Liberals Blast Baucus Plan
EmailABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Leading liberal groups are blasting the health care bill being offered today by Sen. Max Baucus, in biting dismissals that don’t bode well for the bill’s chances of attracting Democratic support. Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org, called the bill a “dream come true for the insurance industry,” and was particularly critical of the lack of a public option in the measure. “The Baucus bill will not solve the health care crisis that plagues millions of Americans, and fails to meet the basic tenets on successful reform laid out by President Obama,” Ruben said in a statement. “The insurance companies have found their champion in Senator Baucus. The only good news is that the senator stands nearly alone in supporting his bill.” The National Coalition on Health Care, an umbrella organization that’s working on behalf of Democratic reform efforts, issued a statement expressing “deep disappointment” in the draft being offered by Baucus, D-Mont. “We do not believe that this plan would achieve affordable, quality health care reform for everyone. Very importantly, it does not appear to incorporate the necessary short-term and long-term cost containment measures that would make a new health care reform law sustainable,” the coalition said. Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager of Health Care for America Now, also offered a stinging critique: “The Baucus bill is a gift to the insurance industry that fails to meet the most basic promise of health care reform: a guarantee that Americans will have good health care that they can afford. The Baucus bill would give a government-subsidized monopoly to the private insurance industry to sell their most profitable plans — high-deductible insurance — without having to face competition from a public health insurer.” The bill is being met coolly by Republicans as well. None of the three Republicans who have been part of extensive negotiations inside the Finance Committee with Baucus have signed on to the proposal, and GOP Senate leadership has labeled it a “partisan proposal” that cuts Medicare while expanding overall government spending.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
is the Baucus bill the one that forces Americans, legal citizens and residents that is, to give their money to a private, for-profit corporation under penalty of law? How is it legal, moral, or Constitutional to FORCE us to give money to a PRIVATE, for-profit entity like an insurance company? Is there any “opting out” for religious, moral, or other objections? Can someone “opt out” by self-insuring and putting money aside in an escrow or health savings plan? Or will EVERYONE be forced to give more money to the profit making insurance conglomerates?
ps: LIVING is not DRIVING, Baucus. Driving is a privledge- hence insurance is mandatory. You shouldn’t have to pay a private corporation simply for living.
Posted by: Ed | September 16, 2009, 1:42 pm 1:42 pm
This slime Baucus has taken more money from the Insurance company Lobbyist, Then most Senators No Public Option is a HUGE WIN For the Insurance company vote this bum out with his pathetic bill!
Posted by: Angie in Pa | September 16, 2009, 1:52 pm 1:52 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
If you wanna screw something, anything, up, get a liberal involved.
These “leaders” are a walking/talking joke. The 60% Democratic Senate can pass a liberal bill as soon as they want. But why haven’t they? Because when taxpayers are on the hook for all this new spending, LIBERALS do not want to take the blame, or responsibility, when it crashes and burnes us and many future generations. AS USUAL!!!
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
Posted by: enough already | September 16, 2009, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
There’s nothing wrong with this bill. It’s a very strong, but necessary compromise and ALL stakeholders are deeply compromising. It’s a fair bill though – no-one is getting a free ride and the major points are addressed. It beats HR 3200 hands down. In that bill, federal funds were tied to hiring and training minorities. It was a very race-based bill. You’ve got to read these bills before you make comments and do not rely on the msm to summarize the info for you…
Posted by: Why2 | September 16, 2009, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
WHERE’S THE COMPETITION?
Posted by: Charlotte L. Adcock | September 16, 2009, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
It’s true. This must be “manna from heaven” for the insurance companies. Millions of people must buy insurance from the private companies and there is no competition. I guess we should buy stock in the insurance companies.
Posted by: lolliebtr | September 16, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
Health care reform is dead. When are they going to figure it out? Obama and the Democrats keep hoping a miracle will happen, like a trillion dollars will fall out of the sky to pay for all this. They can move around the numbers as much as they like, but in the end it’s always a compromise. Nobody, liberal or conservative, will be pleased, and the public will be horrified at the cost and angry that’s it’s being crammed down their throats.
