This is hardly news, even though the Politico in recent days headlined it as "The Great Myth": the prospect, that is, "that there’s any chance of genuinely bipartisan health care legislation reaching [President Obama's] desk this fall."
And if "myth" seems too gentle of an appellation for the intentionally deceptive, how about, more accurately, a bipartisan "charade"? -- a kind of cynical, two-party dance "performed for the benefit of a huge bloc of practical-minded voters who hunger for the two parties to work together and are mystified that it never seems to happen."
But if casual dancing characterized the charade of bipartisan health-care legislation up until yesterday, we can safely say that Max Baucus' finance committee -- more narrowly, its Gang of Six -- has staged the all-time lollapalooza of ballroom galas.
Months of legislative labor and journalistic ink and airtime have been squandered on Baucus' ballyhooed wooing of three Republican senators. Paradoxically -- or I should say, predictably -- the resulting legislation is indeed bipartisan enough; it's just that those who Max invited to the dance went home without him.
Not one -- not Chuck Grassley, not Mike Enzi, not even the reputedly adaptable Olympia Snowe -- endorsed their very own handiwork. Snowe may expatriate herself yet, but within hours of the bill's release the others were blasting away:
"Enzi issued a statement," reported the NY Times, "criticizing Democrats for insisting that Mr. Baucus unveil his proposal before differences could be completely resolved," and "Grassley ... outlin[ed] similar concerns and lashed out at the White House and Congressional Democratic leaders for not giving more concrete assurances that any bipartisan deal in the committee would be upheld in the months ahead."
Can you believe the cajones on this guy? He wanted "assurances" that 534 nuisances, known as his fellow members of Congress, couldn't tamper with his platinum words. Or at least that's Chuckles' story, and he's sticking with it.
What's more, notwithstanding Baucus' collateral assurances that his is a "balanced" -- meaning bipartisan -- bill that can pass the Senate, I suddenly began wondering yesterday afternoon if he can even get it out of committee. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a finance committee member, seemed to be everywhere on the news denouncing his chairman's written efforts, and swearing opposition. That would put the vote at 12-11: one more defection and this bill is pushing up lilacs.
Furthermore, as the Times understated it yesterday, Baucus' "proposal does not exactly give [all Senate] Democrats a unifying proposal to rally around." It's essential to keep in mind, of course, that this is not the Senate bill -- not yet, anyway -- and that it does, in fact, contain many provisions to recommend it: the bill makes advances in achieving universal coverage, offers subsidies to low- and moderate-income Americans, prohibits the denial of coverage because of preexisting conditions, installs caps on out-of-pocket expenses, and expands Medicaid.
On the other hand, the bill opts for the phantasmagoric joke of insurance cooperatives over a government-sponsored option, robust or not, and the actual finance mechanics of everything above are sure to rankle conservative Democrats as much as the public option's wake will sadden liberals.
In short, rather than bringing unlike minds together, Baucus' elaborately compromising efforts could actually maroon a Senate bill through the end of this year. Then we slide into an election year -- Bye-bye health-care reform, any reform; Hello, 1994.
I don't know the precise chances that political bookmakers had earlier established for a successful 2008 bill, but I believe they were somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 percent. Now, I'd reckon, they've plunged to something more along the lines of 50-50. Thanks, Max.
Although to be exquisitely fair to the old boy, I'm not sure any present committee chairman, no matter how Herculean his efforts or starved of the health-care industry's bribes, could produce a Senate bill satisfactory to a majority of today's ideologically wrenched and self-preservationist Democrats. Virtually every one of them is thinking predominantly of Number One, rather than the commonweal.
Right-o. So what else is new?
Well, I can tell you one additional thing that isn't: liberal Senate Democrats will shift to the conservatives' position before conservatives ever shift to the left. And there's one key statistic from the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll that they'll be fixating on while they're slithering and shifting about: An astounding (to me it was, anyway) 81 percent of liberals across this illiberal Republic say they'd accept a health-care reform package absent a public option.
