I was waiting for a post and I jumped the gun and posted this below a minute ago:
I'm waiting on comments on the Baucus plan- will his plan even do anything? It appears about 20 years too late- the no preexisting condition rule appears riddled with exceptions - fraud may have a very low standard (e.g., forgetting to inform your insurance about an operation you had as a child may constitute fraud)- the worst part is that these people will still need care - who will pay for it- the taxpayer? Also, the rule could be abused by simply disallowing whole sectors once a risk pool ceases to provide profits. Whta's wrong with this guy- is this an initial posture? Is he arrogant enough to think this will have the support of more than a half dozen Dermocrats? Really?

From a progressive point of view, this will be a very bad bill that will probably pass with the following combination voting for it - blue dog democrats joining with the Republican minority; Outflanking the liberal majority among the Democrats in the Senate and in the House. This bill will do nothing to rein in costs nor will it cover everyone in the country. The uninsured will stay uninsured. Our Constitution is a fantastic document, but from a legislative viewpoint, it only produces logjams. Why the Government allows the poorly populated states to stifle progressive policies is beyond belief. Rural versus urban, where the rural always wins.

Obama and Reid need to end Baucus's career. Remove him from his position and disgrace him as a the tool of big pharma that he is.

This is a major deal. Some old Senator from Montana has too much power. He represents like .3% of the country's population. Too much power.

The bad news is, the negotiators have apparently come up with a bad bill.
-----------------------------

Imagine my astonishment.

Now imagine Baucus's.

Now imagine Harry Reid's.

If only the Democratic Party were in the majority, we might have a Democratic Senate Majority Leader, and then ...

Can we please stop pretending that Baucus is doing this to please Republicans? He's doing it to fellate his big campaign donors, and the "bipartisanship" is just a cover story.

Exactly Raoul,

I was just about to ask a similar set of questions. Really the key question is: did it really take this long to come up with something that seems to be basically a half a degree left of the status quo? If we wanted some sort of hyper-incrementalist bs, we certainly didn't need to work our asses for huge Democratic gains in the last election. A minor adjustment to the current insurance regime would probably be just as likely if there were only 51 Dem Senators and a bare majority in the House. Lets hope the leaks are wrong and that Baucus' bill is a whole lot more ambitious than is being reported.

Sen. Baucus should begin deliberations on the premise that every American has a right to a health care plan modeled as closely as possible on the one we give Sen. Baucus and the rest Congress.

The Committee discussion should be about how to finance that level of care for everyone.

Let the sellout begin!

Baucus & his group of 'bought & paid for' surrogates for the medical insurance and pharmaceutical industries are setting the groundwork for a disastrous bill. Their apparent goal is f*cking over the amerikan sheeple to advance the profits of their corporate masters.

I do not for a minute believe that Harry 'Spineless' Reid will do anything other than follow his history of caving. Single payer always was the best answer for Americans. I am not convinced that Obama will even have the will to insist upon the second rate public option.

As usual, when it comes to a choice between their corporate masters and the amerikan publik, our politicians will chose corporate profits.

Ahhh... pure sausage-making - at its best!

No, Bacus has been against the bill from the start and found a few Republicans who would support an alternative.

Bacus does not matter, the committee bills are merely the starting point for the floor debate. They are not sacrosanct. The important thing is to get the bill out of committee.

The only proposal that matters is the one signed by the President.

Filibusters are not nearly as powerful as people imagine, particularly when a Senator is refusing to cut off a filibuster of their own side. So everyone is spending their third night in the capitol because of one member of the caucus looking to help line the pockets of his contributors. What do you think that does for their influence?

I have a history of naivete, but I can't help but think that a bill this bad - something so close to what Republicans want and so far away from what 70-plus percent of We the People want - is a trial balloon meant to punish neocons and the Blue Dogs. Nothing will be accomplished before the August recess, and the politicians who put this together are going to have to face the angry mobs in their states & districts, and explain their (in)actions, which they won't be able to do because there's no real good way to say "I'm a tool for the lobbyists." If we make a big enough stink, it'll get reworked after Labor Day. Sucks that once again we're expected to shout and fight and cajole for what should be basic human rights, but we do.

