Wyden may vote against Baucus health bill
Kari Chisholm
So, here's where we are on health care.
The U.S. Senate Finance Committee has finished its markup work on the Baucus health care bill. They'll take a vote on Tuesday.
According to the Washington Post, Senators Ron Wyden and Jay Rockefeller are considering voting against the Baucus bill:
If all 10 Republicans on the panel vote no, two Democratic defections would be enough to send Baucus and the Obama White House scrambling to regroup."More needs to be done to hold insurance companies accountable, to hold premiums down for the American people," Wyden said in an interview Sunday. "I want to continue these discussions." ...
Wyden, like many other Democrats, has begun intensive talks with administration officials and with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who must blend the Finance bill and a version approved by the health committee for the full Senate to consider. ...
Wyden is concerned that under the legislation, nearly 200 million Americans who receive coverage through an employer would be barred from shopping on the new exchange. He also worries that providing a "hardship waiver" to families that cannot afford insurance leaves too many without coverage.
"People don't hold rallies saying, 'Thank you for my exemption,' " he said. "Rather, they want us to deliver more affordable coverage."
Around 1 a.m. Friday morning, in the Finance Committee deliberations, Wyden's "Free Choice" proposal finally came up. The Post's Ezra Klein has the story:
About one in the morning, Wyden's Free Choice Act came before the committee. But it never came up for a vote.Instead, Max Baucus effectively ruled it out of order. The reason? It didn't have a full CBO score. This came as a surprise to Wyden and his team, who'd gotten the amendment scored by the CBO, and had been in endless negotiations with Baucus, the White House, employers, and labor over the past week. If the score was in fact partial, as Baucus and Conrad claimed, you'd think someone might have mentioned it. No one did.
But suddenly, in the wee hours of Friday morning, the chairs of the Finance and Budget Committees were explaining that the amendment lacked a valid score. And an amendment without a valid score is "out of order." Wyden was left with little choice but to withdraw the amendment. It was not deliberative democracy at its finest. But it served its purpose: it killed the amendment.
One more fascinating item, that I missed last week: Ezra Klein also notes that Wyden successfully inserted an amendment giving states tremendous flexibility in administering health care. Which makes sense, given Oregon's success in using Medicaid waivers to be innovative in health care delivery (i.e. the Oregon Health Plan).
OK, waivers - not so controversial. But Ezra asks, "What If They Passed Single-Payer and Didn't Tell Anyone?":
That might have just happened, at least at the state level. The Wyden folks quietly slipped in an amendment giving states enormous flexibility to experiment upward. Essentially, states can ask the federal government for a waiver that allows them to keep the federal funds they're receiving and do pretty much anything they want with them...That could be used for a public option. But it could also be used for single-payer. ...
[I]t's not impossible to imagine a liberal state using the waiver to introduce some mega-public plan that's a lot stronger than what's currently on the table and can be used as a demonstration project for other states. At the very least, this should make governor's races more interesting from the health-care perspective.
Hmmm, anybody know of a state where health care might come up in a Governor's race?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:26 a.m.
Oct 5, '09
[Full disclosure: My firm built Ron Wyden's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.]
Oct 5, '09
The Health/Education/Labor/Pensions Committee has already passed a health insurance reform bill with a public option. Why do we need the bumbling Finance committee to pass one too? Why not take up the HELP Committee bill before the full Senate and pass that one as the Health Care bill?
The House has passed THREE public option bills in committees. Why aren't they voting a robust public option in the full House? That would pressure the Senate to get its act together.
Jon Stewart was right...the Finance Committee Democrats couldn't get laid in a brothel whose sole purpose was to provide disease-and consequence-free sex to Democratic members of Finance committees.
Oct 5, '09
It is beyond pathetic that Obama refused to meet with Orygun's Mad as Hell Doctors. Looks like our only hope left is Wyden's little amendment that allows states to do single payer. Screw the red states, i've had it.
11:17 a.m.
Oct 5, '09
It is beyond pathetic that Obama refused to meet with Orygun's Mad as Hell Doctors.
Really? The President of the United States is supposed to personally meet with every activist group that sends people to Washington? He wouldn't get any sleep!
Oct 5, '09
Admiral Naismith,
You ask, why not have the US Senate take the HELP Bill and vote on it?
First, any bill from the US House will go through the appropriate Senate committees. Amendments may get tacked on, which will leave the final HELP bill to be voted on the US Senate floor looking nothing like it did prior to it's round through the Senate Committees.
Second, it is easier to pass the most partisan legislation through a 435 legislative body than a 100 member body. The US House is the little kids table compared to the "Club" that is the US Senate.
Third, threat of filibuster in the 100 member body, which will require 60 votes of the 100 members to bring a motion of cloture on the filibuster. In other words, if the bill is too partisan, all 40 Republicans, when the bill is debated on the floor, can organize a filibuster where all 40 of them indefinitely hold up a vote on the final bill via holding the floor by speaking for weeks taking turns with aides bringing in food and water. A filibuster if organized well enough, will kill any healthcare reform.
Finally, it was the intent of the Founding Fathers for the US Senate to moderate and make pragmatic, the will of the masses which is expressed through the bills that easily pass the US House. It is the duty of the Senate to pare down partisan legislation so that the legislation has aspects that the minority (Republicans in this case) has a voice in the legislation.
