Updated: Baucus’s Bipartisan Bid Is Set Back, But Not Necessarily Over

UPDATE | 9:42 a.m. Senator Baucus’s office has just released a copy of his bipartisan proposal. Read it here (pdf).


For the moment, at least, Max Baucus has come up short.

Mr. Baucus, the Montana Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who has led a months-long effort to develop bipartisan legislation to overhaul the nation’s health care system, is expected to unveil his plan Wednesday morning with Republicans not yet on board.

The Finance Committee’s top Republican, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa – who is one of the so-called bipartisan six — issued a statement on Tuesday evening chastising the Democratic leaders and the White House for pushing forward on a bill that he said was not ready and that he could not yet support.

In many ways, however, the legislative dance is just starting.

Democratic and Republican aides alike say they expect the negotiations among the bipartisan six to continue until the Finance Committee begins formal proceedings on the health care legislation sometime next week. A deal with Mr. Grassley is still possible.

Once Mr. Baucus puts out his proposal, the committee will go over it in an executive session. The senators on the committee, 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans, will also be given a deadline for submitting any amendments. And there will be a torrent of them on both sides.

Mr. Baucus, however, like a baseball manager with a bench full of pinch-hitters, has the advantage.

When the deadline for amendments arrives, Mr. Baucus will have a clearer picture of where lawmakers stand, particularly his fellow Democrats, some of whom, like Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, say he has already made too many concessions to Republicans.

And until the start of the committee’s formal mark-up proceedings, Mr. Baucus can incorporate amendments into his bill, or negotiate with Mr. Grassley and other Republicans with an eye toward compromises that might make certain other amendments moot.

So a fuller test of whether Mr. Baucus has succeeded in securing a bipartisan deal will come as he and Mr. Grassley negotiate changes to the bill over the next week or so. Mr. Grassley, in his statement, promised to keep trying.

“We’ve been clear from the start that we’re willing to stay at the table,” Mr. Grassley said. “There’s no reason not to keep working until we get it right. In the end, legislation that impacts every American should have strong bipartisan support.”

Mr. Baucus has the highest hopes of winning support from Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who has been courted aggressively by the White House and is a key negotiator within the group of six.

The third Republican in the group of six, Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, is unlikely to support a deal that does not have Mr. Grassley’s backing.

And Mr. Grassley’s support will probably hinge on a few lightning-rod issues, including abortion and immigrants, as well as his reluctance to support a requirement that all Americans obtain health insurance beginning in 2013

“There are still some serious outstanding issues that have yet to be resolved,” Mr. Grassley said in his statement. “Like preventing taxpayer funding of abortion services and the enforcement against subsidies for illegal aliens. I have also pressed for alternatives to the individual mandate and ways to lower the overall cost of the bill, as well as tougher medical liability reform measures.”

Mr. Grassley and other Republicans do not want states to have to shoulder much if any of the cost of an expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poorest Americans. Mr. Baucus is calling on states to share some of the cost.

Mr. Grassley also wants assurances that no tax dollars, including new government subsidies to help moderate-income Americans afford health insurance, will be used to pay for abortions. Some Democrats want the health care legislation to stay silent on the issue.

And Mr. Grassley is pushing for a five-year waiting period before legal immigrants can obtain the subsidies, which will be distributed in the form of tax credits. This is on top of an agreement by Democrats to bar illegal immigrants from purchasing insurance through a new government-regulated marketplace, even if they are willing and able to pay full price.

But Mr. Grassley’s chief concern, and one that other Republicans have expressed as well, is that they say they have no assurance from President Obama or Democratic Congressional leaders that any agreements hammered out in the Senate would necessarily be included in the final legislation.

“There’s no guarantee that a Finance Committee bill, even if it becomes bipartisan, will stay that way after it leaves the committee,” Mr. Grassley said. “An overriding issue for some time has been the fact that members of the Democratic leadership haven’t made a commitment to back a broad bipartisan bill through the entire process.”

Republicans, for example, fiercely oppose the idea of a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private insurers, a so-called “public option” that is favored by President Obama and many House Democrats.

As an alternative, Mr. Baucus and the other negotiators in the bipartisan six agreed to call for the creation of private, nonprofit health insurance cooperatives, which would similarly compete with private insurers.

But Mr. Grassley and other Republicans fear that even if the Senate bill does not include a public option, it will be inserted into the House version of the health care legislation and ultimately adopted during conference proceedings.

Aides to Mr. Grassley suggested that the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, could offer a public guarantee to help seal a deal but so far has refused to do so. If Mr. Grassley does not ultimately get on board, Ms. Snowe will face a difficult choice.

She has said previously that a single Republican vote does not necessarily mean a bill is partisan. And yet she has shown a willingness to break with her party if it is in the interest of her home state, as she did on the economic stimulus bill earlier this year.