Failure, failure, failure. Even the watered-down and business-friendly vision of health care reform was unacceptable to the health profiteers. My own Senator Bingaman, who has professed to support the "public option," has got to explain to New Mexico what happened in that room and why he could not persuade the Finance Committee to make even a meager first step towards a meaningful reform of health care.

Bacus does not matter, the committee bills are merely the starting point for the floor debate. They are not sacrosanct. The important thing is to get the bill out of committee.

I have to disagree. Baucus' bill will have an outsized influence over the entire debate particularly with respect to how reform is funded and on the public option. Conservative Democrats and Republicans who are interested in at least saying they voted for "reform" make up a significant voting block in both the Senate and House. This bill will be their starting point for negotiations. The less progressively oriented it is, the less progressively oriented any final compromise will be.

Apparently Big Insurance is using it's paid for senators to throw down a marker one tenth a degree off dead center. This is their marker. The Baucus bill has to be merged with the other Senate bill. No way the Baucus bill stays intact. The resulting legislation has to be passed by the entire senate. Then it has to be reconciled with the far more liberal house bill. As was mentioned this is above sausage making at it's best.

slappy magoo the conservative senators will face angry constituents only if we, you, me and the man behind the tree, tell our friends and neighbors the Baucus bill sucks big time. Don't count on the press, local or national, to do that. We are the people who have to inform the general public. Nobody else will. Twitter, blog, write letters to the editor, show up at town halls, write checks to progressive advertising groups. Just don't depend on the corporate media to do their job. They won't inform anybody.

In times like these I fear for the safety of every attractive blond girl in America. Who knows what the noise machine and those cable channels will do to stop discussion of this bill.

As for a public option, did any of us realistically expect that any plan that might compete with and draw the insured away from private plans would possibly make it through Congress?

There will be no real reform of any kind without reform of our political system. Illusions of democracy make for unrealistic expectations regardless of which party is in "power".

Guys

On reflection I really find this development encouraging. It means that there is going to be a bill and the bill is going to be at least 3 steps away from doing nothing. The Baucus bill sucks, but it is better than the alternative. It does have the benefit of engaging some Republicans.

I have a question for Slappy Magoo. You say that government paid health care is "a basic human right". How did you come to that conclusion? It's certainly not in the constitution or the Bill of Rights!

progressives have misplaced the priority of the public plan -- it is not and should not be the "be all and end all." Insurance market reforms are much more critical to ensuring that insurance becomes affordable to individuals and small businesses. Those are likely to come from the HELP bill. Second, the employer mandate can come in various forms so just because the MSM doesn't get all the nuances doesn't mean there isn't anything there. See what they put in there first because a lot of other options have been under discussion that have the same effect.

I'm getting the impression that many of you think that many Democrat law-makers are being bought off by the insurance companies and the drug companies? I thought the Republicans were the only ones guilty of that?

Giant, the lack of a public option means there is no competition in my insurance marketplace. That means there is no way in hell either of my companies is going to pay less for health care. That means I am going to have to either cut staff or benefits to remain competitive. I don't want to do either. Another decade of monopoly pricing from BC/BS, Wellpoint and the other big Insurance Companies will sink the American economy for a hundred years. Millions of small business people just like me agree with my assessment. We want a strong America. That won't happen without a bill that at least introduces a reason for Big Insurance to try to keep costs and premiums down.

Bill Moyers had a good discussion last week the gist of which was that Obamacare is going to be a disaster for the public but a boon to insurance companies. Americans are getting fleeced yet again.

something really stinks about your comments "HarryS" -- sorta silly and narrow.

As if the constitution had to list every "thing" and those that come into existence, like radar, and antibiotics, and, yes, health care, don't git interpreted under our laws as a democracy. that's quite puerile as an argument, illogical.

i'd be happy to debate anybody, any time, any place that it is quite consistent with the united states constitution that the citizens of this country be provided food, shelter, education, employment, and health care -- as 21st century interps of the US Constitution. (shuddah been applied by gov in the 20th, and there were times when it coulda)

and to assume that commenters on a liberal blog think all democrats are clean and all Repugnants are evil or insane, aint quite right either.

you're a piss-poor troll, or a 14 year-old who needs summer school in civics.

