KHN: Kaiser Health News

Topics:

Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘finance committee’

« Older Entries

Just Thinking About…The ‘Public Option’

Looks like a final Senate health overhaul bill could be unveiled this week, and it’s certain to be another monumental paper stack for commentators around the nation to parse through.

The Heritage Foundation compiled a graphic (above) comparing the size of various bills, with the Finance Committee coming in at over 1,500 pages. 

Heritage’s Read Hederman writes:

[W]hat really has Congress League fans talking is that, for the first time in fifteen years, a team has set a new all-time division record for gigantic, unintelligible, unaffordable, over-regulatory, federal legislation.

Indeed, the big news is that S. 1796 has dethroned the previous all-time champion  in the League’s Health Division — the 1993 Clinton “Health Security Act” (S.1757, 103rd season). For nearly a decade and a half, the record set by the 1,364-page “Clinton Bill” — or “the doorstop,” as health policy experts, many of whom still keep souvenir copies on their bookshelves, affectionately know it — stood unchallenged. Not any more. With its extra 138 pages of heft, the Finance Committee bill beat the old Clinton bill record by a full ten percent!

Of course, the particulars of the Senate’s final bill are still in doubt, especially when it comes to the eternal “Will there be a ‘public plan option’” question.

We may know the answer sooner than anticipated: TPMDC’s Brian Beutler reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nev., is set to give a bill combining the HELP and Finance Committee efforts to the Congressional Budget Office today for a score.  According to Beutler, “A highly placed source suggests that bill is likely to include a public option with an opt out clause, despite the fact that the White House is skeptical that this is the most politically viable strategy.”

But Cato’s Michael Cannon calls the possibility of an “opt-out” for states “a ruse within a ruse.” Cannon, who refers to a public plan option as “Fannie Med,” argues: “State officials are obsessed with maximizing their share of federal dollars.  Voters will crucify officials who opt out.  Fannie Med supporters know that.  They’re counting on it. A state opt-out provision does not make Fannie Med any more moderate.  It is not a concession.”

Others are reporting that lawmakers are frustrated with the White House’s (lack of?) position on a public plan.   (more…)

Monday, October 26th, 2009

Tags: , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Looking for More

 Bloggers continue to focus on the various facets of the health overhaul debate, in particular, that the Finance Committee bill needs additional funding.

Bob Laszewski pounds away at the Finance Committee bill, which he argues could “make access even more problematic” because of insufficient subsidies for middle-income families in the context of a weakened individual mandate.  Laszewski also takes time to blast AHIP for bad PR strategy, saying, “I swear, if AHIP issued a press release on a crystal clear day telling DC the sun was shining no one would believe them.”

Heritage’s Brian Darling is upset with reports that the health overhaul bills are being crafted “in secret:” “Democracy does not begin and end on Election Day for the American people. Whether you are for or against Obamacare, we the people deserve an opportunity to read, digest and understand the most important health care legislation to be debated in the United States Senate in our lifetime. The American people relied upon the promise of the Obama Administration and the leadership in Congress to be open and transparent, therefore it is time to stop the closed door negotiations and allow the American people to participate in the democratic process.”

Health Beat’s Maggie Mahar argues that insurers are “running scared” because “the public sector option is still alive.” With this point, she says she means “Medicare E (Medicare for everyone)” which she describes as “a public option for patients under 65, run by the federal government.  The scent of real competition is what has insurers on the run.”

Perhaps the public option is still breathing, but according to Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, not because of much help from President Obama: “Is this leadership?  It’s a passive-aggressive approach that leaves both progressives and moderates in Obama’s own party twisting in the wind.  Obama wants his advisers to take all of the flak from progressive action groups that will result from a retreat on government-run health insurance, but doesn’t have the stomach to take that hit himself.  The end result is confusion among legislators on Capitol Hill, and further entrenchment on either side of the issue.”

