The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

The Rundown

A True Compromise, for Better or Worse

By Ben Pershing
At some point in the last few months, Max Baucus apparently decided to test the cliche that a true compromise should irritate everyone.

One day after Baucus released his long-awaited compromise health care measure, the most common theme in the coverage is just how unhappy all sides are with both the bill and its author. "It appears that no one is happy with ... Baucus -- and that may be the best news President Obama has had in months," the Washington Post writes. The White House gave a tepid response, but the administration is certatinly happy to have a bill that moves the process forward. And business groups and other private-sector stakeholders either responded positively or were muted in their criticism. The bill, the Associated Press reports, "gives health insurers, drug makers and large employers reasons to heave sighs of relief, sparing them the higher costs and more burdensome rules included in other Democratic-written alternatives."

The bill's price tag -- $774 billion -- is either the best or worst thing about it, depending on whom you ask. Fiscal hawks will cheer that it meets Obama's goal of expanding coverage without adding to the deficit, but many Democrats complain that it mandates individuals buy health insurance while providing inadequate subsidies to help them pay for it. Kaiser Health News writes that the question of how much people can really afford to pay for insurance is "at the heart of the current debate" and "there is not a firm consensus" among any of the players involved on the answer.

Continue reading at Political Browser »

Posted at 8:27 AM ET on Sep 17, 2009  | Category:  The Rundown
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Liberal Sen. Takes Up 'Czar' Questions with the White House | Next: Obama Statement on European Missile Defense


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



We all need to make it clear to Baucus & Obama that we the people and that includes businesses will not bow down to their insurance company masters.
JUST SAY NO!
IF YOU HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE CANCEL IT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT DON'T BUY IT! Their excise tax is a fraction of the cost of insurance and we all know that if you really need it it won't be there.
SHAME ON YOU BARACK OBAMA!

Posted by: miriamac2001 | September 20, 2009 12:56 AM

It is a pig because the republicans were allowed to water it down. However, it would benefit the Democrats to put some lipstick on it and get it out of committee. It can be changed later.

Posted by: seemstome | September 17, 2009 8:15 PM

Watch out for this Baucus bill. Yes reform is needed but each american will be forced to pay thousands more to cover insurance annually. Max has already pocketed millions from special interest groups so he has nothing to lose. Doctors say if this bill passes they will retire. Senior are screaming because funding reduces millions from medicare. Fewer doctors higher fees will cause mass rationing.

Posted by: MOMLEE | September 17, 2009 1:26 PM

I'm sure there will be some nice paying, cushy position for Baucus at some drug lobbying firm - Or the Republican National Committee - when he is defeated for reelection next time 'round, as surely he will be - as surely he must be.

People like Max Baucus define the reason I left that party almost a decade ago. They have forgotten that they are (or were) the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Pity.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

Posted by: tomdeganfrontiernetnet | September 17, 2009 11:57 AM


WHAT GOOD IS HEALTH CARE REFORM... WHEN A COVERT 'MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATED ACTION PROGRAM' COMPROMISES THE HEALTH OF UNJUSTLY 'TARGETED' AMERICANS?

• Obama agenda, rule of law subverted by fed-funded, extrajudicial GPS-activated vigilante Gestapo that is protected by local law enforcement and has operatives within health care facilities -- compromising the quality of patient care.

* Microwave/laser radiation "directed energy weapons" deployed to silently torture and degrade the health of unjustly targeted American citizens -- the weaponization of the electromagnetic spectrum.

• "Intelligence-based policing" a pretext for a security/military/intel social purge executed at the grassroots with the cooperation of local law enforcement.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

BAN BY EXECUTIVE ORDER the use of directed energy weapons on American citizens...

...and the warrantless, covert tracking of individuals via GPS devices or cell phones -- the electronic backbone of a nationwide American Gestapo.

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 17, 2009 9:54 AM

Max Baucus has accepted millions from the health insurance industry and this bill is rotten to the core as a result. If you would like to protest corruption in Washington please join our voting bloc here:
http://www.votingbloc.org/Reform_Bloc.php

Posted by: letsgobuffalo | September 17, 2009 8:57 AM

What the Baucus bill does is allow Americans to see an actual proposal and what it would really do to health care. Republicans can no longer snicker about death panels or government takeovers. And Baucus took care of the top concern of real Americans, which is the deficit.

By "bending" the proverbial cost curve and turning reform into a means of deficit reduction, the now president has a real advantage in selling reform.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | September 17, 2009 8:54 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.



 
 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company