And just when Reid is saying that he needs to be convinced that the public option has sufficient agreement to be included in his bill. Note the HE needs to be convinced, personally. And having Mr. Insurance Lackey, Baucus, in the same room as Reid! I can only imagine. Now I see how precarious this whole thing is.

If you can't watch the hearing, TPM is liveblogging it here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/senate-finance-committee-votes-on-health-care-reform-bill.php?ref=fpblg

Firedoglake is also liveblogging it here: http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/10/13/senate-finance-committee-vote-live-blog/

I caught a brief piece this morning that suggests this hearing is complete BS. Senator Bingaman (D-NM) complimented Baucus on the fair way that he managed the hearings. Baucus (and the majority, if not all, of the committee) denied single-payer advocates a hearing. Kind of like the way Dodd and Frank and their committees denied witnesses opposed to the bailout a hearing.

Cheap shot, Kari. Certainly there was something the esteemed Senate Finance Committee could have learned by getting beyond the politics and bumper sticker explanation of single payer. Like it or not, single payer is real reform. Can you say the same about the Senate Finance bill?

"Baucus (and the majority, if not all, of the committee) denied single-payer advocates a hearing.

"They also denied the supporters of unicorns a hearing. "

Very likely because they didn't bribe the committee members with campaign donations.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, wants to include a version of a government option called a co-op owned by insured members. What a wonderful idea says Mike Oliphant whom manages Utah health insurance plans for www.benefitsmanager.net/utah-group-health-insurance.htm . This may encourage competition from private health insurance carriers. But I fear it will fail ultimately if there is no TORT reform because the same liability costs that plague medical professionals and health insurance carriers will be like a fast cancer growth within the co-op plan. A government option wouldn’t allow legal suite against the plan but will with medical providers. Doesn’t anyone see that we need TORT reform to protect the cost outcome? See what Utah has done with health care reform www.ahealthinsurancequote.com/reform.html.

"As for the unicorns comment, OK, that was pure snark. My deepest and humblest apologies."

Apology accepted

"For those who support single-payer, can you name ten Senators that have said they'd vote for a single payer bill? "

This says more about the senate (and all of Congress) than it does about single-payer. History is replete with examples of voices in the wilderness who got it right and were vindicated after the wrong path was taken and the damage done.

On the WHO report for 2000 the United States was ranked 37th for health care attainment and delivery. Several nations with single-payer plans or versions thereof were in the top 30 with France and Italy first and second, respectively, and Canada at 30th. Per capita expenses for health care in these other countries were about half of what we paid in the United States. Given the prospect that costs will continue to escalate under our non-single-payer system would anyone care to guess where the United States would rank if another analysis were made in, say, 2013? Or, even today?

"Very likely because they didn't bribe the committee members with campaign donations."

Marie Cocco on Bribe, Vote, Repeat

Olympia Snowe joins the forces of Satan and votes for a health care bill. Now she will lose her chairmanship for sure. (And maybe leave the GOP) They hate her anyway.

Ok, so the finance COmmittee has a watered down bill they are"proud" of. the bill will cost about 1 Trillion bucks and only cover 25 million of the 45 million currently uninsured. They actually think that this is reform?

I would not blame Wyden if he were to vote this out of committee in order to exoriate it on the Senate floor and then vote NO.

Bill Bodden wrote: History is replete with examples of voices in the wilderness who got it right and were vindicated after the wrong path was taken and the damage done.

True, but more often than not voices in the wilderness are just that... Not all voices in the wilderness are necessarily prophetic.

Several nations with single-payer plans or versions thereof were in the top 30 with France and Italy first and second, respectively, and Canada at 30th. Per capita expenses for health care in these other countries were about half of what we paid in the United States. Given the prospect that costs will continue to escalate under our non-single-payer system would anyone care to guess where the United States would rank if another analysis were made in, say, 2013? Or, even today?

Actually, you may be surprised - ...nearly all developed countries are now struggling with rapidly rising health-care costs, including those with single-payer systems. From 2000 to 2005, per capita health-care spending in Canada grew by 33 percent, in France by 37 percent, in the U.K. by 47 percent—all comparable to the 40 percent growth experienced by the U.S. in that period.

I (along with about everyone) agree health care in US needs to be reformed. I don't support single-payer or any additional movement towards such a system.

This all smells of Roosevelt to me. Its one thing to try and pass something, but its another thing to force it ahead of time, especially when there is still going to end up being years left over. History repeats itself.

"- ...nearly all developed countries are now struggling with rapidly rising health-care costs, including those with single-payer systems. From 2000 to 2005, per capita health-care spending in Canada grew by 33 percent, in France by 37 percent, in the U.K. by 47 percent—all comparable to the 40 percent growth experienced by the U.S. in that period."

