5 Thoughts On the Baucus Bill

Why has it been so hard for Democrats to come together on some kind of healthcare legislation?

The Senate Finance Committee is poised to vote today on Chairman Max Baucus' health care plan.

If one had to bet, one would bet that the Democrats are likely, in the end, to "get something." Public option? Probably not. Universal coverage? Definitely not. "Bending the curve" on costs? Definitely not. But that's OK, because "muddling through" is always a good option in a democratic society. The joke floating around Washington is that if a piece of paper bearing only the words, "Health Care Reform Act of 2009" floated onto Barack Obama's desk, he would happily sign it and take credit for it: mission accomplished.

But the question is, why has it been so hard for the Democrats? After all, there's a Democratic president who campaigned on health care reform and who won in the biggest landslide for a Democrat in more than four decades. And, not only that, the Democrats have huge majorities in both houses of Congress.

So why the difficulty? I can think of five reasons, which are full of implications for this bill as it struggles to come to life in the years ahead.

#1. Obama Has Already Shot His Fiscal Wad

The first reason is the simplest: Obama shot his fiscal wad on Wall Street bailouts, auto takeovers, and stimulus packages. As Obama said when speaking about the nation's fiscal situation on May 22, "Well, we are out of money now."

And as I wrote in June for U.S. News & World Report:

When confronted with a choice between health care for the poor and the near-poor on the one hand, and the continued overstuffing of the overclass on the other hand, Obama made a decisive choice: He chose the overclass. He put rich people first.

It's a first-class-first process ably described by the economist Mancur Olson, and any number of economists way to Olson's left--the rich belly up to the food table ahead of everyone else, eat everything they can till they are done, and then the middle class and the poor are left to fight over the crumbs.

#2. Obamacare Is Actually Welfare In Disguise

The second reason for the difficulty is the public perception that the current plan is a welfare plan in disguise. The common jibe among Republicans is that Obamacare will degrade coverage for 250 million or so Americans so that it can function as a voter-registration plan for 30 or 40 million Americans. Benjamin Barber-type “Strong Democracy” is popular enough -- if you are inspiring the broad middle to take greater control of their own lives in an Andrew Jacksonian sense -- but if the thrust of contemporary liberalism proves to be just a veil ill-concealing yet another welfare program, well, the middle class is unlikely to like it. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan long lamented, in recent decades, the national Democrats have seemed mostly incapable of thinking of a plan for helping the middle working class, as opposed to the poor or some other avant-garde group. (Or the rich, see reason #1 above.)

#3. Big Doubts About the Government's Ability to Run Health Care

The third reason is the manifest failure of government to prove its competence. A century ago, Max Weber could write, with a straight face, that the reason for the rise of bureaucracy was its "technical superiority." Times have changed. Today's federal government is not exactly bureaucratic, of course. Policymaking has been substantially outsourced to judges, lawyers, and outside activists--and contractors seem to be doing a lot of the in-house work. But by any name, or in any form, the business of the federal government does not smell sweet to most Americans.

When today's liberals say that "health care management" is the answer, with them, of course, doing the managing, some Americans think "death panels," and plenty more are skeptical that any kind of government management can work.

#4. Welfare-state Liberalism vs. Multiculturalism

The fourth reason is the breakdown in the mutuality that is needed for a welfarist, communitarian ethos to flourish in a nation. That breakdown was incapsulated in "The Heckle Heard 'Round The World," that is, Rep. Joe Wilson's "You Lie!" catcall against President Obama when Obama said, in his September 9 speech to Congress, "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." Whereupon Wilson erupted.

Let's step back from the theatrics of that incident and think about the basics of the plot: A white Southerner rudely calls out an African-American for saying that illegals -- most of whom are Hispanic--would not be covered. Whereupon Wilson apologizes, but more profoundly, the Senate Finance Committee takes extra measures to make sure illegals aren't covered, thereupon lending credence to Wilson's shouted charge.

The point here is not to defend Wilson or his manners. Instead, the point is that the Democrats, trying to manage their rainbow coalition, feel electorally vulnerable on the question of whether or not their health care plan will cover illegals -- and with good reason. Everyone knows that they want to cover illegals, as a matter of social justice, and everyone who thinks about public health realizes that some provision needs to be made so that nobody is walking around coughing up tuberculosis on the streets. Like any other contagious disease, TB is completely agnostic about legal vs. illegal.