Posted by: betsy | September 16, 2009, 3:25 pm 3:25 pm
No. No. No. No! Everyone reading this needs to help others understand that both this legislation and the Obama proposals make health insurance compulsory. Nobody has been talking about this because everyone has been distracted by the whole death panel weirdness. Making it illegal to not have health insurance is not going to help people who are struggling to get health insurance. People are scared enough about losing health insurance without having the additional worry about being penalized by the government for not having health insurance. What is the strategy here? Kill off people without insurance through stress and worry so that they no longer cause our uninsured statistics to look bad? I’m scared of losing my insurance already, but if it’s between eating and having health insurance, I have to eat. These people are out of touch with reality. Unless they’re talking about making insurance so affordable that it’s something like $25—$50 per month, we have to say not to mandated health insurance. Plus, think of the implications of compulsory health insurance. Some people compare it to compulsory auto insurance, but that isn’t a fair comparison. You have other options for transportation. You can walk, or bike for free without insurance. You can take a cab, you can take a bus. But, with compulsory health insurance, you don’t have a choice. And without an extremely affordable public option, and I mean affordable to the guy just barely keeping himself from living under a bridge, it’s absolutely unjust and unfair. This legislation does not help the poor, it torments them even more.
Posted by: Josh in TX | September 16, 2009, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm
Josh in TX
Well put. I pay $96 a month in my group policy. With my $500 deductible, I currently pay about $1700 a year for good coverage. Now, if and when my employer drops this policy because it becomes to expensive with all the new goverment add-ons, I will be forced to join one of these Baucus co-ops. If not the feds are gonna fine me $3800 dollars? Come and try and take it, cuase I won’t have it. And even if I did, I can spend it better than a DC bureaucrat.
Posted by: enough already | September 16, 2009, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm
The belief or thought that you can contain costs in health care without a public option is absurd. Baucus’ bill if it attracts even one Republican tells me it’s a sell out.
Posted by: agostinho | September 16, 2009, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
If the Party of No is against it, it must be a wholesome bill. Now let’s ask Joe “You lie!” Wilson, just to make sure . . .
Posted by: clever bob | September 16, 2009, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
Someone asked: How is it legal, moral, or Constitutional to FORCE us to give money to a PRIVATE, for-profit entity like an insurance company?
Well, as has been pointed out elsewhere, this happens all the time – it’s a requirement of driving a car that you do exactly that. The “individual mandate” actually doesn’t seem that obnoxious when you consider we’ve already defined it a human right to receive emergency health-care. I’d much rather we explicitly make people – ESPECIALLY illegals – pay for that up-front rather than make the rest of us subsidize it when they show up in hospitals…
…except we won’t really be making THEM pay, as we should – we’ll be providing billions in subsidies. So instead of illegals taking our money in emergency rooms, they’ll take it up-front and give it to insurance companies who’ll pay for the emergency rooms with a cut off the top. That doesn’t sound better…so in actuality, the “individual mandate” makes a lot of sense, AS LONG AS IT’S NOT SUBSIDIZED
Posted by: ds | September 16, 2009, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
So many GOP are in the insurance companies’ pockets because they’ve been getting big campaign donations from them for years. To write any bill that would in the least way upset these companies now would be political suicide. No wonder whatever they write will favor these wealthy fat cats and leave people who can barely afford (or not afford at all) decent health insurance IN THE LURCH.
Posted by: rmbrown0926 | September 16, 2009, 3:51 pm 3:51 pm
I share everyones feelings on here. This bill is a “special gift” to the insurance industry. Insurers saw the press release and started popping champaigne. No government option, so companies pop up and make billions, drop folks with pre-existing conditions, or deny coverage. If Obama signs this plan, he will be impeached.
Posted by: nubiangent08 | September 16, 2009, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
The plan from the pile of 6 has to much excrement on its pages. It might as well have been written by the insurance companies. Forcing people to buy private insurance or fine them if they don’t. No public option to hold prices in check. They were trying to legalise extortion. It’s already DOA.
Posted by: rightbehind | September 16, 2009, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm
Just two facts:
1) Reuters on 09/15/2009: “Aetna CEO sees support lacking for public plan”
2) From mid June Aetna stock (AET) is up from low of ca. $23 to $31 as of today.