The New Republic’s staff editorial argues that lawmakers’ “desire to expand health insurance coverage exceeds their willingness to pay for it,” and they need to find more money for the health bills but are running into roadblocks:

With so many ways to raise revenue, finding some combination capable of winning majorities in both chambers would seem simple. It isn’t. Liberals don’t like the insurance excise tax, in no small part because unions don’t want it affecting older workers who won generous benefits in past collective bargaining agreements. Centrists want no part of taxes outside the health care system, particularly those that target the wealthy. And neither group seems seriously interested in extracting more concessions from the health care industry, which may have a little something to do with the fact that it bankrolls so many political campaigns.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein uses an answer from Sen. Olympia Snowe to take a big picture look at health reform efforts this year, arguing, “We have a conservative system of government (in that it’s very hard to change the status quo), and [Democratic lawmakers] designed health-care reform to be sensitive to that fact.”

Mark Trahant looks at another issue in the health overhaul debate: an exemption for Indian Americans to the requirement to purchase insurance.  According to Trahant, “But even if you agree with the exemption – as I do – there remains another issue to resolve, the money. Unless health care reform substantially improves the funding stream for the Indian health care delivery system, then the individual exemption is only a guarantee of permanent disparity.”

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

The Morning After

Before we get to commentary on the political ramifications of the Senate Finance Committee’s vote , something lighter: the New York Times’ David Herszenhorn offers a glimpse into less reported happenings during the bill markup, where committee staff is often summoned to answer questions:

“Thank you, Mr. Schwartz!” [Sen. Ensign] declared.

The exhausted but still chipper staffer looked up at the dais. “My pleasure,” he said. And the entire committee room, including senators, busted up laughing.

“Very civil,” quipped Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and the committee chairman.

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder’s “Question of the Day” asks whether Republican Olympia Snowe’s vote means “comprehensive health care reform will pass?”

The New America Foundation’s Len Nichols is keeping (his own) hope alive: “The hope of bipartisan and comprehensive health care legislation lives on today thanks to the vote in the Finance Committee of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).  The bill reported out of the Finance Committee is bipartisan.  Not just because it received support from members of both parties, but because you can see both Republican and Democratic values in the solution.”

Charles Murray writes on AEI’s Enterprise Blog that political compromises made the bill “so that it no longer makes any sense in terms of the way real human beings respond to incentives.”

Commentators have spent the last several weeks picking over the committee’s bill but yesterday’s vote clears to way to discuss the next challenge: merging all five bills.

Heritage’s Conn Carroll cautions: “Now all of the other bills will be merged together behind the closed doors. All the bills are fundamentally flawed and will only get worse as the leaders in the House and Senate have to commit to actual details.”

Bob Laszewski is eyeing the next challenge – Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “The more important effort will be Reid’s. Pelosi’s final product will be more predictable (very liberal) but Reid’s will have to be more practical. Every inch Reid moves away from the more moderate Baucus bill will cause problems.  The big issue is going to be money—just whose taxes are going to get raised to the tune of $500 billion to pay for it.”

But Jeffrey Anderson of Critical Condition thinks “a lingering fact threatens to overshadow all the back-slapping and the toasts:  The Congressional Budget Office projections indicate that, over the next 20 years, the Baucus bill would cost $3.6 trillion and would increase taxes on the American people by $2.3 trillion.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky provides a nice comparison chart and thinks a lack of broader GOP support for a more moderate bill means Democratic leaders should craft a final bill that’s more progressive: “The GOP’s rejection of a bipartisan health care bill that actually reduces the deficit should empower Majority Leader Reid to secure a progressive bill that retains Snowe’s support. After all, Repubicans have indicated that they will not support the proposal. In a statement released today, Republican Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) asserted this is not real reform. ‘The fact is, this proposal will never come before the Senate.’”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn lists 10 reform items “worth fighting for.”  He begins, “But if it’s hard to imagine a scenario under which health reform falls apart, it’s not hard to imagine a scenario under which health reform turns out to be something that makes reformers wince.”  Cohn says lawmakers should increase subsidies, include some version of a public plan, strengthen exchanges and “stiffen” the individual mandate, among others.

