Baucus Releases Bill With No Republican Support

[Faeelin]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled a summary of his long-awaited health care reform bill Wednesday, setting the stage for a legislative showdown on President Obama's top domestic priority.


Sen. Max Baucus will reveal his panel's compromise health care reform plan on Wednesday.

The bill crafted by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, would cost $856 billion over 10 years and mandate insurance coverage for every American.

The bill -- released with no Republican support -- would not add to the federal deficit, Baucus said in a written statement.

The measure drops the public option favored by Obama and many Democratic leaders, according to a statement. As expected, the plan instead calls for the creation of nonprofit health care cooperatives.

As with other reform proposals, the bill would bar insurance companies from dropping a policyholder in the event of illness as long as that person had paid his or her premium in full. It would add new protections for people with pre-existing conditions and establish tax credits to help low- and middle-income families purchase insurance coverage.

Insurance companies also would be barred from imposing annual caps or lifetime limits on coverage. Individuals, however, would be fined up to $950 annually for failing to obtain coverage; families could be fined as much as $3,800.

The plan also would create health insurance exchanges to make it easier for small groups and individuals to buy insurance.

"The cost of America's broken health care system has stretched families, businesses and the economy too far for too long. For too many, quality, affordable health care is simply out of reach," Baucus said.

"This is a unique moment in history where we can finally reach an objective so many of us have sought for so long."

The Republican Senate leadership ripped the proposal, arguing it would impose unreasonable new tax burdens while cutting vital government programs.

"This partisan proposal cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.

"Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy."

The Senate Finance Committee is the last of five congressional committees needed to approve health care legislation proposals before the topic can be taken up by both the full Senate and the full House of Representatives.

Various forms of the legislation proposed by Democrats have already cleared three House committees, as well as the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

The release of the bill comes a day after Obama delivered a fiery defense of his embattled plan to overhaul health care, telling a raucous union audience in Pennsylvania that "now is the time for action" and "the time to deliver."

"When are we going to say enough is enough?" he asked a national AFL-CIO convention. "How many more workers have to lose their coverage? How many more families have to go into the red for a sick loved one? ... We have talked this issue to death year after year, decade after decade."

Baucus has led months of negotiations with five other committee members -- three Republicans and two Democrats -- on what is considered the only proposal that could win bipartisan support in Congress.

Don't Miss
Obama offers health care details in speech
Baucus to unveil health care bill next week
In Depth: Health care in America
GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming -- the three Republicans involved in the so-called "Gang of Six" -- all still had concerns Tuesday that had not been sufficiently addressed, Snowe, Grassley and other Republican sources indicated.

GOP sources close to the senators stressed that they intend to keep negotiating and plan to offer amendments.

Wednesday morning Baucus said he was optimistic that the bill would ultimately win GOP votes.

"I think when we finally vote on the bill ... there will be Republican support," he told reporters on Capitol Hill.

"They'll become a little more familiar with it" in the days ahead, he said, and they will have several opportunities to offer amendments during the full committee's consideration of the bill.

Baucus also noted that it is "very similar" to the framework laid out by Obama during the president's speech to Congress last week.

In a statement issued Tuesday evening, Grassley said among the outstanding issues to be resolved are the costs to taxpayers, affordability for individuals, preventing taxpayer money from funding abortions, screening out illegal aliens, limiting medical malpractice lawsuits and lowering the overall costs.

Grassley also said he wanted assurances from Democratic leaders in Congress that the bipartisan measure under negotiation would remain unchanged after the Finance Committee passes it.

Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said he would oppose the Baucus proposal because it lacks a government-funded public health insurance option favored by Obama and liberal Democrats.

"By being against this bill, I am putting down a marker, which I think others should put down, too, who might feel the same way I do," Rockefeller said. He called the Baucus proposal an attempt to gain one or two Republican supporters, rather than a bill that would set good policy for the nation.

Baucus said the negotiators were tackling a range of controversial issues, including medical malpractice, ensuring a denial of benefits to illegal immigrants and expanding federal support for Medicaid.

Another of the Finance Committee negotiators, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, said the negotiators also considered a provision to specifically prohibit any provisions in the health care proposal from funding abortion.

One key sticking point between many Democrats and Republicans remains the question of whether to create a government funded public health insurance option.

Republicans unanimously oppose the public option as an unfair competitor that would drive private insurers out of the market, which they say would bring a government takeover of health care.

Democratic supporters reject that claim, saying a nonprofit public option would be one choice for consumers who also could sign up for private coverage.

Conrad has proposed creating nonprofit health insurance cooperatives as an alternative to the public option.

Obama, a supporter of the public option, also cited the idea of cooperatives as a possible middle-ground during his speech to Congress last week

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/16/health.care/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

I am amazed at how the Democrats are getting played.

