
Mad at MaxDirect some anger at Max Baucus toward the president.
Posted Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009, at 11:49 PM ET
For advocates of health care reform, Sen. Max Baucus' legislation to transform the insurance industry is like dealing with the insurance industry: 100 hours of haggling, ending in disappointment. When the chairman of the finance committee announced his long-awaited health care reform legislation Wednesday, the opposition from left and right was so consistent that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's communications director forwarded a list of about 20 articles chronicling the discontent. "The only thing bipartisan is the opposition," it read.
And the strongest abuse has come from inside the Democratic Party. When President Obama mentioned the Baucus bill on Thursday, he received scattered boos. Howard Dean said it was "the worst piece of health care legislation I've seen in 30 years." Delegates at the AFL-CIO's convention in Pittsburgh chanted "bullshit" in response to it. "Max Baucus screws the caucus," said a senior Senate Democratic aide, characterizing the reaction of other Democratic senators. The case against Baucus is many-pronged: He shut out other senators. He bowed to corporate pressure by excising the public option. He was too solicitous toward Republicans yet failed to win the support of a single Republican. The disappointment has been compounded by the fact that he took a long time to deliver this soggy result. That delay exposed Democrats and the cause of reform to effective attacks.
All of which raises the question: If so many people hate this legislation, why not rip up the bill and start anew? Democrats will try in the coming weeks, as it moves through committee and to the Senate floor. They'll undoubtedly find a way to increase subsidies to help working families and protect the middle class against a tax increase. But the tinkering can only go so far, because for all of its shortcomings, Baucus' bill is also what Senate Democrats are calling "the White House bill."
Perhaps some of the fire aimed at Baucus should be redirected at the president. The legislation accomplishes much of what Obama laid out in his speech before the joint session of Congress earlier this month. The bill is not only deficit-neutral, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but it also shrinks long-term health care costs. Both are key Obama pledges. The legislation also includes insurance reforms, expands coverage, and has not upset the careful coalition of industry groups the White House worked so hard to align at the start of this process.
It also moves a stalled process forward, which also delights White House aides anxious to make a deal and move on. Now that all the pieces of legislation are on the table, the president can start building support for a final piece of legislation. Or, to put it more coarsely, he can start buying votes. In recent private meetings with senators, the president has been selling the Baucus bill. No, the bill doesn't include the public option, which Obama has advocated in public. But in private meetings, Obama isn't pushing the public option, according to Senate Democratic aides. "The public option is dead," said one. Instead, the president is emphasizing other fixes in the legislation.
As a matter of style, Baucus' long and so far fruitless effort to build bipartisan support has looked a lot more like the process outlined by candidate Obama than the one President Obama employs. Republicans claim Obama never really gives them a seat at the table. They can't say that about Baucus. He gave them a seat at the table and a personalized napkin ring. Obama says good policy cannot be crafted on the schedule of the 24-hour news cycle. Baucus worked at a pace from the Cronkite era.
Perhaps the idea of bipartisanship is quaint in the polarized politics of the moment. (No lie.) It may also be bad policy, leading to muddled legislation. But the president who leads the majority party talks about it a lot. That Baucus was trying to meet Obama's goals isn't all Baucus' fault. Plus, independent voters—who at 43 percent make up a larger share of the electorate than ever, according to a recent Washington Post poll, and who have been souring on Obama and the Democratic Party—tend to like attempts at bipartisanship. They also have been asking for Obama to slow down.
So a long, slow, we're-trying-our-best-to-meet-them-halfway process may help Obama cement his appeal to independents. Even under the worst-case scenario—if all of this delay and outreach fails to attract a single Republican supporter—Obama can point to the Baucus bill process and say they were patient, endured the political hits during delays, and tried to compromise.
At least that's the theory. If it works, it won't settle his critics, but it'll earn him the president's gratitude.
What the Washington Post Gets Wrong About Kids and Heroin
Should You Give to International Charities or Local Ones?
The Catastrophes That Befall Troy Patterson as He Tries To Cook Along With Gordon Ramsay
Can Schools Punish Bullies for Making Mean YouTube Videos?
Can Video Games Make You Do Things You Don't Want To Do?
The Scottish Masturbation Club You'll Wish You Never Heard Of












So, over the past two days the torches of the angry mob have been passed from the Republican to the Democratic side, as one and all line up to vent their outrage at the Baucus bill, while the posters try to stir up the lynch mob. No public option! How outrageous! Of course, we've all known for awhile that there wouldn't be a public option, but I suppose it must be shock to see such a nonnegotiable demand negated. Lots of people here are also upset, apparently, that this doesn't go all the way to a single-payer plan -- as it that were ever remotely possible. For this, we have our reasonable, intelligent, centrist President to blame. Yes, let's move the mob over to the White House now.
Actually, Democratic politicians and their supporters should get down on their knees (or get out their checkbooks) to thank Obama and Baucus for crafting something which is i.) reasonable, ii.) similar to what the public actually wants, and iii.) has the support a popular president. Of course, true believers will scoff that the Democrats should use their power to perfect our society by implementing a much more intrusive health care reform bill - with a public option, at least, or, day we say it, a single-payer system? Oh, yes we can!
The reality is that passing such a bill -- which the Democrats surely could if they closed ranks and ignored the public outcry -- would be the greatest gift Congress could possibly award the heretofore moribund Republican party, as it would virtually assure that the Republicans would come roaring back in next year's mid-term elections. That is what happened in 1995 with Hillarycare, and that didn't even pass -- but it was to clear the general public at the time that the Democrats, having control of Congress and the White House concurrently, were out of touch and drunk with power -- sound familiar? It is a natural political dynamic and happens every time one party or the other becomes 'permanently' ascendant. Luckily, there are probably enough Democratic Congress People around who are rational enough (and afraid enough of losing their seats) that perhaps the Baucus/Obama bill has a chance. Which is a good thing -- for reasons we can discuss elsewhere, it seems like a pretty good bill.
-- freetrader2
(To reply, click here)
More than half of the electorate with which you say the democrats are out of touch WANTS a public option, for the very good reason that the insurance "industry" has spent so much money on advertising and lobbyists that it has none left, apparently, with which to settle the claims of its customers.
The current bill is a lot better than nothing, and what it leaves us with is a strategic dilemma: do we accept this miserable compromise or do we fight for at least some part of the single-payer system that is the only future that will ever work? You seem to think, for no good reason, that single payer would make a great revival of the republican party inevitable. You think it would bring them "roaring back" by 2010, even.
The lesson of the failure of Hillarycare is this: sell out to Big Insurance and Big PharMa, and you set the table for a faux-populist republican revival. Stick to your principles and deliver a real, rationally structured public health program, and the republicans will stay moribund. This is a gut check. I don't expect guys like Conrad and Nelson to pass that test, but I'd like to be surprised.
-- oxboggle
(To reply, click here)