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Snowe Day

With a 14-9 vote the Senate Finance Committee has passed its health overhaul bill.  Republican Olympia Snowe’s “yes” decision was the most anticipated of the day, leading liberal power site The Huffington Post ran with the headline “SNOWE MELTS.”  Here’s what others had to say:

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey: “Charles Grassley predicted that the Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee would stick together on the final panel vote on the Baucus health-care overhaul plan.  Unfortunately, he didn’t reckon on colleague Olympia Snowe’s desire to make ‘history,’ which apparently trumps fiscal responsibility and common sense.  Snowe will vote to pass the non-bill, giving Democrats some much-needed political cover.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “[health reform has] a high-profile Republican supporter in the Senate. There are compromises left to be made, and bad days left to be endured, but health-care reform has the votes. It has them in the House. It has them in the Senate. It looks to have enough of them, in fact, to overcome a filibuster. That is to say, it looks to have enough of them to actually become law.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein: “This is a good headline for Democrats today, but it doesn’t solve the underlying friction between moderate and liberal members of Congress. … Everything will hinge on whether House liberals cave in on their demand for a government plan, or dig in.”

Critical Condition’s Tevi Troy says Snowe could have “driven a better bargain” and continues “this probably locks her in to voting for the final package, as she would make no new friends by switching at this point. Furthermore, I think that she loses leverage for any additional concessions she might want, as the Dems will now look elsewhere among both conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans (read: Susan Collins) to boost their numbers.”

The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber: “now that Snowe has voted for the bill in committee, she can basically dictate the terms of the final bill. (Anyone wondering about the havoc she might wreak need only look at the stimulus.) That’s because, if you alienate her during the forthcoming negotiations, her defection from the final bill would be disastrous.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volksy: “Some have speculated that the recent insurance industry report encouraged Snowe to vote in favor of reform. The insurance industry attacked Snowe’s amendments to lower the penalties for Americans who don’t meet the requirements of the individual mandate and the senator harshly condemned the industry’s conclusions. ‘It wasn’t based on any valid assumptions,’ she said.”

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

Tags: ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Anticipating The Finance Vote

nyt conversationsThe New York Times is inviting readers to start a conversation as the Senate Finance Commitee finally ends its own — members are scheduled to vote shortly on the committee’s health overhaul bill, the product of months-long negotiations and the last major congressional panel to take up reform.

The only committee member tweeting today is Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who announces (unsurprisingly) “I will be voting against the Finance Committee health care bill today.”

Commentators are still buzzing about the insurance industry’s unexpected Sunday night report (pdf) saying the committee’s bill would significantly raise premiums.     

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reports on the reaction: “Hoping to pop this trial balloon before it expands,  the White House and allies have counterpunched with an alacrity unfamiliar to Democrats. They’re first attacking the industry’s motives, which isn’t surprising. The Senate Finance Committee’s health staff, on the White House’s urging, held an unprecedented background call with more than 50 reporters this afternoon to rebut the report’s substance.”

Politico’s Chris Frates has his own summary of remarks from report author PriceWaterhouseCoopers: “Hey, we weren’t paid to evaluate the effects of the entire bill, but rather a small slice of it.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein looks at numbers being floated by the White House compiled by MIT economist Jon Gruber, and says, “Gruber certainly has a lot less incentive to twist the facts than the insurance industry does, and his numbers, at least, are free from any glaring deficiencies.”

And National Journal’s Marilyn Werber-Serafini queries her experts, “How much merit is there [to the report]?” Thoughtful but predictable responses follow from Michael Cannon, John Goodman, Len Nichols and Ron Pollack.

snowe pollMany reports are focused on how Republican Olympia Snowe, Maine, will vote, but The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn reports that “one Democrat also remains a question mark: Ron Wyden.”  An interview follows.

Cato’s Michael Cannon looks beyond today’s vote and predicts trouble: “The problem that Democrats have faced from Day One is finally coming to a head. The Left and the health care industry both want universal health insurance coverage.  The industry, because universal coverage means massive new government subsidies. The Left, because that’s their religion. But universal coverage is so expensive that Congress can’t get there without taxing Democrats.”

Elsewhere, the Galen Institute has launched a new health reform site, healthreformhub.org that rounds up conservative analyses and opinion.

