# Baucus Health Care Bill - No Bipartisanship **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 16, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353 "2009-09-16T19:47:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/21 "2009-09-17T03:11:22Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > The “more progressive Democrats” should wise up, and move to the right. Extreme liberal agendas are simply not going to fly. And [why](http://people-press.org/report/312/trends-in-political-values-and-core-attitudes-1987-2007) [not](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/political_ideology.html)? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/22 "2009-09-17T03:17:36Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And [why](http://people-press.org/report/312/trends-in-political-values-and-core-attitudes-1987-2007) [not](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/political_ideology.html)? Because conservatives yell real loud. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/23 "2009-09-17T03:38:44Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Extreme right agendas were passed during Bush. Wise up, the dems could pass this thing without help. Nope, they can’t, because part of their party still has some sense. Blue Dog Dems aren’t onboard the liberal bandwagon. Come up with a plan that isn’t paid for with monopoly money and it might have a chance. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/24 "2009-09-17T04:39:33Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Come up with a plan that isn’t paid for with monopoly money . . . Meaning what? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/25 "2009-09-17T05:33:36Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Nope, they can’t, because part of their party still has some sense. Blue Dog Dems aren’t onboard the liberal bandwagon. Come up with a plan that isn’t paid for with monopoly money and it might have a chance. Sen Bingaman was on Charley Rose tonight discussing the health care bill of Baucus. He said privately that many repubs admitted that health care is broken and needs to be fixed. Rose asked why, with a implication that racism had something to do with it. The Senator responded by saying ,“put it this way, they do not want the health care bill done on this presidents watch”.They are willing to let a fix languish while they play politics with Americas health. Hard to be proud of these republican pols nowadays. The monopoly money response is absurd. Health care takes 17 percent of GNP. That is real money. It will take 20 percent in 5 years and continue higher . It is unsustainable. It needs to be fixed . Now is better than later. There are lots of ways to deliver cheaper and better health care. But they do not allow some groups to continue to loot the system for all they can get. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/26 "2009-09-17T05:36:00Z")
Money for senseless war? No problem. Ton a money to bail out rich guys. Sure, take all you want. Money to help keep our people healthy? Crazy talk. Its a simplistic, almost stupid lefty slogan. I really wish it weren’t true. And being true doesn’t make it any less stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/27 "2009-09-17T05:47:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Meaning what? Meaning that a workable plan has to have hard numbers for costs and demonstrable streams of revenue to cover those costs. A massive tax increase ain’t gonna fly. If we could end the two current wars, the money currently spent on funding those wars could possibly cover the costs of healthcare reform. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/28 "2009-09-17T05:54:09Z")
Um, while I’d like to believe that this has all been some quixotic quest by Obama to genuinely form a bipartisan consensus on healthcare reform and that they’ve learned their lesson and will move ahead without the Republicans, I think it’s more likely that health care interests have the administration and a significant number of Democratic congressmen so deep in their pockets that the Democrats undercut their own position of strength to appease the source of so much of their campaign contributions. Obama has come across as powerless to guide the will of Congress, but I’m not sure I believe he’s really that impotent. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/29 "2009-09-17T05:59:07Z")
I see one bright effiiciency: there will be less need to print and circulate money out to people so they can pay for their chance to play _Wheel of Coverage._ Direct deposit, straight to the company, so much more efficient. Eliminate the middleman, so to speak. Don’t really want to eliminate the middle man, figure of speech. No need, anyway, if he can’t pay he’ll pretty much eliminate himself… There will still be some negotiation, set the precise shares of the loot, who gets how big a cut, the Congressmen from Aetna and United bickering with the Senators from Cigna. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/30 "2009-09-17T09:56:51Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > When Baucus speaks of bi-partisanship in regards to the bill reported out of his committee, he is most likely speaking specifically about his committee: the draft was produced by a six member team comprising three from each party, > > Once it is out of committee, other political forces will probably lead to the three Republicans distancing themselves from the bill. I’m not convinced that this turkey will even make it out of committee. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/31 "2009-09-17T12:31:26Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > The “more progressive Democrats” should wise up, and move to the right. Extreme liberal agendas are simply not going to fly. Pretending otherwise is self delusion. There aren’t even any extreme liberal ideas being pursued here. The moderately liberal single payer option has never been on the table. The Switzerland style public option isn`t remotely “extreme liberal” and that’s what we’re asked to give up. Then you have the plan to bar insurers from denying or dropping coverage for pre-existing conditions or setting lifetime or annual maximums. That’s what used to be called centrist but is now ultra-socialist commie fascist. Nope, no ultra liberal agendas here. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/32 "2009-09-17T13:55:32Z")
