Can Max Baucus Be Trusted With Crafting Health Care Policy?

I'm in a quandary over Max Baucus' health care proposal, unveiled today. Kennedy, Krugman and a bevy of dependable supporters of universal health care (from SEIU to Health Care For American Now) have said Baucus' proposals are good. Baucus is not just a conservative Democrat-- which he is-- but, worse, a total corporate shill. And here's where the quandary part comes in. Most of corporate America is demanding universal healthcare for workers and their families. That's good. But then there's Big Insurance, Big Pharma and HMOs.

Since 1990 HMOs have bribed members of Congress to the tune of a cool $59,090,991, the biggest year of all being... 2008 ($10,342,979). Not counting presidential candidates, the biggest recipient of their largesse is none other than Max Baucus (both this year and cumulative years). In the same period, Big Pharma ponied up $162,360,555. Take out the defeated and the retired and the presidential candidates and Baucus was the 5th biggest recipient (cumulatively) and second biggest recipient this year-- right after Mitch McConnell. And in that period from 1990 the uber civic minded Insurance Industry showered members of Congress with $304,486,143 in bribes, $38,231,774 alone this year. Same stipulations and we find Senator Baucus the 4th biggest recipient over-all and the 5th biggest for 2008 (sandwiched comfortably between notorious Insurance industry shills Norm Coleman and John Sununu). Notice a pattern?

I hate to be the skunk a the picnic but... Baucus' proposal doesn't smell right to me. In fact it smells like some industry lobbyists came up with a way to weasel out of H.R. 676 and paid Baucus to wrap up nice and present it as a "uniquely America" reform. This is what H.R. 676 wants to accomplish:

• Every resident of the US will be covered from birth to death.
• No more pre-existing conditions to be excluded from coverage.
• No more expensive deductibles or co-pays.
• All prescription medications will be covered.
• All dental and eye care will be included.
• Mental health and substance abuse care will be fully covered.
• Long term and nursing home services will be included.
• You will always choose your own doctors and hospitals.
• Costs of coverage will be assessed on a sliding scale basis.
• Tremendously simplified system of medical administration
• Total portability-- your coverage not tied to any job or location.
• Existing Medicare benefits for those over 65 will remain the same or be vastly improved in many cases.

The bill is was introduced by John Conyers (D-MI) in January, 2007 and has over 90 co-sponsors, including progressives, moderates and conservatives. Based on discussions I've had with candidates during the election cycle, it will surely go past the 100 co-sponsor mark in January.

Baucus' proposal sounds like a vague amalgam of plans put forward by Obama, Clinton and Edwards during the election. At best it's a springboard for discussion-- although that's a two-edged sword and somehow the prior conditions clauses most insurance companies use to exclude anyone who needs healthcare, could wind up back in a "compromise." Can't blame that on Baucus... yet.

D-Day summed up some of some of what's lacking in the untrustworthy Baucus' proposal pretty well.

Mandates can be a forced market for insurance companies-- in fact, they favor it in exchange for health care reform. Baucus' proposal is not a single-payer system. He came right out and said today that "I don't think a single payer health care system makes sense in this country, we are America, we will come up with a uniquely American health care system that's a combination of public and private." That kind of exceptionalism just makes no sense against economic reality. If the insurance industry can pawn off the sick onto the public plans, those costs will rise while insurers take in record profits. There is a clause in the proposal that "Private insurers offering coverage through the (Health Insurance) Exchange would be precluded from discrimination based on pre-existing conditions," which is great, but insurers have used other means, like rescission (retroactively kicking people off the insurance rolls when they file a claim because they "lied on their forms"), to get out of paying for treatment. There also doesn't appear to be any language that insurers must spend a significant portion of their premiums on actual care. As for the cost controls, there's this clause, "The plan also considers careful reforms of medical malpractice laws that could lower administrative costs and health spending throughout the system, while ensuring that injured patients are compensated fairly for their losses," which sounds like another round of [GOP-style] tort reform to me.

Just about everyone I know is cheering this move by Baucus. We'll just watch and see how it rolls out for now. The further it gets from H.R. 676, the worse off working families will be-- and the better off Max Baucus' campaign contributors.