Throughout the health care negotiations, Ms. Snowe has sounded more upbeat about reaching an agreement.

But other Republicans on the Finance Committee have been readying their opposition to the Baucus plan in strategy meetings.

A senior Republican aide said that Mr. Enzi, Mr. Grassley and Ms. Snowe had not participated in the side sessions, so that they would have leeway to continue negotiating in good faith with Mr. Baucus.

Instead, the talks have been coordinated by Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, who is a senior member of the Republican leadership, and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, a veteran of major legislative battles over health care but who months ago said he had no hope of a bipartisan deal.

Most Republicans have been deeply unhappy with the Democratic health care proposals so far, and Republicans on the Finance Committee were said to be bracing for two possibilities: a partisan proposal that they were going to oppose, or a bipartisan proposal that they were going to oppose.

The Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said he would be surprised if any Republicans ended up backing the proposal by Mr. Baucus.

“I don’t that that’s a package that very many Republicans are going to support,” he said at a news conference Tuesday at which he repeated his assertion that the Democrats were proposing untenable cuts to Medicare. “But Senator Grassley and Senator Enzi can speak for themselves.”

Comments are no longer being accepted.

“In the end, legislation that impacts every American should have strong bipartisan support.”

This is perhaps the key issue in this debate. Legislation that dramatically affects something as vital as health care must be supported by more than a slim majority. It must reflect the needs of both older and younger people, in all regions, and be acceptable to most of the political spectrum.

The far left and far right will never agree, but Congress needs to find an answer that is acceptable to at least 75% of Americans. Otherwise, this issue will be the subject of a continuous partisan tug-of-war for many years.

There will inevitably be problems with reform of this scope. Without broad initial support, the party who forced it will be held fully accountable. George Bush was punished for Iraq, although most Americans and Congress supported that effort initially. We supported the idea of fighting terrorism, but the reality of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan quickly lost support.

Obama and leading Democrats know they must build more public support or risk a worse political reversal. If Democrats ram through legislation that 51% of Americans like, it is likely they will pay a political price starting in 2010. Americans don’t like that kind of politics, and it will paint a bullseye on every Democrat who voted for it.

Beyond the political ramifications, it is very dangerous to completely rewire our complex health care system in a sweeping reform. Complete reform always sounds good, but the reality is there will be unintended consequences and some things will not work as intended. It is certainly possible to create a system worse than what we have.

It makes a lot more sense to implement change incrementally in a way that allows us to detect and fix problems as we go.

The three Democratic Senators, of the infamous Gang of Six, have now become the laughingstock of the world. They have not only caved-in on a Public Option, but have now conceded everything else of any negotiable value. They have nothing left to sell, and they still have not bought a single Republican vote. It’s been obvious to everyone looking on that any real effort to entice any Republican Senator to vote for any measure of Healthcare reform was sheer folly. The reason: The GOP is perfectly satisfied with maintaining the pre-existing system. This pre-existing system gives tax breaks to Insurance Companies, Drugmakers, and Medical Device suppliers, enabling them to make HUGE profits, and then make HUGE kick-back payments into GOP coffers for their support of the status quo. Why would these GOP senatorial Public Dis-servants want to REFORM anything? DUH!

Does Baucus realize he’s being played? Even if he does produce a bill that garners some GOP support coming out of committee, there is little chance any GOP senators will back the final version voted on by the entire body. They will say they had a bi-partisan agreement but those rascally Democrats went ahead and ruined it. This will happen regardless of what the bill looks like. It’s a fools errand.

Without allowing competition and without a public option there is no reform. Besides Max Baucus is nothing but a shill and a pimp for the CEOs of the healthcare industry. Expecting him do deliver anything remotely positive for those uninsured millions is like asking him to bite the hand that is feeding him. It’s not going to happen!

The Baucus plan is unacceptable for many reasons. Some are that it allows age discrimination in premium pricing, forces hard pressed middle income citizens to buy health insurance from for profit companies, and does not penalize employers sufficiently for not providing good coverage.

I have urged my senators to not support this bill but to enact either a single payer, strong public option, or legislation to regulate health insurance companies as public utilities. I have also asked that Medicare rates be increased for all to provide health care for all and that health care be removed from employment.

Are you kidding? Enough with this bipartisan nonsense. No Republican has put forward any set of conditions under which s/he would support a bill. So what is there to negotiate about?

the goal is NOT bi-partisanship (at all costs), but real effective Healthcare Reform that addresses the fundamental problems. The purpose Baucus has in seeking a bi-partisan (at all costs) is to produce something that is weak and useless, and therefore protective of his health insurance industry campaign contributors.