The broader issue crunching down on the Democrats is welfare-state liberalism vs. multiculturalism. As Harvard's Robert Putnam has noted, along with many others, the communitarian ethos that upholds the welfare state is based substantially on ethnic trust and national commonality, and those bonds of affection and unity have a way of breaking down amidst multiculturalism. Welfare states thrive in homogenous countries, they are smaller and less expansive in heterogenous countries- - and as for really heterogenous countries, well, they have a way of becoming ex-countries, viz. the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and so on.

#5. Americans Want CURES Not "Reforms"

The fifth reason for the Democrat's difficulty is the basic flaw in the intellectual model: "health insurance reform" is not the goal of most Americans. What the American people really want is cures. You don't go to the doctor because you can, because the government has given you some card entitling you to low-tech care. Nor do you go to the doctor to show off the intellectual ingenuity of your health care savings account. Instead, you go to the doctor to get better. Ask yourself: Where in the Obama pitch is there any discussion of actually curing anything? (One doesn't hear much "cure talk" among Republicans, either, but they, being the minority, aren't the issue right now. In the next Congress, or the one after that, they might regain the majority; we can revisit them then.)

The story of 2009 is the apotheosis of the left-liberal idea--inflected by "Club of Rome"-ish environmentalism and residual enthusiasm for barefoot doctors--that we have enough health, or maybe even too much health. So don't worry about the creation of health; in fact, the creation of new medicines needs to be restrained, in the name of "cost control. The main imperative is the redistribution of health, not the creation of health.

At Serious Medicine Strategy we think that redistributionist ethos is bad politics and even worse for medicine, but the Democrats now have their moment.

James P. Pinkerton is a Fox News contributor. Read his commentary on health care reform at Serious Medicine Strategy

Senate Passes Baucus Bill With One GOP Vote

Insurance Companies to DEMS: Health Care Legislation Will Drive Up Premiums

Senate Committee Approves Baucus Bill With One GOP Vote: Shame On Sen Snowe… Allows WH To Claim Bipartisanship

Health care reform cleared a major hurdle Tuesday, as the Senate Finance Committee voted to send its version of the legislation to the Senate floor after months of closely watched deliberations.

The committee voted 14-9 in favor of the package. One Republican, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, broke with her party to support the bill. All 13 Democrats on the panel voted in favor of it, while the rest of the Republicans opposed it.

The panel was the last of five to act on health legislation, and the vote marked the biggest advance so far toward health care reform, as the committee's legislation is considered the best building block for a compromise plan in the full Senate.

President Obama hailed the vote as a "critical milestone," in brief remarks late Tuesday.

"We are now closer than ever before to passing health care," he said. "But we're not there yet."

Much work still remains on the package, and Senate Republicans made clear after the committee vote that they will continue to fight the bill.

"It's going to cost us an arm and a leg," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said. "The costs of this are astronomical."

The House still needs to bring a unified version to the floor, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will begin working with White House staff, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and others to blend the Finance bill with a more liberal version passed by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- before bringing a final product to the Senate floor.

If passed, the legislation would then go to a conference committee to reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills before heading to the president's desk.

The 10-year, $829 billion Finance Committee bill includes consumer protections such as limits on copays and deductibles and relies on federal subsidies to help low-income families purchase coverage. Insurance companies would have to take everyone, and people could shop for insurance within new state marketplaces called exchanges.

Medicaid would be expanded, and though employers wouldn't be required to cover their workers, they'd have to pay a penalty for each employee who sought insurance with government subsidies. The bill is paid for by cuts to Medicare providers and new taxes on insurance companies and others.

Unlike the other health care bills in Congress, Baucus' would not allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, a divisive element sought by liberals.

Last-minute changes made subsidies more generous and softened the penalties for those who don't comply with a proposed new mandate for everyone to buy insurance. The latter change drew the ire of the health insurance industry, which said that without a strong and enforceable requirement not enough people would get insured, and premiums would jump for everyone else.

The road to the Tuesday vote was paved with bickering and complaints. At the start of discussion, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee said that he's still concerned about the potential for more government control over health care.

Sen. Charles Grassley's comments, and those of other Republicans, aired the lingering partisan divisions on the panel, even as Baucus stressed that his bill is a "balanced plan" that should win bipartisan support and eventually pass the full Senate.

"With this markup nearing its conclusion, we can now see clearly that the bill continues its march leftward," Grassley, R-Iowa, said.

But Baucus urged his colleagues to "make history" by sending his comprehensive overhaul to the floor of the Senate and one big step closer to the president's desk.