The repubs want to be included in every single discussion on the health care bills, even though they have no intention of voting for them. Eventually they will force the dems to make a stand. They will have to go without them. Then the health care lobbyists will exert a new level of pressure on the dems. The dems will fold and the insurance companies will win. No party can stand up to the money system we have. The Baucus plan may as well have been written by the insurance companies . It is a giveaway to them. But, they will publicly proclaim how the bill will hurt them so more people will back it. We are such suckers. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/33 "2009-09-17T16:04:49Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The Baucus plan may as well have been written by the insurance companies . It is a giveaway to them. But, they will publicly proclaim how the bill will hurt them so more people will back it. We are such suckers. [Funny you should mention that…](http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/08/liz-fowlers-plan/) ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/34 "2009-09-17T18:40:39Z")
For those interested, [here’s](http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/republicans-oppose-sfc/) a partial list of concessions included in the Baucus bill for the sake of attracting Republican support that has so far failed to garner any Republican support. ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/35 "2009-09-17T18:51:25Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > For those interested, [here’s](http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/republicans-oppose-sfc/) a partial list of concessions included in the Baucus bill for the sake of attracting Republican support that has so far failed to garner any Republican support. The link seems to indicate that ‘policies across state lines’ are a bad thing. Why? Wouldn’t that help keep costs down? Am I missing something? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/36 "2009-09-17T19:03:34Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > For those interested, [here’s](http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/republicans-oppose-sfc/) a partial list of concessions included in the Baucus bill for the sake of attracting Republican support that has so far failed to garner any Republican support. Was allowing insurers to force people to buy their product or be fined one of those concessions, or did they add that in on their own? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/37 "2009-09-17T21:42:03Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Was allowing insurers to force people to buy their product or be fined one of those concessions, or did they add that in on their own? Baucus got about 3 million dollars from health care business. They must have wanted something for it. He was the wrong man in the wrong spot at the wrong time. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/38 "2009-09-17T23:55:51Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > Anyone see a chance that any of the more moderate Repos will see the writing on the wall and cross the line at the last minute? Or is it pretty much a given that they all feel like united we stand, divided we fall? I don’t have a cite, but I was reading a political article a few months ago where the author was saying several republicans in the house and senate wanted to vote for the stimulus bill, but worried about a primary from the right when reelection time came up. So that is always going to be an issue for the GOP. As the GOP pushes away more and more moderates, they have to become more radical to avoid primaries from the right as only the Glenn Beck types are left to vote in the primaries. That is one reason Grassley came out so strongly against the bill. He is up for reelection in 2010 and if he is seen as a bipartisan compromiser with ‘the muslim antichrist’, he may be forced to spend all his time and money on a primary campaign for the senate, leaving him vulnerable in the general. Its also why Specter switched parties from R to D. He knew he wouldn’t win a primary in 2010 in PA as a republican. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/39 "2009-09-18T00:04:26Z")
[Bill O'Reilly Backs Public Option (VIDEO) | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html) This wildly left leaning commentator is for a public option. The public option is very important if we are going to fix this mess. We do not exist for the benefit of corporate profits. Health companies should have their charters revoked. They exist to the detriment of Americas financial health. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353/40 "2009-09-18T00:09:28Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Meaning that a workable plan has to have hard numbers for costs and demonstrable streams of revenue to cover those costs. A massive tax increase ain’t gonna fly. > > If we could end the two current wars, the money currently spent on funding those wars could possibly cover the costs of healthcare reform. These plans have costs attached to them. Roughly $900 billion over 10 years, usually funded by $400-600 billion in cuts to various federal health programs like medicare, and new taxes to make up the difference. Fine by me. FTR, the Bush tax cuts and Iraq war cost roughly 3 trillion so far. Health care will cost a fraction of that. And health care reform done right (with transparency, competition, infrastructure improvements, better prevention, etc) will lower the rate at which health care costs increase each year (from 7% down to 5-6%) which by 2020 will mean about 3 trillion in savings that otherwise would’ve gone to healthcare. I can’t see a good argument, from an economic POV, to oppose health reform. Most of the arguments are just partisan arguments against social programs and democrats wrapped up in a cloak of economics and ‘we can’t afford this’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baucus-health-care-bill-no-bipartisanship/510353.md?page=3)