A key statistic, and the only key -- like it or not -- to a potential compromise.
But let's look at the upside. In another five or ten years -- after another five or ten upward "adjustments" to private health-care premiums everywhere -- a single-payer system, or at the very least an even more "robust" and true public option, is going to start looking pretty damned inescapable to a lot more people and, critically, to a lot more pols. We're just not there yet. Not with this Congress.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Hope Isn't A Strategy
Baucus doomed health care "reform" with his giveaway to the insurance industry? Perish the thought! With the likes of Senators Mary L. Landrieu, Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, and so-called "independent" Joe Lieberman crawling out of the dung heap to stand next to him, Baucus is calling the shots right now! Other weak-kneed and red-state vulnerable DINOs like Lincoln will also line up in the payoff queue once they vote in favor of the Baucus plan.
Across the building in the House, I sure hope that Robert Reich is wrong about the outcome of the vote there pending Olympia Snowe's decision on whether to back the Baucus plan or reject it. Reich holds that if Snowe opts to support, then Pelosi (in whom I hold no trust) will fold like a cheap suit and allow no alternative to the Baucus plan to be passed. This would leave us with the progressives needing to hold together to vote against the Baucus proposal. Is this likely? I hope so, but Hope isn't a strategy.
Three Cheers for Potter
Whistle blower, Wendell Potter, a former officer in CIGNA, is working overtime to blow the whistle, congressional testimony and media interviews, to make certain members of Congress and the public understand the ploys and subterfuges of the health insurance industry. He's letting so many cats out of the bag that I really believe this will help turn it around. Baucus could have worked on this until Chritmas and he still wouldn't have been able to come up with anything decent. Imagine being the chair of the Finance Committee for the Senate and still not have the common sense to realize that middle class families won't be able to budget mandator insurance that costs so much. It's just a delaying tactic and a sham.
You are making the same
You are making the same mistake you made when you tremendously overestimated the harm done by Hillary Clinton during the primary campaign. Max Baucus is a laughingstock whose actions, by dragging out the process and polarizing party members, have increased the chance that the bill Obama signs will include a public option.
Baucus's Bungle
The suggestion made by a couple-three or so folks commenting here is to rename the "Public Option" something less inflammatory or whatever. That gave me an idea for a name that probably would be much less objectionalble: the "Choice Option." After all, that's what we're talking isn't it? The "Public Option" is only one of a numgber of choices avallable to choose from, is't it?
Do we want to end up like
Do we want to end up like the Republicans, who expend greater efforts searching for new euphemisms by which to call fecal matter, using up energy that could have been spent cleaning up the crap? George Lakoff jumped the shark a couple of years ago, about the time Frank Luntz disappeared from MSNBC.
'This is hardly news' It's a Carpy oped about nuttin', again
Just yesterday Carpy posted a rehashed story about what everyone already knew about Joe "YOU LIE!" Wilson. Now today he does it again. But at least this time he admits it in his opening line.
Of course, once again he is wrong about progressive Democrats. He says, '...liberal Senate Democrats will shift to the conservatives' position before conservatives ever shift to the left...'
I guess Carpy didn't read all the news about progressive Senate Dems finally taking a stand on the public option, faux WaPo - ABC poll be damned.
Carpy is simply rooting for the other team, again.
Like I said in the title, another Carpy oped about nuttin', again!
Thank Baucus
His bill is so obviously garbage that we can comfortably just ignore it and the gang.
Gotta run now to my free VA blood test appointment ......... nuf said.
Key statistic
As for the "key statistic" you cite from that ABC poll; you fail to note that this same poll says that 86% of Americans WOULD accept a health-care reform package WITH a public option. They just want reform. Why is it you , Rahm, and Barack always see the default outcome of such ambiguity as an ass-hanging retreat by progressives?