Snowe's support was the most sought-after Republican vote by Democrats for months. The Maine Republican could be the only member of her party to vote for health care reform, though she cautioned Tuesday that support for the committee bill does not guarantee support for a final product.

"When history calls, history calls," she said, even though she had some criticism of the bill.

She was among several key senators still on the fence over the pivotal package going into deliberations Tuesday, even though leadership aides said they were confident the bill would win enough backers.

But three previously undecided Democrats announced their support Tuesday, bolstering Baucus' majority on the panel.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Tuesday afternoon he would support the bill, despite concerns that it could increase costs for families with mandates to obtain coverage and inadequate subsidies. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., also announced her support, though adding the same warning that her backing is not guaranteed down the road.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., was the last to unveil his support. The liberal Democrat wants nothing short of a government-run insurance plan in the bill, and he thinks the Finance Committee's "co-op" system is not sufficient. He reiterated those views Tuesday.

Now this awful bill will be merged with the Senate Health Committee Bill and then House Bills…

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

SNOWE MUST GO IN NEXT ELECTION!! (If Not Before!!!)

Her Vote Allows the White House to Claim (However Thin) That They Have a Bi-Partisan Bill

PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Now the real fight begins!!

Just a Few of the Problems With the Promoted Bill(s)...

1. "Age discrimination" in Fees
2. Overall Cost - Not What Is Being Presented
3. 25 Million People Will Still Be Uninsured
4. Public Option in Every Option Except Baucus Bill
5. Big Cuts in Medicare and Medicaid
6. Gov’t Will Have All Your Information With Central Gov’t Electronic Records
7. Many Will Not Be Able to Keep Their Healthcare Plans Because Employers Won't Be Able to Afford Them If There Is a Public Option, Trigger or Gov/t-Run Co-Op
8. Obama Has Cut Deals With Big Pharma, Insurance Companies, AARP, and the Unions... Do the Math: This is a Power Grab, Not HealthCare Reform
9. Gov’t Officials (the Congress Etc) Will Be Exempt From This Plan.
10. There Will Be Shortages
11. There Will Be Rationing
12. This Will Ultimately Add to the Deficit and Cause Tax Increases While Lowering the Quality of U.S. Healthcare Because There Is No: Tort Reform, No Allowance or Inter-State Insurance Sales or Purchases
13. If There Is Enough Fraud and Waste In Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's Healthcare, and Reservation Healthcare Why Has It Not Been Cleaned Up? Why Would You Choose To Go With the Gov't Who Caused That? And Why Would We Not Demand That They Clean-up Those Programs and Show Us the Savings First?

ObamaCare… Watch Snowe and Lincoln

Watch how Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln vote in the Senate Finance Committee on the Baucus version of the Obama healthcare plan. As Snowe and Lincoln go, so will the Congress.

The Democrats need Snowe's vote desperately, to convince wavering moderate Democrats that they can offer a veneer, however thin, of bipartisanship to the health proposal. If Snowe, their last chance at a Republican vote, opposes the Obama/Baucus proposal, there is no hope of a bipartisan fig leaf for the package.

On the other hand, if Snowe backs the bill, it will send a signal to moderate Democrats that it's OK to join in and the bill will probably attract the 60 votes it needs for Senate passage.
Lincoln's vote becomes critical if Snowe votes no. Lincoln is probably the single most vulnerable Democrat running for reelection in 2010. She is the proverbial canary in the coalmine. If she makes it, so will all the Democrats. Hailing from a conservative Southern state, her poll numbers suggest that she would be in a heap of trouble with a stiff challenger.

If Lincoln defects and joins the Republicans in voting no (as she has done on a number of amendments), she will do a lot to cement her chances to remain a senator, but will open a wound in the Democratic Party. A domino effect will likely set in.

Her Arkansas colleague, Democrat Mark Pryor, will feel exposed by her defection and will probably consider voting no as well. It will be very hard for the son of moderate David Pryor to explain why Lincoln jumped ship but he chose to stay on board.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, encouraged by Lincoln's vote, will probably vote no as well. These negative votes will bring huge pressure on Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat. Nor can the president count on the support of Joe Lieberman (I) of Connecticut, who has warned that, despite his basic support for the concept of the bill, it would be hard for him to back it given the current economic and fiscal crisis.

Once Obama's plan fails to attract 60 votes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will fall back on reconciliation as a strategy and hope for 50 votes. But if the Democrats pass the bill with 50 votes, it will set a precedent they may come to rue. It would basically eliminate the filibuster as a parliamentary tactic and would condemn any future minority party (Democrats in 2011?) to the same irrelevance as afflicts their House colleagues. To be in the minority in a chamber run by a bare majority is not a fun task.

