Balking at Baucus: A Reality Check of the Healthcare Proposal from the Senate Finance Committee

BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

Now that Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus (D-MT) has finally released his plan for a healthcare overhaul, it's time for a quick reality check. To summarize: Baucus' proposal creates a nonprofit co-op engineered to compete with private insurers. The plan, projected to cost $856 billion over the next decade, does not include a public option but does contain an individual mandate, requiring those who do not purchase healthcare insurance to pay a fine. Click here for a PDF of Baucus' proposal.

As what has been portrayed as the most conservative reform plan put together by a Democrat -- the details of which were made public before the proposal was officially released Wednesday morning -- the meat and potatoes of the bill aren't surprising. It's the reaction to the plan that had me feeling ungrounded.

So let me just get this straight. Baucus' plan has several major concessions to Republicans -- everything from cuts in consumer subsidies to a loosening of requirements for big businesses to chip in -- and yet couldn't even get a subtle nod from moderate Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Nope, instead all three of the Republican side of the Gang of Six are asking for more concessions.

Ranking Member on the Finance Committee Charles Grassley (R-IA) whined in a statement yesterday about being "pushed aside," as if it weren't a situation of his own making:

We've been clear from the start that we're willing to stay at the table. There's no reason not to keep working until we get it right.

And when Grassley says "right," he means "to the Right." His definition of "working" must include lying about how the plan will kill off grandma, I guess. Going beyond the scare tactics of Rep. Joe "You Lie" Wilson, Grassley seeks to bar legal immigrants from participating for the first five years of the plan, according to this piece in The New York Times. Yes, legal immigrants. Voting American citizens should apparently have to wait for the meager subsidies provided in the form of tax cuts in Grassley's version of the healthcare reform package, just because they've been naturalized.

Grassley's Gang of Six pal Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) came out and called himself a roadblock earlier in the process, making his obstructionist role clear. Now he's saying he won't back a bill unless it is set in stone and unable to change as it winds through the legislative process on its way to the president's desk. To that I can only respond with the disbelief: Is it possible that Enzi does not understand how Congress works, or the definition of "deliberative body?" Is it perhaps time for a little School House Rock break in the Senate?

In order to make the $100 billion or so in cuts Baucus made (as compared to similar healthcare bills floating around Congress) seem less draconian, the poor still have the majority of the subsidies needed to make mandatory coverage work. The problem is with cuts in middle class subsidies that would mandate a family of three earning $50,000 a year surrender up to 13 percent of their income to healthcare costs -- some $6,500 a year.

Baucus' staffers are quick to point out that this would be less than the average amount such a family would pay for insurance today, but when you're making the somewhat controversial move to require coverage, just paying less isn't enough. It has to be affordable, and some senate Democrats insist that, under this plan, it is not.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) has criticized Baucus for giving too many concessions to Republicans, and said he couldn't vote for the bill as is. Aside from the fact that a filibuster-proof (60-vote) majority would require yea votes from all Democrats, both Independents and one Republican (unless the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat is filled prior to consideration of the full Senate), Rockefeller's vote is specifically crucial due to his chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee's healthcare subcommittee. That means his vote is crucial to the bill's emergence from committee. And Rockefeller sees his involvement as more than just a vote, promising to add many amendments, one of which promising a public option.

From the reaction of two-thirds of the GOP's share of the Gang of Six, the one Republican vote in a scenario passing Baucus' bill will be Snowe. National Public Radio's Julie Rovner said on Morning Edition Wednesday that word on the Hill is that Snowe is expected to vote for the bill eventually, but the Republican senator from Maine is not signaling she'll sign on just yet.

Remember, that whole 60-vote thing only happens if the bill makes it out of the Finance Committee. Set for consideration soon, it seems Baucus will need to make changes before the bill even passes out of committee (insert apology to Mike Enzi here).

So much for that reality check. Baucus' Wall Street Journal editorial this morning ends with a promise for action that, in the context of the squealing brakes sounds emanating from the Senate chamber, smacks of something Pollyanna might say:

The time has come for action. And we will act. In the next several weeks, the Senate Finance Committee will do its part to control costs, protect consumers from unfair insurance industry practices, and put America back on a path toward fiscal sustainability.

I'll believe it when I see it.

BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Technorati Tags: Analysis baucus health care bill proposal gang of six enzi grassley snowe rockefeller reform finance senate committee