Erza Klein:
Max Baucus will release the Chairman's Mark -- the official first draft of his bill -- later today. But things are not going according to plan. He's got a bill full of the compromises meant to attract Republican support, but no Republican support. Not even Olympia Snowe, at this point, has committed to backing the bill.
Meanwhile, the framework has conceded enough to the GOP that it's also losing Democratic support, including that of Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Finance Committee's Health Care Subcommittee. And Rockefeller says that four to six Democrats on the committee feel similarly. Baucus is thus caught between a rock and a hard place. The absence of any Republican support makes it hard for him to justify his compromises. And his compromises make it hard for the Democrats on the committee to support his bill.
Nate Silver (oh, and I just have to add the title for this one):
Baucus Compromise Bill Draws Enthusiastic Support of Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
Negotiations are funny things. Sometimes the scariest moments come when you're closest to a settlement, as all sides feel emboldened to take the last opportunity to demonstrate resolve. Leverage in a negotiation is not necessarily a zero-sum affair, since nobody has any leverage if there's no hope to reach an agreement. So some of this maneuvering, perhaps, is a reflection of the bill moving closer to passage and not further away.
But let's be clear -- some of this is Baucus's chickens coming home to roost. When you make a unilateral decision to negotiate with only five other people from a 23-person committee and 100-person Senate, and two of those five people have clear electoral disincentives against supporting any plan that you might come up with, the negotiations are liable to end in failure far more often than not. The flurry of on-the-record statements against Baucus's reform plans -- not "leaks", not trial balloons -- points toward a defective process.
And that may suit Democrats just fine. There are at least three other starting points for a final showdown over health care: the House Tri-Committee bill, the Senate HELP bill, and possibly also the White's House's statement of principles, some of which remain vaguely defined. Many of the objections raised to BaucusCare would necessarily apply to one or more of those bills too -- but they'd appear to be starting from no worse a position than Baucus's plan itself.
And finally, Andrew Sullivan:
The pattern is now clear: the imperative to play the political game has won on the right. The longer-term pattern is just as clear: a faction of congressional Democrats sometimes backed Bush on his initiatives (such as his tax cuts). No one in the Congressional Limbaugh-run GOP will back anything this president does. Not only that; they will assault him, race-bait him and insult him in a continuous reel of populist bile.
It seems to me that the GOP was once recognizable as a human personality. It had an id; but it also had a series of responsible egos - Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush I and, to some extent, Bush II; and it had a super-ego - some kind of conscience that made it think of the broader society over partisan warfare. What we've seen in the last few years is the removal of both ego and super-ego.
And, Andrew adds:
I suspect we will see a few more twists and turns on this yet - and even a left-liberal revival.
Well, in the words of the current President...yes we can.
And best of all, that left-liberal revival can only mean one thing.
We're down to four options, on containing the ever rising costs of Health Care Premiums:
1) The Public Option
2) The Public Option - with a Trigger
3) Co-Ops
4) Nothing
Right now, No. 4 is the only one off the table. One of the quiet games the President has played, and in this case played very well, is repeating in his speech of September 9th, in his Rally in Minnesota, and on 60 Minutes: I will not compromise on some means to contain costs.
The President on Sept. 9th:
It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated - by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.
For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another nonprofit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.
The President on 60 Minutes:
Look, I have tried as much as possible in the plan that we've designed to make sure that the best ideas are out there. I have no interest in having a bill get passed that fails. That doesn't work. You know, I intend to be President for a while, and once this bill passes, I own it. And if people look and say, "You know what? This hasn't reduced my costs. My premiums are still going up 25 percent, insurance companies are still jerking me around," I'm the one who's going to be held responsible.
To paraphrase: "Insurance Premium costs are going up way too fast. We need a way to check them. My way is the Public Option. If you find that unacceptable, fine. Come up with a plan of your own, but make no mistake...there will be a mechanism to check costs in this Health Care bill."
As crazy as it is to say, right now, of those four options, the Public Option, is starting to rocket back to the top of the heap again.
Here's why:
Susan Collins has said no to Public Option, and Public Option with a trigger, and seems to be talking herself right out of the discussion. She seems to be a no vote at this point.
Olympia is game enough for a trigger, but doesn't want to be the only Republican voting for the bill. She's also going to vote no (as it stands) on the Baucus Bill, which renders her pretty much useless as well.
And every other Republican is acting like...well, the way Andrew Sullivan just described.
The only option left to get anything passed out of the Senate is going to Reconciliation, and to get a bill passed with Reconciliation, means that the money saving provisions of the Health Care Bill will have to be strengthened.
And one of the biggest money saving provisions...believe it or not...is the Public Option.
The CBO has scored the Health Care Plans cheaper with a Public Option than without one.
Time to start paying special attention to the Parliamentarian of the Senate, and the Byrd Rule.
This is where I think we're headed at this hour. Health Care Reform with an actual, robust Public Option, passed by Reconcilation. Granted, it will sunset in five years (thank you, Kent Conrad, you useless sack of...), but I dare the Republicans to try and take it away once its passed.
There is still the possibility of a No. 5 Option, but no one knows what that is.
One of the ideas I have, as a No. 5 is a straight cap on Premiums. We as Americans say, that's it. Insurance Companies can only charge X amount per month, that's it. If you go out of business as a result...tough @#$%.
(Like the Insurance Companies have shown so much concern for Americans going into Bankruptcy to pay for their weak-tea product.)
A Premium cap would sure as hell contain costs. Of course the Free Market Conservatives will howl and bitch, but...we can turn around at that point and remind them, we tried a Free Market solution...it was called the Public Option, and y'all said no.
And thus we come to the irony of our situation, by drawing a line in the sand to stop the Public Option, the GOP might wind up making it far, far stronger.