However, if Lincoln votes yes, it will send a signal to all moderates that even the most endangered of their species is willing to risk backing the program and will do a great deal to shore up the president's defenses.
All this means that if the elderly citizens of Arkansas and Maine -- and their families -- want to avoid the evisceration of the Medicare program contemplated in the Baucus/Obama bill, they had better get busy. They need to deluge both senators with urgent pleas to vote against the $500 billion cut in the Medicare program. Neither senator can afford to alienate her elderly constituents, but what do they expect when they vote to take the hatchet to Medicare?
Newt Gingrich found out that cutting Medicare is a ticket to political oblivion. Barack Obama will learn the same lesson. The question is: Will Olympia Snowe and Blanche Lincoln join him?

PLEASE NOTE: I have persuaded the League of American Voters to run ten second advertisements in key states that show an elderly person saying: "Senator _________: Please don't cut my Medicare by $500 billion. I need my Medicare." We need to get these ads on in the key states.

We need to focus attention on the cuts in Medicare. It is slashing services to the elderly that is the key point!

Please click here to donate and give generously. This is the key moment and you can make all the difference in the world. With pressure such as the elderly are bringing to bear, the Senate would not dare pass this benighted plan!

Please keep up the pressure on your own Congressman and Senators as well as on Olympia Snowe and Blanche Lincoln.

United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Senators from your State. as well and Snowe and Lincoln

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann – Authors of Catastrophe. Dick Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton (Dem), is the author of Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race. - DickMorris.com

DFA “senior adviser” Jacob Hacker (above) is an Obamacare architect who laughed at criticism of the plan being a Trojan Horse for single payer coverage. “It’s not a Trojan Horse, right” he retorted at a far Left Tides Foundation conference on health care. “It’s just right there! I’m telling you. We’re going to get there.”

Related Recourses:

Obama Holds “Staged” Doctors’ Summit in Effort to Promote Health Care Overhaul

Spin doctors for Obamacare

3 out of 4 Doctors Flanking Obama at His Staged Event Donated to His Campaign

Guess Who Denies the Most Medical Claims?

The Health Care Bill: What they DON’T want you to know! – Video – Please Watch…

Congressional Leaders (Nancy and Harry) Fight Against Posting Bills Online

Overweight People Smokers Face Fine Under Health Bill

What Will the Year 2109 America Be Like for Babies Living to 100?

ObamaCare: Cut the Elderly and Give to AARP

AARP Series – A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing! – Part II

Are the elderly cost effective?

Stop Paying the Crooks

The Healing of America

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power - Cross-posted: Daily Thought Pad

Specter, Snowe, Collins Anger GOP Base

Three liberal Republican senators — Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Pennsylvania's Sen. Arlen Specter — who pledged their support this weekend to President Barack Obama’s massive stimulus bill are drawing the wrath of many conservatives.

As news filtered through the media that a "deal" had been cut with the defecting GOP Senators — giving Democrats the 60-plus votes they need to overcome a Republican filibuster — Republican officials and pundits expressed outrage.

The bolting senators cited soaring unemployment numbers, the country's worsening recession and the fact they cut about $100 billion off of the Senate Democrats' proposed plan as key factors for their decision to betray the GOP Senate caucus to join with the Democrats.

But critics note that the Democratic "compromise" plan comes in at $827 billion — $8 billion more in spending than the already bloated House bill that called for $819 billion in new spending. They also note the so-called stimulus bill offers little immediate relief to the economy. According to a Congressional Budget Office report issued last week, only a fraction of the stimulus will be spent in 2009.

Though weekends are noted for slow news cycles, Collins, Snowe, and Specter already are finding they are under hostile fire, lambasted on conservative Web sites throughout the weekend and the subjects of angry calls by many of their constituents, according to reports.

“Arlen Specter is DONE,” wrote a blogger named steelfish on the FreeRepublic Web site. “He won his last primary by less than 1 percent against a real conservative of Pat Toomey. And only because the President Bush came to PA and campaigned for him. He is DONE.”

Specter is up for re-election in 2010. Washington Republican strategists tell Newsmax this weekend that Specter's defection has sealed the deal: he will face a primary for the GOP nomination.

"We don't care if we lose the Pennsylvania Senate seat to the Democrats," one Washington strategist told Newsmax. "Better to remove Fifth columnists from the party."

The sentiment was echoed in chat rooms and blogs across the web.

