As the Senate reconvenes for the remainder of July, the attention of many following the Healthcare Horserace will turn to Senator Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee. A month after Senator Ted Kennedy tested the waters with the Affordable Health Choices Act and only weeks after the House of Representatives floated its own version of healthcare reform, many believe any real chance of a bipartisan bill making it to the desk of President Obama will originate within Finance. Perhaps the biggest hurdle facing Baucus is the decision to spend or not to spend. And within that decision may lie the fate of not only the American healthcare system but that of the Democrat majority in Congress.
All indications are that Baucus is committed to producing a healthcare reform bill with a projected cost of no more than $1 trillion over the next decade - significantly lower than the $1.6 trillion price tag on his first attempt that saw the Congressional Budget Office and Blue Dog Democrats send him back to the drawing board. To many, this is the worst of both worlds. Much to the ire of conservatives, it will still likely mean a significant tax increase for working Americans. It will also mean a significant step back from the promise of universal healthcare that ushered the Democrats into power last November. Of course, the alternative is to ignore the price tag and deliver on the promise of universal healthcare risking adding what some estimate to be as much as $3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade.
Given these two scenarios, Democrats would appear to believe that passing a watered down reform package is preferable to failing to deliver a bill for the President’s signature before Congress breaks for the year in late October. Polling and the daily headlines would seem to indicate otherwise.
While nearly every poll on healthcare reform concludes that the majority of Americans believe the healthcare system is flawed and should be reformed, a recent Washington Post - ABC News poll indicates that a majority of the same are concerned about the direction and tone Democrats have taken on reform.
Most respondents are “very concerned” that health-care reform would lead to higher costs, lower quality, fewer choices, a bigger deficit, diminished insurance coverage and more government bureaucracy. About six in 10 are at least somewhat worried about all of these factors, underscoring the challenges for lawmakers as they attempt to restructure the nation’s $2.3 trillion health-care system.
That message hasn’t deterred those on the far left who believe nothing short of a government takeover of the healthcare system will remedy the fraud and spiraling costs associated with healthcare insurance. A little more than a week ago, former Democratic National Committee chairman (and former presidential hopeful) Howard Dean drew a clear line in the sand on the reform issue:
“We are here; we’re not going away. We voted for change a few months ago. We expect change. And if we don’t get it, there’s going to be more change.”
Specifically, Dean is pushing hard for the controversial public option insurance plan which has become the litmus test on healthcare reform for the far left who don’t believe they can get passage of a single-payer system akin to that of Canada. These are the very same people who ushered Democrats into power less than a year ago and who Dean promises will send Democrats packing if they don’t deliver. Nearly 40,000 supporters have signed Dean’s online petition to support the public option.
Polls by CNN and Quinnipiac heading into the holiday weekend indicate that the price tag associated with direct government intervention and the very real concern that the quality of care many Americans receive would actually decrease under a public option are causing the majority of Americans to lose their appetite for the kind of reform Democrats are offering. It would seem that a battle is brewing within the Democrat party.
There is, however, another option should Baucus prove brave enough.
Last week, HealthcareHorserace.com’s Ellen Carmichael reported on an alternative plan offered by Republican Senator Jim DeMint.
“This is a bill that we can proud to stand behind,” Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform explained in an interview with Healthcare Horserace (last week). “It is not a massive expansion of government. It won’t raise taxes. It won’t increase regulation. It won’t mean more spending.”
Indeed, it seems that conservative leaders understand the apprehension of the American people to spend more money, causing a never-ending deficit spiral for the federal government. DeMint’s bill would include tax credits for the uninsured, in the form of $2,000 per individual or $5,000 per family, that would be funded entirely by the return of TARP money. The GOP is, in essence, “killing two birds with one stone”: capitalizing on the Americans’ frustration with the bailouts and returning more dollars to the taxpayers.
Historical precedent dictates that at least sitting down with DeMint and his colleagues to consider using their bill as a starting point for a compromise plan would be a smart political play. It was President Obama’s own chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel who pointed out the potential dangers of leaving Republicans out in the cold during a recent D.C. media luncheon.
Once he was through defending the current plan, Emanuel turned to a role he is quite familiar with - that of the attack dog. Emanuel was quick to point out the savvy of the Obama Administration and how it would succeed where the Clintons failed. Specifically, he pointed to the missed opportunity to pass a bipartisan bill with the support of former Republican Senator from Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee.
The difference between Chafee and Clinton was employer vs. employee mandate. And those who weren’t there, Clinton was for employer, Chafee was for employee. After that, you could pretty much write it all off, as just kind of like, nothing.
I for one begged, just bring him into the oval, look him in the eyes, and say we’re going to call it the Chafee Bill, He had 33 Republicans at that time on his bill, it could be 32, but it was in the 30s. And just say, I have one change I would like, but we’re gonna call it your bill.
So, and I think if you look back, there was a big mistake.
Baucus may have an opportunity to pursue compromise while saving face with the extreme left compliments of Joe Lieberman. Baucus is expected to meet with Lieberman and an ad hoc group of moderate senators over the next two weeks as the Independent from Connecticut looks to play peacemaker in the healthcare wars in Washington, D.C. after breaking ranks with the Democrat caucus last week over the public option insurance plan.
With the ball squarely in Baucus’ court for the next several weeks, the senator from Montana has quickly outdistanced President Obama as the most powerful man in Washington, D.C. The question now is to spend or not to spend?
Tags: ABC News, Affordable Health Choices Act, Barack Obama, Blue Dog Democrats, Canadian-style healthcare, Congressional Budget Office, Democrats, Grover Norquist, healthcare reform, House of Representatives, Howard Dean, Jim DeMint, Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, October deadline, public-option, Rahm Emanuel, Republicans, Senate, Senate Finance Committee, single-payer system, Ted Kennedy, Washington Post