The Republicans want MORE concessions?! You must be joking. Forget the Republicans. Pass a bill with a public option with only Democrats and the Dems will reap political benefits for years while the Repubs will be in the wilderness indefiintely. Time for bold action. Time for leadership. Pres Obama: time to twist arms. Public option now!

Who cares what the republicans think of the Baucus bill??? Their opinion doesn’t matter because they don’t want any bill, good or bad. The republicans are against health care reform, as is Max Baucus. So Baucus writes a bad bill that even democrats won’t approve simply because it’s any bill. He should have crafted something democrats would stand behind, a bill with the public option. Instead, Baucus strung together a gift for his insurance company contributors. The senate democrats have to stop placing credibility in Baucus and use the bill generated by the house.

Congratulations to Senator Snow. Although it is not everything that I as a republican want to see, she is willing to compromise and move a piece of legislation forward that will become law eventually regardless of republican support. If it’s going to happen, which I believe some form of it should, it’s better to move it a little to the right than letting it formulate without any republican influence.

What a huge misfortune to have Harry Reid as Majority Leader during this short Democratic time of control.
He turned over the fate of healthcare reform to the Baucus Caucus!?
The Dems. are now in the position of compromising with people that will not vote for the bill regardless of how many concessions are made.
Make no mistake; Baucus is as untrustworthy on this issue as Joe the Congressman; Expect no real reforms from this body.
And get ready for a reprise on the question of financial reforms. (Just won’t happen) Get ready for the next meltdown.

Satisfying Mr. Grassley’s concerns will dilute the impact of all other aspects of the legislation. At some point, and soon, the Democrats will have to decide whether they have enough common ground and party discipline to govern effectively without bi-partisan support. If they cannot get a bill that generates real confidence of positive improvement in cost and access they should accept failure, and take their chances at the polls. A weak bill won’t change how the industry functions and a bill that does not improve matters on the ground will hurt them in 2010 more than no bill at all.

Disappointing but let’s be realistic. The war, cap and trade, apparently another supreme court retirement, and high unemployment all demand attention and political capital. Time to vote and move on.

Illegals don’t want to be covered by an Obama plan, because they currently receive free and unlimited healthcare under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

The patients crowding delivery rooms in some of this country’s busiest hospitals (including Parkland Memorial, the 2nd busiest) are 70% illegal immigrants, underwritten by financially strapped hospitals, our bankrupt Medicaid system and the US taxpayer.

//www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/061206dnmetmoms.d9b9669.html

The same is true of many routine, long-term treatments such as renal dialysis (and even multiple kidney transplants), at an eventual cost of more than $1,000,000 per illegal.

//seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008369322_immigdialysis09.html

Hospitals are never reimbursed for most of services that they are forced to provide to illegals under the law, while US citizens who subsidize the illegals’ free healthcare wait behind them in long lines for services.

This is both an outrage and an outrageous waste of money.

At the very least, make insurance MANDATORY for illegals (and citizens) now using emergency room services for FREE. It is illegal to drive a car without insurance, it should also be illegal to go to an emergency room without insurance and not pay.

This would save BILLIONS and get them and us out of emergency rooms and into legitimate primary care. Much cheaper and better outcome than the ER alternatives.

By the way, you are going to need at least 25,000 more doctors…better start building those medical schools now…

Health care is a human right.

Trying to be “bipartisan” with the current Republican party is like the civil-rights movement trying to be bipartisan with George Wallace and the White Citizens Council.

The bigger problem is that Baucus and Obama have turned reform of the health-care system into a giant giveaway to insurance companies, forcibly funded by the working-class people who are too rich for Medicaid and too poor to get insurance under the current system–the very people reform was supposed to help.

No matter how this goes, without bi-partisan support, a signiicant number of Americans will believe that an unwanted massive change has been forced down our throats. Note to Democrats: Expect to lose in 2010 if you vote for a one-party health bill.

Mr Grassley objects to support for abortion. Most commentators and activists on abortion seem to be men. I think we should require a wife’s permission for insurance to cover treatment for ED. He doesn’t want to cover illegal immigrants. Can a hospital , under this proscription, refuse treatment ? Are these folks immediately deported? He also does not want to require everyone to get insurance. This ignores the basic premise of insurance(shared risk)

Do you really think major legislation has to be bipartisan? That is totally wrong historically and shows your ignorance. How many Repubs. suipported Social Security in 1935 again? How many supported medicare? How about the Civil Rights act and Voting rights act?

The Republicans do not want a bill, do not know what they are talking about, and play the press like then stupid tools they are.

Read a little and drop the bipartisdan shibbiloth. You are Dead Wrong. And Grassley is a lying, manipulative crybaby who will never support anything. They prefer we get sick and not get treatment (and even die) rather than give a democratic president a “victory.”