“They are frauds. RINOS" Republicans in Name Only, wrote a blogger named Croupier101 on the Fox News blog site.

On TV news shows Sunday, their Republican colleagues distanced themselves from the defecting troika -- arguing that the small GOP support for the plan did not suggest Congressional Democrats or the White House sought a bipartisan stimulus.

"This agreement is not bipartisan," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"I've been in bipartisan agreements, many. This is three Republican senators. Every Republican congressman voted against it in the House, plus Democrats. And all but three Republicans stayed together on this. That's not bipartisanship. That's just picking off a couple of senators," McCain said.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the trio’s support must have been disappointing to Obama, who has staked much on his ostensible ability to transcend the partisan divide.

"Having three Republicans, potentially, support it in the Senate out of 535 members of Congress is hardly a bipartisan effort. I think it's a disappointment — surely must be for President Obama," Cornyn told "FOX News Sunday." He added he fully expects the bill to pass "with almost exclusively Democratic support."

The three were the target of a furious national campaign by liberal groups, who besieged their offices with phone calls and emails urging them to support the stimulus plan. Without Democrats controlling a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate, the trio's support was essential in advancing the contentious plan to a final vote next week.

Their help more than likely will result in pushing the stimulus over the finish line.

In a video posted on YouTube, Republican Rep. Ron Paul said the three “caved in and went with the Democrats.”

The former presidential candidate, who has a sizable libertarian following on the Internet, especially among college students, praised his fellow House Republicans for unanimously opposing the stimulus. But he lamented that after eight years of the massive spending done under the Bush administration, Republican opposition was too little, too late.

"It is like they're born-again budget conservatives," Paul said. "Where were we in the past eight years, when we could have done something? And you see our last eight years that has set this situation up. So we can't blame the Democrats for the conditions we have.

"We have to blame both parties and presidents of the last several decades to have generated this huge government."

The stimulus package, which is expected to come in at about $827 billion when the Senate votes, includes tax cuts and credits and spending on infrastructure, education and other projects that supporters say will create and save jobs.

But critics contend the stimulus is nothing more than a laundry list of political payback to groups that supported the Democrats in the last election. They note that less than 5 percent of the spending goes to infrastructure projects.

Collins said she broke ranks with her party because of the progress congressional negotiators had made on the bill.

"Well, I know that some of my Republican colleagues are unhappy with the position that I've taken," Collins told reporters Saturday. "I hope they will look at the fact that we were able to cut $110 billion of unnecessary spending from this bill. I think that's a good accomplishment. I also think that it's important that we do pass a stimulus bill to help turn the economy around."

But Snowe and Specter have kept a low profile since the deal was struck. Despite their huge role, none made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows. Specter said Friday night that the agreement wasn't perfect but it was necessary.

That assertion was greeted with wild derision on the Internet and with veiled scorn by other Republican leaders.

Julie Ann O'Brien, executive director of the Maine Republican Party, said she already has received plenty of e-mails from people across the country, the majority scolding the two Senators for their support of the bill.

"We have heard from both sides," she told FOXNews.com. "We've heard from those who are pleased that Sen. Collins, in particular, has been willing to play and negotiate. And there are others who feel strongly that they are not acting like Republicans are supposed to act."

O'Brien doesn't anticipate any local political fallout for Snowe or Collins, noting that both won't face re-election for several years and that voters are familiar with them.

"People know what they're getting when they vote for them," she said. "They lean conservative on most issues — that's why they're Republicans. But they really do, I feel, do what is right — not politically right but morally right."

On Sunday, a liberal, union-supported issue advocacy group initially founded in 2005 to rally against President Bush’s Social Security reform plan was praising the three in ads in Maine and Pennsylvania.

"Senators Snowe and Collins have worked with President Obama and other senators to reach agreement on a plan that has support from a broad range of groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce and organized labor," says the version of the ad in Maine.

"Call Senators Snowe and Collins today at 202-224-3121. Thank them for their leadership and tell them to keep fighting for a plan to get our economy moving again."

But Collins, at least, has left herself some wiggle room on the final bill that emerges after House-Senate negotiations.

"Well, I know that some of my Republican colleagues are unhappy with the position that I've taken," Collins told FOX News. "I hope they will look at the fact that we were able to cut $110 billion of unnecessary spending from this bill. I think that's a good accomplishment.”

Yet she conceded that if a bill comes back from the conference committee with the House "once again bloated with wasteful spending and it's too expensive, then I'll vote against it."

By: Tim Collie

Source:  Inside Cover© 2009 Newsmax