The same poll also finds that only 37% of those polled define "public option" correctly, and that is a deficiency I place firmly at the feet of president Obama. Why hasn't he once tried to explain that the best public option would be a simple expansion of medicare? - he knows it to be true. 86% of Americans would say "Sure; whatever; just hurry up about it". Bully Pulpit. Bully Pulpit. Bully Pulpit.
Better Phrasing Needed
The lack of understanding is a critical issue, one that could be solved by better phrasing, such as"
"Medicare For Everyone" instead of "single payer", and
Medicare For Anyone" instead of "public option".
Absolutley!
"Public Option" = negligent packaging illustrative of the White House's unwillingness to discuss the issue on the merits; apparently because they don't want to win.
When you're certain to be accused of "socialism" and "communism", try to leave "public" out of the title. "Medicare" is a well-known and popular brand that perfectly describes the best policy. Why would a sincere policy-maker not use it?
Baucus' bill is DOA
I attended Tom Harkin's steak fry Sunday. Al Franken was the featured speaker. Both Senators said they would not vote for a health care insurance reform bill the did not have a public option.
“Mark my word — I’m the chairman — it’s going to have a strong public option,” said Harkin, who last week replaced the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) as chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) committee. Iowa Independent.com, 9/13/09
Let us remember, Baucus' bill is not the final version. There are yet many twists, turns and revisions before any legislation is sent to the president to sign. The making of the sausage is visible for all to see.
ET Spoon
Please Cut the Crap, Carpy. 'Why the Bacus Plan is Dead'
Carpy, this is how a true progressive writes and frames an oped:
This Is Good News
During the Nixon impeachment, Doonesbury ran a series of cartoon satirizing the congress as unwilling to "fire the president". During that period, with all the evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors everywhere, Congress just wasn't sure there was a crime. The punchline of one strip was a congressman hoping, "Maybe if he robbed a bank or something." The Gang of Six just robbed a bank.
We progressive Democrats finally got what we needed. We should be sending Max Baucus a case of champagne. This is a better example of "jumping the shark" than the actual episode of the Fonz jumpinging the shark. This is no longer a case of the Republicans and "conservative Democrats" dancing in the ailes. This isn't even a casual summer affair. This is cheerleaders gangbanging the football team on the 50 yard line at halftime, and the video is on the internet. This a story so clear that even traditional media will be able to report it.
After all the noise about healthcare, passing nothing is not an option. These guys are not nitwits. They are assholes. Blowing healthcare will cost a lot of Democrat senators and congressmen their jobs, and maybe even majority status. You can bet the farm that the gloves are coming off inside the Democrat Party. What has been the silent majority of the majority party will no longer let a handful of piss-ant senators and congressmen ruin their careers. And that is always the unifying principle - holding on to their jobs. Oh, a Senator Rockefeller will have a sympathetic ear for a Senator Baucus if said senator cries that he has to vote this way to be reelected. But, such protestations fall on deaf ears when the other senator is looking at losing his job. For some time, Schumer has been publicly raising the prospect of changing the party's senate rules for selecting chairmen. One can only guess what has been said behind closed doors. Imagine what is being said now.
Look for major blowback from progressive Democrat officials. The framing of the issue will be made between yesterday and the Sunday talk shows.
I have been adamant in saying the votes are not there for the public option, as much as I want them to be. That has been based on many credible reports that the conservative Democrats have effectively bluffed the liberals about not even getting a 50% majority. I have repeatedly made the point that Obama really had no Plan B if he made idle threats against the conservatives. Yesterday, the Gang of Six quit bluffing and called everyone. Nuts. I suspect this changes everything because the liberals and Obama will believe that they have nothing to lose from a fist fight with the conservatives in their own party. Once you have been called, you play every damned card you have.
This might be the spark that moves the underlying anger that has been on this blog up to D.C.
I was always amused that Bush crippled the Republican Party in a way that the Democrats never would. Wouldn't it be funny if Max Baucus accidentally killed them off?