10:08:28 AM EST

But I still believe that non-profit, regulated coops that would compete against eachother is the best fix.

You must be joking (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:46:54 AM EST

: Can't be joking (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by me only on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 10:04:12 AM EST

it isn't funny.
Can't be trolling, it isn't imaginative or provocative.
Can't be snark, it doesn't make you think.
Must be serious.

: The "public option" (none / 0) (#28)
by Exeter on Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 12:01:51 PM EST

Isn't really an option-- its available to about 10% of the population. The rest of the population (200 million) is stuck with whatever insurance their employer has, under Obamacare. I would rather see something where everyone can get insurance and everone can choose their insurance. This would inject competition that is largely absent from the health insurance industry.

Ah, the wait until the next election strategy (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by MO Blue on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:52:45 AM EST

We should do this because it has worked so well over the last sixty years in providing universal health care.


: Not to mention (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by Spamlet on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 10:07:40 AM EST

the "regulation can work in the United States" strategy. FAIL.

It seemed pretty clear to me, (none / 0) (#24)
by KeysDan on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 12:04:38 PM EST

from the brilliant speech to the Joint Session of Congress, that President Obama and Senator Baucus were of one mind. Indeed, Baucus was to be the canary in the mineshaft, and, lo and behold, he soon started to choke on his own insurance dust. But, sad to see, those unlikely sources removed the "DNR" sign from that old bird's bedside.

BTD, (none / 0) (#25)
by cpinva on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 12:09:24 PM EST

did you actually read dr. krugman's entire column, or just cherry pick it? he very, very clearly stated the specific weaknesses, which if left uncorrected, make the baucus bill unpalatable for human consumption.

what, exactly, do you think he got wrong?

Krugman didn't endorse Baucus's plan (none / 0) (#26)
by MiamiGuy on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 12:04:53 AM EST

I think you're overreacting to Krugman's column. He said "[t]here's enough wrong with the Baucus proposal as it stands to make it unworkable and unacceptable," and that it "has to change. Krugman has been pushing for the public option all along and continues to do so, even in this latest column. I didn't find it "absurd" or "ridiculous" at all, as you previously described it.