Health-Care Reform Enters Mexican Standoff Phase
Max Baucus scored a big win for health-care reformers last week when he put together a reform plan that the CBO deemed as actually cutting the deficit over both the first and second decade. I think the score is a bit of a cheat—relying on Medicare cuts that are unlikely to actually pass to achieve savings—but at this point, the argument is moot: Somewhat technical arguments about CBO methodology aren't likely to make much of an impact.
But while the Baucus plan is a major step forward for reformers, it's not without problems. Indeed, Democrats seem unanimous only in agreeing that it needs work. All in all, 564 amendments were filed in hopes of changing the bill.
And it looks as if several of the key amendments coming from the left side of the aisle would all make the bill more expensive—and make it tougher to hold onto that shiny CBO score. According to Politico, requested changes include reducing the hardship exemption and raising the threshhold at which gold-plated health-care insurance would be taxed. In other words, they want to provide more assistance. But that makes the legislation cost more.
It remains to be seen how much these and other potential changes will alter the bill's final score. And then there's still the matter of combining the Baucus plan with other bills. Liberals are going to push for changes that add to the cost. Moderates are going to resist such changes. And the White House is going to push to keep the plan from heading back into deficit-raising territory: Obama's one firm commitment throughout the debate has been that he won't sign any plan that adds to the deficit. It's very nearly a Mexican standoff over spending—and balancing all of the competing concerns will be difficult, perhaps impossible.
It's already come at a cost: Other priorities, like cap-and-trade, are falling by the wayside, and whether or not reform passes, Democrats are going to face a tough election in 2010. Max Baucus may have found a path past the CBO, but it's not clear if enough of his fellow Democrats will be willing to follow him down it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I have nothing agains Mexican immigrants per se, but it's about time someone confronted Obamacare on this point! No way Jose (pun INTENDED) that my tax dollars are going to fund a bunch of illegals laying anchor baby seeds in US soil.
"This country was founded on the blood, sweat, and tears of LEGAL immigrants."
George Will
Does everyone get shot in a Mexican stand-off? If so, I now approve the Baucus bill.
approve of
Damnit.
"Somewhat technical arguments about CBO methodology aren't likely to make much of an impact."
How about the "somewhat technical" argument that the CBO has already been proven spectacularly wrong in estimating the cost of every entitlement program they have ever issued a forcast on - like Medicare.
"NO WAY, JOSE! Uncle Enzo holding up one hand to stop an Uzi-toting Hispanic scumbag; behind him stands a pan-ethnic phalanx of kids and grannies, resolutely gripping baseball bats and frying pans."
!!! Healthcare Reform is DOOMED !!!
It is slightly off topic, but VOA and Reuters are reporting that Obama now claims that if we do not immediately deal with global warming now, we will do "irreparable damage" to the planet.
Which is exactly what he said about passing the stimulus package, passing his budget, passing health care reform by the end of June, the end of July, before the August recess.....
Can't he come up with a better BS line than this? At least a new one, for crying out loud?
Nah Wicks... Let the man keep crying wolf. It's the best possible way I can think of to get the American populous to realize at least a bit that even sacred cows like Obama are just the same type of lying idiot who pervades democratic politics.
Mexican Standoff
Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist!
Obama are just the same type of lying idiot who pervades democratic politics.
Yea, we need the honesty and integrity found in the republican party.
Alice. Learn that we are libertarians here. Not republicans. Also learn that the world isn't made up of "two" types of people, but hundreds of millions or billions of types of people. Quit being retarded.
"Also learn that the world isn't made up of "two" types of people, but hundreds of millions or billions of types of people"
No ust two groups: people who aren't stupid assholes and Alice Bowie.
Last I checked, I lived and voted in America. And, only Ross Perot came close to a third party.
It's either this or that.
Trust me guys, I'd love an alternative...any alternative at this point.
We need something other than a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, majority in the House, and White House all held by the same party.
"Last I checked, I lived and voted in America. And, only Ross Perot came close to a third party."
And exactly why is this the case, Alice? Could it possibly have something to do with idiots like yourself operating their whole lives on false dichotomies and never considering the viability of any alternatives? Oh I think it could be.
"populous" is an English adjective meaning "densely populated; having a large population."
The word you're looking for, populus, is a Latin noun meaning "people; the people; the nation"
Not to be nitpicky or anything. This one is common enough that it annoys me frequently.
true enough.
I think people are missing the boat here. What's important here is that we have something bipartisan. Although I am not religious, I pray every night that our Dem/Rep leaders are happy with a bill. What's more inspiring to the 300 million plus of the rest of us than some fantastic Capitol Hill self-congratulating overlords full of euphoria over their bi-partisan "hard work?" It's not easy satisfying lobbyists. It's tricky getting re-elected. However, in the end, seeing Dems and Reps hand in hand, thanking each other, smiling with self-serving gratification, citizens should be grateful that they just got something done. 300 million plus ingrates. Maybe a good photo op with a hug between Baucus and Grassley will change your unappreciative attitudes! You take a couple of piles a crap, run it through a special interest mixer, and voila - bipartisan fertilizer. It may cost you, your children, and grandchildren for decades to come, but that's really beside the point isn't it? A little bipartisan magic, a little bill signing ceremony for the prez, and a big delicious pile of crap for rest of us! Free minds and free markets - that doesn't sound very bipartisan to me!
Doesn't seem to be all that different than the previous problems: liberal Democrats want something big and expensive and moderate Democrats want something slightly less big and slightly less expensive. I still am not convinced that these people can pass a major bill.
"Could it possibly have something to do with idiots like yourself operating their whole lives on false dichotomies and never considering the viability of any alternatives? Oh I think it could be."
har.
Sadly that is just half the problem. The other half is the winner-by-district way in which we elect our federal (as well as, coincidently, every state) representatives. Countries that have multi-party systems generally use something else. i.e. proportional representation.
I'm a libertarian through and through but I just recently changed my party status to Republican.
It could, but don't fool yourself into thinking that a majority of the American people would vote for libertarians if they just thought they could win. People claim to be libertarian all the time. But it generally means "libertarian for me but not for thee."
I'm a libertarian through and through but I just recently changed my party status to Republican.
I always thought of libertarians as republicans rather than democrats.
A libertarian is usually a social moderate and fiscal conservative. Believe it or not, not all republicans are religious-right-wing. I'd think most republicans are probably libertarians that don't hold civil liberties as sacred.
Oh. And libertarians probably don't want War.
Also learn that the world isn't made up of "two" types of people
I tend to agree with Sean, but must correct him on this.
There *are* two types of people: those who divide people into two types; and those who do not.
Rich, you just made my robot's head explode. I hope you're happy.
Look at the voice of Healthcare in America Now!!!
It's clearly two voices:
a>Those who want to fund healthcare for all
b>Those who don't want to fund healthcare for all.
"Alice. Learn that we are libertarians here. Not republicans. Also learn that the world isn't made up of "two" types of people, but hundreds of millions or billions of types of people. Quit being retarded."
It would have been helpful, for the sake of clarity, to explain whether you were referring to the party or to the system of government. While your capitalization suggests the latter, such rules are not rigorously followed on internet forum discussion.
If misinterpreted as a partisan jab, it's not unexpected to receive a return in kind. A more appropriate response to Alice Bowie's post may have been to perceive and rectify the misunderstanding.
Does all include sex offenders who are out of jail or prison?