[Faeelin]

Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?

[Valmy]

The Republican Senate leadership ripped the proposal, arguing it would impose unreasonable new tax burdens while cutting vital government programs.

I am sure that does shock Republicans since their way of handling government deficits has always been to increase government programs and cut taxes.

I am amazed at how the Democrats are getting played

Yeah what suckers.  Coming out with compromise positions. 

[Valmy]

Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?

It sounds like a misguided attempt to transfer similar idea about car insurance to health insurance to me.  It sounds horrible but it depends on the details.

[Faeelin]

Yeah what suckers.  Coming out with compromise positions. 

A few thoughts. Compromise just to have compromise is wrong. You dn't compromise with bad ideas if you don't have to.

Moreover, they compromised, and now the GOP has rejected the "compromise" bill. As people predicted months ago.

[Valmy]

A few thoughts. Compromise just to have compromise is wrong. You dn't compromise with bad ideas if you don't have to.

Moreover, they compromised, and now the GOP has rejected the "compromise" bill. As people predicted months ago.

I am not sure that a middle and less extreme way may not be a better option.  Obviously they feel like they have to get Blue Dog and some Republican support or they wouldn't bother.

[Strix]

Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?

It sounds like a misguided attempt to transfer similar idea about car insurance to health insurance to me.  It sounds horrible but it depends on the details.

Is this where the Death Panels come in? If you don't have car insurance you can't drive, so if you don't have health insurance than you can't be allowed to live?

[Sheilbh]

I am not sure that a middle and less extreme way may not be a better option. 

I think the worrying thing is when bipartisan compromise and fudges become virtues in and of themselves, regardless of the policy involved.  I don't know which of the numerous approaches I'd consider best policy, it could well be one.  But, I think it's dodgy to assume that a bill is automatically better because it's got Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe backing it.  I don't think it's wise to just judge things by the number of centrists.

[Valmy]

I think the worrying thing is when bipartisan compromise and fudges become virtues in and of themselves, regardless of the policy involved.  I don't know which of the numerous approaches I'd consider best policy, it could well be one.  But, I think it's dodgy to assume that a bill is automatically better because it's got Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe backing it.  I don't think it's wise to just judge things by the number of centrists.

Well I sort of worry that a purely public solution is a point of no return.  Once something gets to be apart of the entitlement program...well people feel entitled to it and it is very hard to take away.  Perhaps a middle ground of non-profits maybe a good middle ground that may have more flexibility.

[Faeelin]

Well I sort of worry that a purely public solution is a point of no return.  Once something gets to be apart of the entitlement program...well people feel entitled to it and it is very hard to take away.  Perhaps a middle ground of non-profits maybe a good middle ground that may have more flexibility.

If the public option is more competitive than private industry, why is that a bad thing?

The current bill seems to do nothing to significantly expand coverage or curtail costs. And co-ops have had a bad experience, in practice.

[Valmy]

If the public option is more competitive than private industry, why is that a bad thing?

Because private insurance companies represent possible public revenues while public insurance providers represent public expenses?

[Sheilbh]

Well I sort of worry that a purely public solution is a point of no return.  Once something gets to be apart of the entitlement program...well people feel entitled to it and it is very hard to take away.  Perhaps a middle ground of non-profits maybe a good middle ground that may have more flexibility.

I like Snowe's idea that the public option comes into operation in states that, after a period, don't develop competitive insurance markets (ie. Alabama with 1 company having 90% of the market).

Though I think the public option is really unimportant in comparison to the amount of attention it's attracted.  I think leftie Democrats are making a monumental mistake if that becomes the sine qua non of healthcare reform.  I also think Republicans have made a mistake focusing on something that the White House and a number of Senators always viewed as negotiable.

[alfred russel]

Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?

Yes, it is the most important part of any move to universal coverage, imo.

A major reason private insurance is so expensive is because of information asymmetry. Imagine you are a 25 year old woman expecting to get pregnant. You will obviously be more inclinded to get insurance just before receiving the 5 figure bill. The result is that insurance companies have to treat everyone as more likely to get coverage just before a major expense, which drives up rates for healthy people just wanting insurance.

Insurance plans through companies are often cheaper, in large part due to mandates that everyone at the company have health insurance. With a universal mandate, the problem of information asymmetry is significantly reduced (people can't only purchase insurance just before they need it).

If you want to insure everyone affordably, you need to either provide everyone insurance that doesn't get it through their employer or mandate that people get it on their own. The former will obviously be very expensive (and lead to the cancellation of many corporate policies), while the latter should significantly reduce the current premiums by eliminating the asymmetry problem.

[MadImmortalMan]

The GOP members are under a lot of pressure from the public. Dems will need to go it alone in any case.

[Caliga]

  I just got around to reading the details of this proposed bill.