If their health care costs rise at the same rate as ours won't the end result remain the same; that is, that they will still be paying something like half of what we pay? Given the fact that the insurance industry owns many key players in Congress we should consider the probability that our health care costs are at risk of rising at a higher rate than the other nations referred to above.

"in the U.K. by 47 percent"

I recall a blogger (presumably a Brit) on this site some time ago who indicated the rise in U.K. costs was, to a great extent, attributable to a heavy influx of immigrants from the European Union who had never before contributed to the funding of the National Health Service.

"I don't support single-payer or any additional movement towards such a system."

I don't know how it could be achieved, but I would like to see two systems develop here that would be open to all. One would be the same as we have today with people buying, if they can, commercial health insurance policies and another that would provide a chance to opt into a properly funded Medicare system. Those who decline either of these options would be on their own at the mercy of luck or the medical system.

"There is actually just about zero evidence that any member of Congress is "bribed.""

Some wise person once said that if someone gives another a gift and that gift changes their relationship, then that gift is a bribe.

Representative Steve Buyer-Linked Foundation: Who Gave, And Where Did The Money Go?

Some people may consider that it was just a coincidence that Rep. Buyer happened to agree with what his campaign donors wanted, but others consider skepticism, at a minimum, is called for. Try reading Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."

Kari: "They also denied the supporters of unicorns a hearing."

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Kari, you glib, condescending, snarky, expert on all things possible.

This is one of the main reasons I think that progressives should give up on the Democratic party, and start organizing at the (non-electoral) grassroots. If you're so committed to electoral politics, how about working on building a third party, or some other way to get folks elected who aren't so beholden to their corporate funders. (Heck, a second party would be nice at this point).

Bill Bodden: "Some wise person once said that if someone gives another a gift and that gift changes their relationship, then that gift is a bribe."

I'm not sure who this "wise person" is, but s/he would seem pretty outcome-bound. For example, engagement and wedding rings explicitly change the relationship. That doesn't mean that the gift is only given in order to change the relationship; it's just an express recognition of the mutual position of the people. As previously pointed out above, most political money is given because of existing policies and positions, not desired changes in those policies and positions. If it were otherwise, Ds would be getting red money, and Rs would be getting blue money.

So did you see the pathetic list of Senators that get to go behind closed doors to blend the Senate plans? Baucus, Snowe, Reid and banker-Dodd. No Democratic women, no left coast Senators, and a big F YOU to Ron Wyden.

Looks like Wyden got a commitment to get a version of his "choice" amendment on the final bill: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/how_the_senate_finance_committ.html

For those of you who keep touting the necessity of 60 votes. The 60 votes are required to get cloture, not to pass a bill. Reportedly those who are considering filibustering with the Rs have been told they will lose their chairmanships if they cross that line. I don't think Lieberman or Lincoln want to lose their chairmanships and spend their remaining senate careers in the outer darkness where there is the weeping and gnashing of teeth. They can vote no, just have to vote yes on cloture. And if they want to play sabotage and lose their chairmanships, the Senate is prepared to go budget reconciliation.

"That's why I keep asking if any single-payer absolutists can identify even 10 votes for their bill? If not, there's no point in going on and on about it."

I'm glad you weren't running a blog when the civil rights movement was getting started. "I'm sorry, Rosa, we don't have the votes in the Senate, there's no point in going on and on about the whole bus thing."

"If it were otherwise, Ds would be getting red money, and Rs would be getting blue money."

The "money" doesn't care about Ds and Rs. Just results.

"Let's go to Congress and demand a hearing on that right now!""

But there wouldn't be much point in going to the Senate Finance Committee with its policy of debating only what the insurance corporations wanted and rejecting other options such as single-payer and a public option. Some people tried to demand a hearing on single-payer and were ejected.

Gosh damn, I have to clear the air once more.

Q1: Why do Democrats need 60 votes?

A1: Filibuster. A filibuster is a procedural move by the minority party when the bill is up for a vote on the floor of the US Senate that kills the bill on the floor. It works like this:

1. Minority party does not like the Final version of the bill.

2. Minority leader organizes party (Dem or Rep) to ENDLESSLY speak on the bill at hand.

3. With 30+ member speaking on the bill, they can ostensibly kill it by delaying the vote for a month or more. Think each Republican speaking on the floor for a day along with a few Democrats such as Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Blance Lincoln from Arkansas.

4. To bring the filibuster to an end (cloture), the majority party needs 60 votes out of the 100 votes in the US Senate.

Q2: Why not use the Vice President as the 60th Senate vote?

A2: The VP has been very reluctant to be the 101st, unelected US Senator. Remember, they are elected as a member of the Executive Branch. ONLY on matter regarding a 50-50 vote regarding the US Budget, only has the VP voted as the President of the Senate.