If it makes it any easier, look at it this way. The US House represents the will of the majority due to the size and allotment via population of state. Conversely, the US Senate is entrusted to represent and look after the rights of the minority (2 senators per state regardless of population).
We may not like it how bills pass through the US House with the majority will intact to be subsequently gutted by the US Senate. This is precisely what James Madison was wanting when he referred to "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition" in Federalist #51.
Like it or hate it, the US Senate is there to make sure the minority has a voice when the majority is overwhelming.
Oct 5, '09
It's my understanding that President Obama was to meet with doctors from all across the country...and that the Mad as Hell Docs weren't expecting any special treatment, just a seat at the table. Kari, you do recall when Baucus had a hearing a while back and lots of people testified but the single-payer folks were shut out. That's what I see Obama doing. Those who support a single-payer solution want a seat at the table. That's not what the single-payer folks have gotten from some in Congress nor the Obama Administration. Kari, are you suggesting that Obama should only listen to doctors who see things his way? I would trust those folks (Mad as Hell Docs) versus President "I believe in a public option but I won't fight for it" Obama. Where is the leadership? Not coming from our president. The public option that is in the current committee bills stinks anyway. It's not accessible to everyone who might want to select it. Those who get insurance thru their employer won't be allowed to choose the public plan. If signed into law it won't be a choice for a huge number of people. The single-payer advocates deserve to be heard in this "debate" (which really hasn't been a debate...as the Finance Cmte contemplates whether to pass that piece of crap "Baucus Bill" so-called reform). Is "reform" about the best solution (forget the politics for a moment), evaluating the merits of HR 676 for example...or just playing politics and protecting insurance companies. Even though this congress, many of whom are in love with the corporate/lobbyist money, aren't going to pass HR 676...those with experience in health care who know it's the real solution need to be heard by those who may not want to listen....including President Obama. We need to keep pushing for real reform...not fake reform (which is what congress seems to be doing now). Single-payer is not a crazy idea...our country is already doing it...it's called Medicare. Why not extend Medicare to everyone? That's essentially what HR 676 is. If congress and Obama give us a bill that has a weak or no public option (and with the insurance reforms likely will increase premium costs...or just result in less coverage/crappier plans for the premiums paid) and has individual mandates I think a lot of people will be pissed off...and they should be. I'm not interested in Obama getting a political victory out of this if it's a bad bill. People who need help/relief deserve better than that.
Oct 5, '09
RyanLeo: interesting post. WIsh I could see more like it. You put pieces together that live fascinatingly scattered in my head, as a pseudoaficionado of politics and process.
Oct 5, '09
As well he should. Baucus is way out of touch, and horribly tainted by the health care industry.
2:03 p.m.
Oct 5, '09
RyanLeo, your description of the process is right - except that it takes 41 Senators to sustain a filibuster, and there are only 40 Republicans.
They need one Democrat to join them -- which leads to the big question: If there are Democrats who oppose the bill, can they be persuaded to vote with their caucus on cloture?
3:00 p.m.
Oct 5, '09
I like what Senator Wyden is doing and wish him luck.
Oct 5, '09
Kari, Obama met with a bunch of doctors today. The Mad as hell docs have been asking for a visit for months. Many other single payer docs and nurses have also tried to get meetings, to no avail.
Oct 5, '09
RW,
Thanks, I try my best :0
Kari,
I would suspect that Blanche Lincoln would be the 41st to sustain a filibuster. From what I have read about her opposing another entitlement program, she would be my #1 suspect.
I could also see, Kent Conrad, Bill Nelson, Mary Landrieu and a couple other Democrats from Southern and rural states not voting for cloture.
Then again, I hope that it never comes to a filibuster. I hope that there is a viable public option that is sustained mainly through user fees. Therefore, I place my hope in Harry Reid to get a party line vote when the healthcare reform bill is up for vote on the floor.
4:13 p.m.
Oct 5, '09
Kari, Obama met with a bunch of doctors today. The Mad as hell docs have been asking for a visit for months. Many other single payer docs and nurses have also tried to get meetings, to no avail.
There are three reasons a President meets with a group of people. 1) Because he agrees with them, and the meeting is a way of demonstrating that in public, and getting a story. 2) Because they have some information that he thinks will be useful to him. 3) Because he wants to convince them to come around to his position on something.
Now, which of these three do the Mad as Hell Doctors fit under?
5:49 p.m.
Oct 5, '09
Kari, Obama met with a bunch of doctors today. The Mad as hell docs have been asking for a visit for months.
The Mad as Hell spokesman was the TV machine today saying that he did indeed get in to the meeting. True that he wasn't invited but he apparently made a good show at the gate.
Oct 5, '09
Update: Mad as Hell doc was allowed to listen to Obama's Rose Garden speech.
Oct 5, '09
Now, which of these three do the Mad as Hell Doctors fit under?
That would be category 4: Because he knows that hardworking grassroots volunteers that put him into office will have to cave to whatever he and the Dems serve up, so why waste his beautiful mind and time?
Oct 6, '09
So, does it make sense to spend more time in the Finance committee and maybe get some lipstick on a pig, or just vote it out of committee as-is and fix it (i.e., dump most of it) in reconciliation?
Oct 6, '09
If you would like to help pressure Congress to pass single payer health care please join our voting bloc at: www.votingbloc.org
1:50 a.m.
Oct 7, '09