"i'd be happy to debate anybody, any time, any place that it is quite consistent with the united states constitution that the citizens of this country be provided food, shelter, education, employment, and health care -- as 21st century interps of the US Constitution. (shuddah been applied by gov in the 20th, and there were times when it coulda)"

I'm fascinated, Neill. Go ahead, make your case that all of the above should be provided by the government. When you say "by the government" you mean by us, right, since the government has no money except that which it takes from us or prints?

Bill Moyers had a good discussion last week the gist of which was that Obamacare is going to be a disaster for the public but a boon to insurance companies.

It's not Obamacare that's the problem, it's Baucuscare, and I hope all the real Democrats vote against this worthless piece of crap that's negotiated by six conservative Senators who seem to think that they can dictate what the rest of congress has to accept. I am so sick of these worthless assholes who consider "bipartisanship" and their campaign contributors more important than the public they were elected to serve.

In response to HarryS...

If you were more than a troll new to this site, you would be aware of many discussions relating to the corruption of dumbocraps. My dumbocrap senator, Evan Bayh, has a wife who has received remuneration of more than $2.1 million over the last two years for being on the boards of directors for Wellpoint (Anthem/Blue Cross/Blue Shield) and 4 pharmaceutical & biotech corporations. It has been pointed out on this site that Baucus, Nelson, and numerous dumbocraps have been major recipients of contributions from the pharmaceutical and medical insurance industries.

Your earlier comment indicated that you do not believe that health care is a right. I will agree that it is not a 'right', but point out that we have obligations to our fellow citizens. Providing health care to our fellow citizens is among these obligations. To believe otherwise is to adopt the mantra of "I've got mine, f*ck you!". As a Christian, I believe in the teaching of Jesus that we are judged by how we treat the least of us.

Ron, a "public option" will not provide competition. It will put private companies out of business. Why Because the public option doesn't have to make a profit and the gov will print money to support it. But of course, that's what most of you want, right?

AngryVet isn't it a little hypocritical for a Dem or a lib? to be quoting Jesus as the basis for government health care or for anything else? What about separation of church and state? I would also point out that in the Bible charity is a personal responsibility not a govermental edict.

The Baucus Seven must be the most constipated people on the planet, because it took them several weeks to produce a pile of shit.

Oh, and lest anyone has forgotten or it was overlooked, those seven Senators represent 3.61% of the population, or for purposes of scale, less than the 4.2% Dick Durbin represents.

How's that for undue power distribution? The insurance lobbies sure know who to buy. Senators from small States! Cheap! Buy 1 get 6 free!

It's clearly not enough to have 60 Democrats in the Senate. Apparently, we need 60 progressives.

Disappointing.

HarryS...

As a proponent of everything being dictated by profits, do you desire the privitization of police & fire departments? How about all roads being privitized? Maybe even the military?

A public option that breaks even with (reduced) costs would work just fine with me! Do you believe that the health and suffering of others is just an opportunity for corporate profits? Medical insurance corporations have been shown to have regional monopolies. Are you willing to have anti-trust actions taken against medical insurance corporations? Or do you believe the brainwashing that the 'free market' will solve everything?

It will put private companies out of business. -HarryS

According to the insurance lobby. Not according to the CBO. Fortunately for us, the CBO knows a hell of a lot more about it than you, the insurance lobby.

Paid troll is paid.

Angryoldvet,

HarryS is trolling you. Nothing he/she has posted has even come close to being a reasonable argument that would convince even the most dimwitted. Henestly, just ignore.

"to be quoting Jesus as the basis for government health care or for anything else? What about separation of church and state? I would also point out that in the Bible charity is a personal responsibility not a govermental edict."

The Golden Rule isn't limited to Christianity. It's a value statement shared among several religions and among the non-religious. There's nothing unconstitional about voting your values, regardless of source. (Separation of church/state is a strange argument coming from the right.)