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

AHIP’S Awakening

On the eve of the Senate Finance Committee vote, America’s Health Insurance Plans, the key insurer lobby, has emerged from the sidelines with a critical new study (pdf) by PriceWaterhouseCoopers that finds the bill will increase the average cost of a family plan.

The insurance lobby was a key opponent of President Clinton’s reform plan in 1994, most famously producing the “Harry and Louise” ads, supported the broad principles of the Democratic health overhaul intiatives.  Bloggers are wondering if this apparent change in course could be a game-changer in the larger debate.

Politico’s Chris Frates headlines his post “And The Knives Come Out” and writes, “This could be a turning point that the White House and Baucus worked hard to avoid – when industry begins to publicly oppose Democratic reforms.”

Tevi Troy of the National Review’s Critical Condition says “Losing the insurers at this late hour is a blow to the White House’s hopes of keeping key industries aboard as the Baucus bill approaches a Finance Committee vote tomorrow. In addition, the study is giving Republicans ammunition against the Baucus bill.” He goes on to note: “trying to prevent people from feeling actual health-cost increases is one of the reasons that American health-care costs so much in the first place.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein jokes, “In the hallowed tradition of the tobacco and energy industries, the health insurance industry has commissioned a report projecting doom and despair for those who seek to reform its business practices.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn says though PriceWaterhouseCoopers is probably “right about a few things,” the report makes several assumptions: “Plenty of experts, including the CBO, don’t think health care providers will simply charge private insurers more to make up for declining revenue from Medicare. The experts could all be wrong, but PriceWaterhouseCoopers doesn’t even acknowledge this belief let alone explain why it might be wrong. Indeed, nowhere in the document does the firm reveal its methods, which is interesting since–unlike CBO or even, say, a private outfit like Lewin–PriceWaterhouseCoopers is not particularly known for this sort of modeling.”

Heritage’s Ernest Istook defends the report: “The PWC projections track what The Heritage Foundation and many others have said about the legislation: It does not save money. It simply taxes those who have health coverage and uses the money to give care to others.”

But the American Prospect’s Adam Serwer thinks lawmakers could address AHIP’s concerns: “Despite the hype this seems far from a knockout punch, since there’s still time to fix things in conference if the bill passes the finance committee, and some of the things that AHIP wants changed health-care reform advocates probably want, too. It’s mostly politically frustrating for the White House, who seem to have assumed that all the ‘relevant stakeholders’ had been placated. By ‘relevant’ of course, I mean moneyed interests, not, you know, the American people.”

Monday, October 12th, 2009

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Still Chewing Over the Baucus Bill

Bloggers just can’t get enough of the Senate Finance Committee health bill…

Bob Laszewski says that “we could be on our way to devastating the health insurance risk pool” with the Baucus bill “all but gutting” fines for not buying insurance, which may result in not enough healthy or young people buying policies to help stabilize the risk.

Cato’s Michael Cannon says a “fail-safe” inserted into the Finance bill that would automatically cut the cost of the bill should it increase the deficit would be ineffective since “automatic spending cuts never work because today’s Congress cannot bind future Congresses.”

Keith Hennessey writes, “numbers matter,” and spotlights “important numbers and economic forces in these bills that are receiving insufficient attention.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein points out a key difference between reform in 1994 and 2009: “Health-care reform never came to a vote. No one ever had to vote for it or against it. Nor did it ever face down a filibuster. It collapsed long before any procedural impediments were put in its way. This year, something would have to change very drastically for health-care reform to collapse before a vote. That means the few swing votes are going to have to face the pressure of standing in the way of the Democratic Party’s top priority since the days of Harry Truman.”

The Huffington Post broke a story Thursday afternoon that’s been getting a lot of attention — according to Sam Stein, “Senate Democrats have begun discussions on a compromise approach to health care reform that would establish a robust, national public option for insurance coverage but give individual states the right to opt out of the program.” The New Republic’s Suzy Khimm responds, “the fact that we’ve moved from discussing the viability of having a bill at all to trying to hammer out the details is a promising sign overall.”

On AEI’s Enterprise Blog, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., says “President Obama has contradicted a number of assurances he gave to the American people,” listing six in particular.

Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum looks at why the U.S. health care system costs so much more than other countries:

We can jabber all we want about incentives and greed and systemic waste, but the bottom line is that if we want to do anything more than nip around the edges, we’d have to pay doctors and nurses less, pay pharmaceutical companies less, pay insurance companies less (or get rid of them entirely), pay hospitals less, and pay device makers less. That’s a lot of very rich and powerful interests who will fight to the death to prevent any serious cost cutting, and it’s why Obama and the Democrats in Congress have largely chosen to buy them off instead.

Friday, October 9th, 2009

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

CBO Strikes Again

The Congressional Budget Office released its updated cost estimate of the Senate Finance Committee bill Wednesday afternoon following hours of Twitter speculation among health policy journalists and wonks.  The mood was aptly captured by Politico’s Mike Allen, who declared “CBO OMG” in his daily agenda spotlight, Politico Playbook.

cbo-tweets

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf was even more serious than usual, and just gave a run down of the estimate that’s shorter than the official report delivered to Finance Chairman Baucus.

Heritage’s Conn Carroll: “The New York Times awarded Baucus with the headline that the White House has been searching for since the debate first began: “Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis.’” Carroll says, “But this headline and the accompanying article are fundamentally dishonest,” because it’s not an official CBO score (it was a called “an analysis”), but rather the ‘Chairman’s Mark’, which is written in laymen’s terms.  Carroll continues, “Not only does the Baucus bill not even really exist, just a Vapor Bill filled with conceptual language, it is about to be completely thrown out the window when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) merges it with the deficit busting HELP bill to move it to the Senate floor.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “Meet the New Health-Care System, Not That Different From the Old Health-Care System.”  He goes on. “This bill will change the insurance situation for 37 million legal residents, 29 million of whom would otherwise be uninsured. That’s a big step in the right direction. But most people will never notice it. When I got an early glimpse of the Senate Finance Committee’s bill back in June, I called it “comprehensive incrementalism,” and I stick by that label. It makes a lot of things a bit better, but it’s not root-and-branch reform.”

Hot Air’s Allah Pundit on the line in the analysis “Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty:” “Expect that to be a key GOP talking point given that (a) amendments to Baucus’s bill will wreak havoc with this analysis and (b) Medicare’s initial projection of $12 billion in expenditures for the year 1990 turned out to be “uncertain” too. How uncertain? Actual 1990 expenditures ended up at $107 billion, a cool 800 percent higher than Congress thought they’d be. Woe unto him who relies on any conservative estimate of how much a giant social program will cost.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn: “This is something we’ve known for a while: The Senate Finance bill isn’t as generous or as protective as it ought to be.  But the fact that the measure would actually save money means, or should mean, there’s a bit more room (financially and politically) to throw additional funds at expanding/improving insurance coverage–ideally, by raising a little more money in taxes and/or offsetting savings.”

Donald Marron says the cost estimates released don’t represent the whole picture: “There is a difference between the cost of the Baucus bill ($904 billion) and the cost of its provisions to expand coverage ($829 billion). It is understandable that most commentary focuses on the health insurance provisions. But we should not forget the other $75 billion in spending on other initiatives. Dollar-for-dollar they deserve as much scrutiny as the coverage expansions.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volksy prepared a table that compares the first Finance bill draft with the final bill.

The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle: “So most of the major components of the program are scheduled to either cost more, or raise less revenue . . . but overall, it’s generating a bigger surplus.  It’s the healthcare economist’s version of “We’re losing money on every unit, but we’ll make it up in volume!”

And in a more neutral take, Jacob Goldstein of The Wall Street Journal’s Health Blog identifies “Five Key Numbers,” plus a special “bonus” number, on insurance co-ops.

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Talking Political Strategy

As the health overhaul debate moves forward, several bloggers are pondering political strategies.

Pollster.com’s Brendan Nyhan takes another look at polls following President Obama’s September 9th health care speech and finds there was “a small upward blip after the speech but the series quickly returned to its previous trajectory.” Nyhan concludes, “I’m emphasizing this point because there’s a misperception among journalists that the president can easily move public opinion. As we’ve seen again and again over the years, it’s simply not true, but the lack of followup by the press means that the lesson is never learned.”

