Why, Wyden, Why? How Oregon's 'Hard-Core Liberal' Crossed to the Blue Dog Gang of Six on Healthcare Reform

BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

Remember that old game, "one of these things is not like the others?" Let's play a quick round. Who doesn't fit in this list of centrist senators, recently annointed the "gang of six?"

Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Susan Collins (R-ME).

That's right; it's Wyden, classified by On The Issues as a "hard-core liberal" who sticks out like a sore thumb. But that didn't stop him from signing his name along with the others listed above in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell asking them to slow down on healthcare reform. A change in pace may seem like a reasonable request, but it is considered a death knell for reform by most observers.

This Daily Kossack writes that, as an Oregonian, he is disappointed in his senator's recent Blue Dog decision, and plans to make that known:

If he doesn't get behind a public option, we should get rid of him. He talks the progressive talk but he doesn't walk the walk. When push comes to shove, he votes with the healthcare industry against the public interest. He needs to be held to account.

But is it true that Wyden "votes with the healthcare industry against the public interest?"

According to Project Vote Smart, the healthcare and insurance industries do have a fair amount of influence in Wyden's campaign. The group lists Blue Cross/Blue Shield as his number four contributor, "health" as the number five sector contributing to his campaign and "health professionals" as the number five industry for which his contributors work. But with the American Medical Association signing onto Obama's plan and health insurance industries talking about reform, who knows what contributions from Big Health mean anymore.

Politically, Wyden has always been a pretty close approximation of the term "progressive politician." He strongly supports a women's right to choose, having scored 100 percent on NARAL's scale. He favors affirmative action and minority hiring incentives. He supports same-sex marriage. He's anti-Patriot Act and voted against the authorization for use of force in Iraq. He's rated 0 percent by the Christian Coalition (they'd probably give him a negative percentage if they could, keeping in mind his support for Oregon's "Death With Dignity Act"). And so on.

Then why would Wyden, this classic -- if quirky -- progressive, turn his back on one of the most significant changes the American people asked for? Well, it seems he's got his own horse in this race.

Wyden has been hawking his Healthy Americans Act for years, which he's billed as a guarantee of "health coverage for every American that is at least as good as members of Congress receive and can never be taken away." Wyden is still pushing the plan, described as politically risky at the moment but a "favorite of the policy wonks."

It's a bipartisan bill, with five Republican co-sponsors, eight Democrats and one Independent. Based on the "exchange plan" favored by some conservatives, the plan would basically tax employer-provided benefits. Employers large and small would begin making what Wyden calls "Employer Shared Responsibility Payments," which would not be tied to the actual coverage their employees receive. Uninsured people within 100 to 400 percent of the poverty line would pay for their insurance on a sliding scale, while premiums for those at the poverty line would be subsidized.

The marketplace in which individuals buy insurance would be regulated by the government, mandating a standard of care for policies. States would have local "health help" offices to aid in the enrollment process, supposedly without bias for one plan or another. Insurance companies would have to cover anyone who applies, regardless of age, gender or preexisting conditions.

Employees happy with what they have could stick with their current plans. The downside of some more conservative versions of the "exchange" plan is employees would be forced to keep their current plan, whether they like it or not. But under Wyden's new "Free Choice Proposal," employers would provide a voucher to cover 65 to 70 percent of a new plan (which is a little bit less than they paid for employee premiums on average in 2008) so that everyone could have access to the marketplace.

Whether or not this would create an imbalance (with all the healthy people on one side or the other, driving up premiums for the less-than-healthy) is debatable. As a young and relatively healthy individual who has had the displeasure of "shopping around" for health insurance, my guess is people in my position care less about getting the best deal. If a young person's insurance is working for them at a minimum, which a government-regulated exchange would hopefully ensure, the impetus for messing around with vouchers and comparison shopping would be minimized to those with health problems or too much free time.

Perhaps the most politically promising item in Wyden's plan is the cost. The Congressional Budget Office scored the Healthy Americans Act as a money-saving venture. But the price tag may not be enough to get Wyden a seat at the table; the bill has critics on both sides of the aisle.

Government regulation of the marketplace along with the Free Choice Proposal may be too much for the Republicans who don't want the insurance companies to have to compete or change the status quo. Big corporations surely don't like the idea that their well-negotiated insurance packages might have to compete with an open marketplace, reducing the inherent benefits of working at a huge company.

On the flip side, the absence of a national public option makes the bill a nearly impossible sell among progressives. Though he includes a state-by-state public option, the criticism of this omission is a fair one in my estimation. After all, without the added competition of a Medicare-type plan, won't we really be subsidizing insurance companies, rather than patients at the poverty line? Furthermore, the bill's proposal to eliminate federal health plans such as SCHIP is worrisome.

To be fair, the bill was pretty popular with progressives before Obama came on the scene, but maybe that's because the idea of any real healthcare reform seemed so remote back then.

Wyden's bill has been sitting in the Finance Committee since it was introduced in February. Considering that Wyden serves on Finance (as well as Finance's subcommittee on healthcare), my guess is that he is not advocating putting his bill up for a vote because he knows he doesn't have the support needed to move it to the Senate floor.

He may still be working to get his legislation incorporated into the larger co-op idea being pushed by conservatives. And he might even get his name on it, in an effort to forge a bipartisan bill. But whether such a compromise would pass muster with the Democratic leadership is still in doubt.

So if his version isn't going to be passed, why sign onto the gang of six letter? What is Wyden getting out of this? Is he really willing to "break" Obama and allow the Democratic majority appear to be unable to govern just so he can be that guy who runs on the "I knew what to do about healthcare years before it was cool" platform?

Wyden has been working on this for years; perhaps he's driven by the same legacy focus as Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), though to different results. But if it is true that Wyden is willing to eschew his progressive bona fides and stand with the Blue Dogs just to get his version of healthcare reform recognized, he's got more of a narrow focus on his own personal vitae than an open mind on how to fix the broken healthcare system.

BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Technorati Tags: Analysis wyden gang of six letter healthcare exchange public option insurance medical industry obama plan reform sen