Max Baucus, on whom the White House has been placing all its hopes for a magical "bipartisan" health reform bill, has finally delivered, to the delight of approximately no one.
Before the plan was even officially released, Republicans complained about it:
Two of the three Republicans in a small group trying to forge a bipartisan compromise on health care have requested numerous major changes in a proposal drafted by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, reducing the chances that he can win their support.
The Republicans, Senators Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, have catalogued their concerns in documents sent to the chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana.....
A summary of the senators’ views, prepared by the Finance Committee, says Mr. Enzi believes that the federal government should pay "100 percent of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, in order to avoid an unfunded mandate" for states, which ordinarily share Medicaid costs with the federal government.
Mr. Enzi and Mr. Grassley have also objected to the fees that Mr. Baucus wants to impose on health insurance companies, clinical laboratories and manufacturers of medical devices. Such fees would help finance coverage of the uninsured.
Mr. Enzi and Mr. Grassley also told Mr. Baucus that health legislation must include language affirmatively prohibiting the use of federal money to pay for abortion. The restriction, they said, should apply to any subsidies that help low-income people buy insurance. In addition, they said, health plans should not be obliged to provide abortion. Thus, they said, the bill should "include a conscience clause to protect entities from being required to contract with abortion providers."
The Medicaid expansion concern could be valid right now as states struggle through the economic ruin eight years of Republican rule has wrought, suffering ironically unalieviated by the stimulus program when President Sen. Snowe helped kill direct aid to states. Funny how that all works. Enzi's concern might be unfunded mandates, but it's likelier to be a shell game--demand the government pay 100 percent of the Medicaid expansion and drive up the final cost of the bill, and then justify a no vote on the bill because of its total costs.
If Republicans on Finance are displeased with the bill, Dems--who have been essentially shut out of the entire process (Baucus debacle member Kent Conrad is hardly representative of his colleagues, and Jeff Bingaman has been all but invisible)--don't like it much better.
Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee are poised to demand changes to the healthcare legislation being drafted by their chairman....
Near the top of the list for the panel’s Democrats is worry that health insurance subsidies will not be sufficiently generous nor available to enough people despite the fact that the bill would legally require most people to obtain coverage. Beyond premiums, some Democrats are concerned that Baucus’s proposal would not do enough to protect middle-class families from high healthcare expenses.
"It's very clear, at this point in the debate, the flashpoint is all about affordability," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). "I personally think there’s a lot of heavy lifting left to do on the affordability issue."
....
"There will undoubtedly be amendments in the committee process – and probably a lot of them," Kerry said. "There’ll be some big fights over different components of this."
Asked whether he could vote in favor of Baucus’s draft proposal that senators discussed in their meeting Monday evening, Kerry said: "I’m glad I don’t have to answer that because I know it’s not going to be the bill that we’re going to vote on because we are going to amend, we are going to have a tug-of-war still."
.....
In addition to concerns about the subsidies and other issues, liberals are also upset that Baucus decided to omit a government-run public option insurance program from his bill, instead opting to embrace a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) to create not-for-profit healthcare cooperatives that would compete with private insurers. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has been especially skeptical of this attempt to compromise with Republicans and centrist Democrats who oppose the public option.
Can Dem amendments save this bill from not only being bad policy but also disastrous politics? That depends in part on the White House, and how much they end up departing from what today appears to be the official line:
President Obama has broadly endorsed many elements of Mr. Baucus’s proposal, which White House officials praise as a possible template for comprehensive health legislation, Mr. Obama’s top domestic priority.
At least it's being called just a "possible" template.
Update: Note that the actual "chairman's mark" the Baucus will release will probably come Monday and Committee mark-up next week. (Yeah, promises, promises, Baucus.) The draft outline provided at the end of last week is what is driving these reactions.