Bob Laszewski reemerges after a silent second half of September to pontificate about Democrats’ efforts: “The leadership and the White House will do anything they can to get any bill that qualifies as a breakthrough. If they can get this to within a handful of votes in the House and one or two Senate votes they will drag this thing across the line.”  Laszewski identifies three “converging issues:” Democrats’ desire to pass a bill, low public support and differences between the House and Senate versions that have yet to be ironed out.  He concludes, “Just how will they finally sort-out? That will make for the most fascinating domestic political battle in recent history.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn lays out the swing vote possiblities among members of the Senate Finance Committee: Democrats Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Jay Rockefeller and Ron Wyden, and Republican Olympia Snowe.  According to Cohn’s math, Baucus can lose all of the panel’s Republicans plus one Dem, but if another Democrat votes against the bill, one Republican must vote for it.

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein, jumping off a Wall Street Journal article, envisions a new White House strategy building off on attacks from conservatives: “So as Obama enters the stage of the health care debate in which he’ll have to find a way to talk liberals into accepting less, his best ally may be his critics on the right. One can see a White House pitch to liberals that more or less amounts to, a loss on health care means victory for Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.”

Lastly, Matthew Yglesias, traveling in Sweden, visited a museum that had an exhibit on pre-modern health care.  The experience led him to mull over what a health reform debate would look like in 1500, and Yglesias wonders if things would actually be so different:

But whatever elements of human psychology—some combination of wishful thinking plus Robin Hanson’s point that we spend on health care for relatives not only because we care but also to show we care—created a viable market in non-cures are still with us. And that’s got to be an important factor in why it’s hard to design satisfactory health care systems. It’s noteworthy when you compare what different countries do that there’s enormous diversity in policy while the diversity in actual outcomes is hard to find and hard to measure.

Monday, October 5th, 2009

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

The Morning After…

The Senate Finance Committee finally completed its marathon markup of the health overhaul bill late last night and will reconvene next week to vote on the measure. This backdrop has dominated health policy commentary for almost a month, and the reaction from liberals and conseratives has been less than positive (for different reasons, as we’ve documented all week.)

MSNBC’s First Read hypothesizes about the delay until next week’s vote: “And so the lobbying for Senator Olympia Snowe begins again. With the Finance Committee done considering amendments, Chairman Max Baucus decided to wait until next week to hold the final vote. Part of the delay is to get the Congressional Budget Office to re-score this final bill with the marked-up amendments.”

Yesterday the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics, two orgs dedicated to exposing conficts of interest in politics, released a new study that identifies “contribution clusters” — money flowing from health care lobbyists and industry groups to lawmakers in Congress.  The study examined contributions to all members of the House and Senate.

According to the analysis, Baucus was “one of the biggest beneficiaries of this one-two punch from lobbyists and the interests they represent.” Researchers then compiled the info graphically — see the “wheel of health care contributions” for Baucus, below.  The study rated Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. first in contributions,  Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., second and Baucus third. (H/t, Washington Post’s Capitol Briefing.)

Zachary Cooper, on the Altarum Institute’s blog, wants the Finance Committee example to be instructive: “My hope is that as a result of seeing precisely what conciliation and trepidation look like in print, his proposal will inspire Democrats and willing Republicans alike to become more bold.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein discusses an amendment from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., that would give states major flexibility with reform.  Klein says it appears the amendment may allow states to enact a single-payer system, should they chose,  and continues, “It’s not impossible to imagine a liberal state using the waiver to introduce some mega-public plan that’s a lot stronger than what’s currently on the table and can be used as a demonstration project for other states.”

The American Spectator’s Doug Bandlow is looking beyond the Finance Committee and offers a counter-intuitive take on the aftermath should a health overhaul bill pass: “The common assumption is that it would be devastating for President Barack Obama and the Democrats if they don’t pass something on health care.  But what if they win and pass something that is deeply unpopular?”

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

« Older Entries

Contact Us

Facebook

RSS

twitter

Recent Posts

Archives

kff.org

© 2012 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.