Any questions who is benefiting from the Baucus’ bill?
Posted by: H1N!Hysteria | September 16, 2009, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
Ed writes, “Is there any “opting out” for religious, moral, or other objections?”
Count me as a conscientious objector to *any* government plan.
Additional legislation and government regulations to repair defects induced by government regulations is an exercise in insanity – doing the same thing expecting different results.
Posted by: bud | September 16, 2009, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm
To the imbeciles who continually state that the insurance companies are in the back pockets of the Republicans may I just point out Americans for Stable Quality Care?
Do Dems really know just how many backroom deals this group is involved in?
Do Dems even care who the members are that are in this group?
Republicans, my fanny.
Posted by: Ed | September 16, 2009, 11:20 pm 11:20 pm
Nobody wins here.
People that don’t want insurance will be fined. The last 18 pages I saw from Baucus said if insurance companies can’t cover individuals for under $8000 and families for under $21,000 they will be fined 35% (like the Chinese tires)
If any of these plans are worthwhile, why did Congress exclude themselves, federal employees and unions ? Like Dr Phil says, they don’t have a dog in this fight. Not one, including the President in his speech, has told the American taxpayers why they excluded themselves, especially since you and I pay for theirs, often while going without ourselves.
With so many against this Bill, why does Congress continue to push what we don’t want ? It would be less expensive to pay the medical bills of the uninsured, than pass this Bill.
Posted by: AnnieG | September 17, 2009, 4:38 am 4:38 am
856 Billion Dollars. Paid for by us suckers. I don’t think you need to say anything else.
This is why you never, ever, ever ever vote for Democrats.
Posted by: rjflorida | September 17, 2009, 8:50 am 8:50 am
Zero is a worthless Kenyan fraud and his attempt to usurp personal liberties through statist regulations will not work.The sentient,ie those that never fell for Barry’s shucking jiving mendacity,are amused to see the dolts that did up in arms over his radical agenda.What the hell did you think this petulant twit was,he’s an incompetent no nothing coke snorting community organizer.Barry be foundering,let him sink in his sea of ignorance.
Posted by: jcat | September 17, 2009, 10:50 am 10:50 am
It’s not about the cost of tax money. If we had a government option (or single payer) we would be paying WAAAAY LESS than we have to pay for private insurance, and we’d get better care!
Baucus has CLEARLY been bought out by the insurance companies! You can’t require health care, while not giving a public option! Sure, you can give tax rebates to the low and lower middle class, making it essentially cheap or free for them, but there’s no competition! There’s no method to hold them to the mandates!
THIS IS A TERRIBLE PLAN! All liberals, please oppose this! Baucus is NOT representing the desires of the people!
We need single payer or government option! Without that, it’s still for-profit, and it will still be nothing but throwing money at corporations to watch us die for profit! Baucus needs to go!
Posted by: Williamm | September 20, 2009, 10:48 pm 10:48 pm
Posted by Ed:
If any of these plans are worthwhile, why did Congress exclude themselves, federal employees and unions ? Like Dr Phil says, they don’t have a dog in this fight.
——————-
Dead on. They need to put their money where their mouth is. They need to remove themselves from THEIR public insurance option if they are going to deny US. It’s the most hypocritical thing I’ve seen the government do in quite some time.
Real liberals, oppose this!
If this goes through, we need a 3rd party. We need better than that, we need a proportional representative government. We need 5 or 6 parties, a 3-5% threshold to get government representation, and we need the democrats and republicans to break apart so that true liberals can vote for true liberals, and fiscal conservatives are separate from anti-abortion, separate from anti-immigration and pro-war.
Posted by: Williamm | September 20, 2009, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm
This Baucus plan is a joke. This guy is not doing the american people any help for healthcare reform. Instead, he is just trying to help the insurance companies. What a joke, i can’t believe they won’t get a public option. Baucus probably gets kick backs from the insurance companies. Obama had a good plan, but this Baucus plan is a joke!!!
Posted by: jkl32778 | October 14, 2009, 2:21 am 2:21 am