Senate panel unveils US healthcare plan

[mawilson 2,133]

After months of intense negotiations, centrist Democrats finally produced their “bipartisan”

healthcare plan on Wednesday – except that it was unable to attract even one Republican

supporter.

The $856bn ten-year bill, which was unveiled by Max Baucus, Democratic chairman of the

Senate finance committee, went a long way towards meeting Republican objections

following a summer of increasingly high-octane conservative allegations against healthcare

reform.

But Mr Baucus, who had spent months cloistered with three leading Republicans attempting

to hammer out a compromise, was greeted with a unanimous Republican thumbs down.

Even Olympia Snowe, the moderate Republican from Maine who seemed most likely to

come out in favour, declined to show her support.

“Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy,”

said Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader. “This partisan proposal cuts Medicare

[the programme for seniors] 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.”

Mr Baucus, whose bill is considered the most likely among the five circulating on Capitol Hill

to resemble whatever might finally be enacted, was also attacked by liberal Democrats on

Wednesday for diluting key elements of the bill both by lowering the cost of the reform

from the initial plan of over $1,000bn and by junking the controversial “public option”.

However, Mr Baucus described his plan as the one with the best chance of getting passed.

“This is a unique moment in history where we can finally reach an objective so many of

us have sought for so long,” said Mr Baucus, whose bill’s summary runs to 220 pages

alone. “Now we can finally pass legislation that will rein in healthcare costs and deliver

quality, affordable care to the American people.”

The deeply polarized response to Wednesday’s announcement suggests that President

Barack Obama’s hopes of getting a bipartisan healthcare reform bill passed are almost

certainly dead. Any further concessions to Republican critics would alienate already

disenchanted liberal supporters. The main question now is whether the White House

pushes for the bill to be enacted under the so-called Senate “budget reconciliation rule”,

which would enable its sponsors to pass the reforms with a simple majority of 51 –

against the 60 needed to shut off an opposition filibuster.

Republicans say such a move would kill all hopes of cross-party cooperation on other

issues. Many Democrats worry it would force the bill’s sponsors to strip any non-budget-

related items, including the proposal to set up a healthcare insurance exchange and

regulations that would prevent insurers from denying coverage on the basis of health,

race, age and geography.

“I would say there is now a 50-50 chance of moving to budget reconciliation,” said

Tom Daschle, the former Democratic majority leader who is now a senior advisor to

Alston & Bird, the legal firm.

Meanwhile, Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat on the finance committee, said he would

introduce “many, many amendments” to the bill including the re-introduction of the

public option – a government insurance plan, which Republicans say would lead to

socialised medicine. Mr Baucus substituted the public option with a public cooperative,

which liberals describe as “toothless”.

link

[HAL 9000 96]

So... it really is about opposing just to oppose. Thanks, M.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, we're saying that Sen Baucus' proposal enjoys enthusiastic support - from Sen Baucus.

Interesting that it took him that long to craft a draft he can agree on.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[mawilson 2,133]

So... it really is about opposing just to oppose. Thanks, M.

Pretty much.

What was the point of dropping the more "controversial" provisions, such as the public option,

if GOP was going to oppose the bill anyway?

Where are the automatic spending-cut provisions that the President has promised us?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So... it really is about opposing just to oppose. Thanks, M.

Pretty much.

What was the point of dropping the more "controversial" provisions, such as the public option,

if GOP was going to oppose the bill anyway?

Maybe that's all this draft is - public confirmation that the GOP will oppose any reform effort. That would then be a good argument to drop the bi-partisanship since the other side obviously isn't interested. Not sure that this point really still needs to be made as it's been clear to any observer of this process for quite some time.

Now they just need to figure out how to consolidate the Democratic majority behind a draft and figure out how to quickly replace Sen Kennedy to regain the 60 votes in the Senate. The latter is something they're apparently working on in MA. They better hope Sen. Byrd is going to stick around...