With regard to government edicts, they are what we decide they are (within the bounds of the Constitution). Contrary to popular right-wing belief, the business of America is not business--the business of America is whatever we want it to be (including, if we so choose, charity).

REPUGS have their "tea parties" ...I think it's time for liberal/progressives who truly want REFORM to creat a "pack" dedicated to dropping private health care and throwing ourselves on the EMERGENCY ROOM CARE the REPUGS like to keep telling us is there for EVERYONE!!! People are going to die one way or another...let's put it in their faces!!! You know the people will NEVER top the MONEY, right? Heard Bill Maher say on CNN that in the US the people are afraid of the government but in France the government is afraid of the people...who got that REVOLUTION right?

"those seven Senators represent 3.61% of the population" - doubtful

That would be the metaphorical tip of the sausage-maker.

Coops -- any reason to believe these won't just become big corporations with coop names and that do not offer any savings compared with the private competitors?

I believe the constitution has some minor info to help HarryS - it's buried deep in the minutia:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I suggest to you that not actually doing anything, and expecting the market to fill the gap is not actually promoting anything ...

But we were talking of "rights". And there's a Bill of them. I believe the first one mentions a right to life ... which you won't have for long if you don't have any sort of healthcare.

And yes HarryS, suggesting that the group who discuss stuff here think that the dem politicians are whiter than driven snow is disengenious at best, and a clear case of trolling. Go away.

I look forward to the August break. The House and Senate proposals will be on the table and the administration will have the pulpit.

Steve Benen wrote: "Baucus, in other words, has prioritized Republican support for a bill over the quality of the bill ..."

Actually, Baucus and the Republicans share a top priority: protecting the profits of the insurance corporations.

They know that the USA has the most profitable health care system in the world, and their top priority is to keep it that way.

And the insurance corporations pay them huge bribes to make sure they keep their priorities straight.

Eyes on the prize. Don't feed the trolls unless they're entertaining and edifying. This one ain't.

It will put private companies out of business. -HarryS

"Not according to the CBO. Fortunately for us, the CBO knows a hell of a lot more about it than you, the insurance lobby."

If the CBO has the last word on what is affordable and what is not, then you must also accept its edict regarding the unafordability of the proposed health care bill. Do you?

I don't share doubtful's view that the Senate should be abolished, but I gotta say this effort by a bunch of senators from mostly two-bit states to freaking destroy what we're trying to do here, and what three-quarters of Americans are screaming that we want, is giving me an ulcer.

The only thing Blanche Dupois Baucus will "Fight tooth and nail for" is to keep his campaign coffers full.

Last evening, a Montana resident posted that Baucus is going to attend an event in Bozeman. However, the poster said Baucus really does not like, actually, speaking one on one to constituents. It reminded me of a comment the late faith healer Katherine Kuhlmann told my ex-wife, who was making dresses for her. Ms Kuhlmann was decrying the fact that she hated being touched by those wanting her to help heal them. "Ooh, they keep wanting to touch me".

Yeah, Max, it is a shame your constituents actually want to speak with you. You should have stayed a nerdy backroom lawyer, eh?

No surprise here, folks. If this is what it takes to get 2 or 3 Republican votes in the Senate, I must have bought into a Democrat Snow-Job.
Giving up a REAL public option, is a surrender NOT a compromise.
This is even worse than supporting Medicare Part D while forbiding government involvement in negotiating Drug prices.
When this "sell-out" bill reaches the full senate, the REAL Democrat Senators must appear.
I thought the Dems were out to help "Middle Class Americans."
This Surrender by the negotiators in the Senate Finance committee is a disgrace.
Baucus and Conrad- Dems in NAME only !

Neill's constitutional case is precisely that made in Cass Sunstein's 2004 book, The Second Bill of Rights: Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever.

HarryS wrote: "... a 'public option' will not provide competition. It will put private companies out of business. Why Because the public option doesn't have to make a profit and the gov will print money to support it. But of course, that's what most of you want, right?"

What I want is universal, single-payer, nonprofit medical insurance under open, accountable, efficient public administration.

Which is what every other developed, civilized, democracy in the world has, in every single case providing better health care to more people at lower cost, with demonstrably better health outcomes than the for-profit system in the USA -- as do our own government-run, nonprofit Medicare and VA health care systems.