Furthermore, the majority party at the time (Democrats will not be a majority forever) is hesitant to set the precedent of the VP being a Senate vote knowing the the opposition party will follow the same precedent when they have the White House.

Q3: Why not use Budget Reconciliation?

A3: Reconciliation is a procedure used only in regards to passing a Federal Budget.

Again, Democrats would set a bad precedent that would be used against them once Republicans have majorities in the US Congress. Imagine the vote for DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) only requiring a simple 50 vote majority as required under Budget Reconciliation...Yes, beware of what actions you undertake when you are in power.

As for my view of healthcare reform (not that anyone cares), I believe that the Baucus Bill as it stands fresh out of committee could and would pass as the Final version of Obama's healthcare reform. The Baucus Bill is as good as it gets.

As it stands, Judd Gregg and Senate Republicans will entirely gut a healthcare reform bill with the public option via parliamentary procedure if Senate Democrats use Budget Reconciliation. I have very good sources to confirm this. Sources that Democrats and "Progressives" do not normally like to read.

I do not believe that the HELP Bill has any chance to pass. It will only get about 55 Democrat votes with Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln, Conrad, Nelson and potentially more Democratic Senators voting against it.

Remember, you need an absolute 60 votes to bring cloture to a filibuster.

The earliest I can see a vote on healthcare reform is early November. Expected mid to Thanksgiving. If the Public Option is snuck in by Harry "soon to be retired" Reid, then Christmas/New Years.

In all, I expect single payer advocates and right wing free market types to be crying over different things regarding health care reform.

If the extremes are crying, then the resulting legislation has hit it's intended mark.

On the other hand, if the bill is filibustered due to liberal Democrats pushing a Public Option, then no one wins except the health care industry.

"Bill Bodden: "Some wise person once said that if someone gives another a gift and that gift changes their relationship, then that gift is a bribe."

I'm not sure who this "wise person" is, but s/he would seem pretty outcome-bound. For example, engagement and wedding rings explicitly change the relationship. "

Radmacher: It appears you didn't pay enough attention to the "IF" in the saying above.

Cancel the preceding. My turn to be too quick on the draw.

The insurance companies are greedy but I hope this reform will help people that can not affod health care.

Re: "Name me ten Senators..."

What a cynical deceit. You guys obstuct any progressive messages. You control the range of acceptable debate and marginalize everyone to your left. You lie and obfuscate to the point where no one knows what's even being debated.

The Reich is right about you: You are elitists who couldn't give two shits about the welfare of ordinary people, only about how you're going to fool the suckers in the next election.

The piece of shit bill that's going to be passed and called "progressive" by the DP and "socialist" by the RP is not going to lead to single payer any more than it will lead to unicornworld.

1. The large majority of people, who receive their insurance from their employer, will see no benefit whatsoever from the Plan. Most will, in fact, find their premiums rising as new requirements imposed by the Plan (e.g., the elimination of lifetime limits) raise the cost of insurance. And, of course, to their undoubted surprise, most of them will not have access to the public option, even if there is one.

1. Most provisions of the Plan will not become effective until 2013. This gives four years for Republicans to criticize the Plan, including (1) its use of cuts in Medicare reimbursements and Medicare Advantage premiums as principal sources of funding, (2) its lack of any real or believable mechanism for containing costs, and (3) its bureaucratic complexity.

2. The taxes on high-cost insurance plans, the other principal source of funding, will cause those who now have good insurance (called, pejoratively, “Cadillac” plans) to find these plans heavily taxed and their employers given a strong incentive to cut back on their benefits. Instead of reducing underinsurance, this part of the Plan will increase it! (And the rest of the plan does little about underinsurance at all.)

3. During the four years of waiting for the Plan to take effect, costs will continue to rise. By the time the Plan takes effect, costs are likely to be at least 25% greater than now. Even more people will find insurance and health care unaffordable. People will ask “What was health reform about?” The disillusionment will be great.

4. The complexity of the plan, including (1) federal rules regarding what kinds of employer-based insurance plans are “qualified,” (2) new income tax forms that will be needed to implement the individual mandate, and (3) the process of determining income eligibility for everyone, will all lend themselves to criticism and even ridicule.

(Leonard Rodberg , Chair, Urban Studies Department, Queens College/CUNY, http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/10/09/rodberg-is-there-any-way-out-for-obama/)

Amen, Emmit. At least one person has their eye on the ball!

<h2>Single payer presents a 5th Amendment taking/just compensation problem. To implement single payer now rewards the health insurance carriers for gouging the American public. Instead, let them die slowly through the pathway to single payer- the public option. March with us Sunday, Oct. 18 in Portland. See http://pdxpublicoption.com.</h2>