You call this analysis? Terrible and weak, Mr Herszenhorne. Why not them out on their lies about immigrants and abortion? No, you just repeat their obstructionist lies.

Cann we get a new press? This one is an abject failure.

Re #1: “The far left and far right will never agree, but Congress needs to find an answer that is acceptable to at least 75% of Americans.”

Rather than describing why we need bipartisanship, this statement shows exactly why we need the Democrats to step up and go alone on health care.

Polling has consistently shown that the vast majority of Americans support the public option and other elements of the Democrats plans, while Republicans are so far out of the mainstream of American opinion that they are, or should be, irrelevant.

In the end, the goal is not bipartisanship. The goal is a bill that improves the lives of millions of Americans. And the past few months have demonstrated clearly that the best way to get there is to ignore the Republicans

What is the point of passing legislation, bipartisan or otherwise, that does not actually address any of the problems afflicting the health care system in the United States? The overwhleming focus on the horserace aspect of the politics appears to be obscuring the reason for undertaking reform in the first place.

The more I read and hear, the angrier I get.
First at Republicans for statements that are purely political and intentionally inflammatory– all other developed, capitalist countries have national healthcare legislation, in various guises, from single payer nationally funded to mandated private coverage with subsidies, and none of these countries have declared bankruptcy because of such coverage. Pick a model and imitate it, maybe add a few things like incentives to make medical records universally available with patient consent, and limits on medical malpractice suits and awards. Public and private insurance co-exist in all these countries. It even exists in the US(medicare insurance supplements being a clear example), so just tell those who say a public option will drive out all private insurers….”YOU LIE”.
Second, I am angry at the Democrats (including Pres. Obama) for their capitulating to insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists for dragging their feet and not standing up to them and Republicans for all the nonsense being bandied about.
Put together the best program possible based on what we have available here and what other countries offer and their experiences. Forget bi-partisanship, the Republican leadership has made it clear they are not interested. If the Democrats can really put together a good piece of legislation a few Republicans will vote for it despite their leadership position.
And whatever legislation is enacted will be forever subject to amendment and revision in the future. Get a good program in place now and let the future take care of itself

“The Finance Committee’s top Republican, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa – who is one of the so-called bipartisan six — issued a statement on Tuesday evening chastising the Democratic leaders and the White House for pushing forward on a bill that he said was not ready and that he could not yet support.”

Let’s face it- as long as Obama is in the White House and the Democrats are in majority, the Republicans (w/exception of Ms. Snowe) will NEVER be ready for true reform of healthcare.

Do it without them! We’ve studied this thing for decades!

So let me get this straight. If I do not have a job that provides health care, then the Congress and President’s plan to cover me is to pass a law forcing me to pay a new bill of up to around $800 per month… on top of my mortgage, two car payments, and everything else.

Does Congress and the President have any idea what is about to happen to them when they present this key element to the people? It’s is jaw-dropping crazy that they actually think this will be acceptable to the people.

Though this new bill may not be paid to the government, it is still required through government force and is a tax. I have a hard time finding the words to explain how utterly perplexed I am that this is actually happening. It is like watching a train-wreck in slow motion.

I saw Kent Conrad on CNBC this morning, proudly discussing the Finance Committee’s bill.
To paraphrase: *The GOP didn’t want a Public Option… there is no Public Option. The GOP didn’t want an Employer Mandate… there is no Employer Mandate. Same for funding of Abortions, Illegal Immigrants, etc.*
So, basically, Baucus/Conrad are negotiating a GOP bill, which the GOP won’t vote for. Shrewd.
And what of what the Majority of The People voted for, actual Health Care Reform??
Amazing how the Dems, including President Obama, are still acting like the Minority.

Without a public option, it’s just business as usual for the corporations.

Keep it simple and find a way for all human beings to have access to affordable health insurance and health care.

Business always has to change and improve with changing times, technologies and need for their product. Sometimes business goes out of business because times change, their product becomes obsolete or just isn’t needed anymore.

It’s time to change the FOR PROFIT industry of health insurance, jobs will still be required to manage the health insurance industry. Those at the top certainly have enough to retire or are smart enough to find another way to earn the excessive salaries they are accustomed to.

It’s time for working families to be more important than the profits of corporations. Our elected politicians have “theirs”, it’s time for all of us to have the same, if this is an impossible task…..then they need to do without also.

We need a public option for ALL human beings…..and we need it soon.

David, I hope you’ll go after the ninny who, on the landing page, included in the headline for your well-reported story the phrase, “opening gambit,” a classic redundancy. (A gambit is, by definition, an opening move.)

Or you could just send him or her down here to work at the Washington Post, in its well-staffed department of Insufferable Puns and Cliches.