What YOU want is for the health and well-being of the American people to be subjugated to the profits of the insurance corporations, so their executives can fly around the country in corporate jets, eating gourmet feasts from gold-plated china, while ordinary working people go bankrupt, lose their homes, suffer and die every single day because insurance corporations deny them the care that their premiums have paid for.

The for-profit insurance corporations create NOTHING of value and contribute NOTHING of value to health care or anything else. They are leeches. They are cheats. They are thieves. They profit from killing people -- from deliberately, knowingly denying their customers the health care that their premiums have paid for.

Put them out of business? Hell yes.

HarryS wrote: "If the CBO has the last word on what is affordable and what is not, then you must also accept its edict regarding the unafordability of the proposed health care bill. Do you?"

The USA spends well over a trillion dollars every two years on the military -- more than all other nations in the world combined.

So please explain why a trillion dollars over ten years to provide health care to the American people is "unaffordable".

Or maybe Rush Limbaugh hasn't spoon-fed you an insurance industry-scripted talking point about that yet?

HarryS, Obviously you believe in the gentle kindness of the monopoly. I don't. I believe in competition. If a market doesn't really allow for competition, the market is broken. In this case the health insurance industry has evolved into a series of regional monopolies. Those monopolies are doing what monopolies do, they are separating their victims (you and me) from all of their money. Moreover they are not doing the job needed to reduce health care costs. That isn't surprising because when you are a monopoly cost reduction is not necessary to your main job of separating the rubes from their jack.

Done right a public option provides competition. The well run insurance companies will do their bests to control costs and good service in order to compete. The poorly run companies will go out of business. Unless you are an insurance company in an inelastic market going out of business is part and parcel with competition.

HarryS, I am a believer in real capitalism, because I believe real capitalism brings better service at lower cost. The public option encourages better service at lower cost. The current string of regional health insurance monopolies are absolutely opposed to real capitalism.

Right on SecularAnimist. Harry S of course feels that the Constitution gives a 'right' to Health Insurance vultures to make billions in profits on people getting sick. Gee, don't remember reading that anywhere in the Constitution .....

Ron Byers wrote: "I believe real capitalism brings better service at lower cost."

I don't know what you mean by "real capitalism" or how that differs from actual capitalism as it is actually practiced by the USA's for-profit insurance corporations.

But with regard to health care, the facts are clear: universal, single-payer, nonprofit health care systems under open, accountable, efficient public administration -- which every other developed nation has in some form -- "bring better service at lower cost" than the for-profit system in the USA.

"...the really tricky part will be trying to merge this Republican-friendly bill with the HELP committee's already-approved legislation, which is both ambitious and progressive.

And for added fun, note that there are plenty of center-left Democrats who've said they won't be able to support a final bill if it lacks a public option."

Thanks for this, there may be hope. I am calling Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken and telling them, that I expect them to oppose anything that does not include a public plan.

Animist, When it comes to health care I agree with your assessment, but no one is seriously proposing a single payer government run system.

"I believe real capitalism brings better service at lower cost."

Wouldn't it be great if 95% of the population lived and agrarian lifestyle, the average lifespan was 30 years old, and the world still practiced "real capitalism"?

HarryS seems to think that investor profits and executive compensation are basic human rights. I don't see the point in wasting 15-20% of my premium on paying for these superfluous costs.

It's not healthcare reform, it's healthcare INSURANCE reform. We've been living with "market competition" since before I was born, and look where it's gotten us. Private insurance can't compete with government run insurance because they have to meet their profit quota through coverage recission and claim denials. Private insurance is by definition an adversarial process. We can't afford that with healthcare.

Only a true douche-bag trolls against a national healthcare system while using the moniker HarryS.

Buckus is laughing all the way to the bank. He's probably got a huge bribe oops I meant sweeeet gig next year with some insurance co. getting paid a multimillion dollar salary and hey, he gets to keep his platinum plated retirement Senate health benefit. What a deal for Max!!!!!!!!! And what a Big F.U to us!!!!!!!!!