Sen. Max Baucus on single-party legislation

I don't believe we can dispute what Senator Max Baucus is saying especially based upon the political history of "Obamacare" where once the Republicans took control of the House they did everything possible to scuttle the program. If one of the two houses of Congress is actively opposed to the implementation of a legislative program it is going to cause serious problems with the implementation of the program and we've certainly seen that with "Obamacare" implementation.

Obstructionism, where on party is opposed to anything being proposed by the other party, is the worst form of government. Our political system depends upon compromise but that has been virtually non-existant in the US Congress since 2010 when the "Tea Party Movement" and Republicans gained control of the House.

We must also address the fact that Republicans, in 2009, refused to address the problem before the Congress when it came to poviding health care for tens of millions of Americans. Republicans never offered any proposals that would have provided health care to the "uninsured" Americans which was the problem before Congress. How can a bipartisan solution be created when one party refuses to address the problem at all? The problem had been ignored for decades and a continued refusal to address the problem wasn't really an option in 2009.

There were three proposals in 2009. A single-payer system proposed by the House, the ACA (that was adopted) proposed by the Senate. and the "Do Nothing" proposal by House and Senate Republicans. Those three proposals haven't really changed since 2009 as the "single-payer" system is still being proposed in the event that Obamacare fails and the Republicans are still proposing "Do Nothing" about the tens of millions of Americans that would go without healthcare if "Obamacare" fails.

The biggest fear of Republicans today is that "Obamacare" might succeed when in reality they should fear it failing because a single-payer system is what is waiting in the wings to replace it.  

Dec 21, 2013 1:09:50 GMT JP5 said:

Dec 19, 2013 5:34:45 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)--who is the architect of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObanaCare), but who also described it, in April, as a "huge train wreck"--has now had an epiphany as regarding the manner in which it was implemented: "It is my belief that for major legislation to be durable, sustainable, it has to be bipartisan. ...I mean, one party can't jam legislation down the other party's throat. It leaves a bitter taste."

Here is the link: www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/politics/baucus-still-fretting-over-health-law-he-shepherded.html?_r=0

Too bad he didn't think of that some 3 3/4 years ago...

EXACTLY!  Too late now.  They've created a total mess....and he must be trying to salvage some portion of his reputation.  Ain't gonna happen.

Yes, a mess has been created so now it's time to sort out the problems and FIX THEM. How do we fix the problems while still ensuring that the tens of millions of people that weren't receiving the health care services that they need will continue to receive them after "Obamacare" goes into effect on 1/1/2014?

That is the challenge before us today.

We need to "keep the good" and "fix the bad" so that the problems that were behind "Obamacare" are still addressed. We simply can't ignore the problem which was tens of millions going without heath care services they needed and the tens of thousands that died every year because they weren't receiving timely medical services.

Dec 27, 2013 4:45:37 GMT JP5 said:

BTW, you thanked me for providing all the proof that the Republicans had, in fact, offered many pieces of legislation regarding comprehensive health care over the years.....even during the early months of Obama's term.  BUT the claim has continued to be made by liberals, the mainstream and others on this forum that Republicans never offered anything or had ideas of their own.  What IS fact.....is that NONE OF THEM EVER even looked to up to see that they were wrong.  They just made the claim, because that's what they wanted the answer to be. 

None of the Republican plans and legislation would have taken down our entire healthcare system....as Obamacare is apparently doing right now.
Their plans did not throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.  Their intention was not to create a Trojan Horse that would be so bad.....as to lead to a true goal of single-payer healthcare, which the country (both Dems and Republicans) said for years they did NOT want.  Instead they got lies; intentional lies like....'If you like your health plan, you can keep it," or "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  But I do believe the Democrats and this administration are going to learn next year that you do NOT get away with intentionally lying to the American people.  They will reap what they sowed.  Obamacare has been nothing but a BIG, FAT LIE. 

While I do appreciate the additional citations I've not reviewed them all. I have reviewed the proposal by former President Bush and the proposal by Senator Mike Enzi but neither of those offered comprehensive health care for all of the uninsured Americans. They added to those that could afford private health insurance but left out millions of Americans that couldn't afford health care. As also noted Enzi's proposal apparently lacked any funding mechanism that would pay for the costs of the tax deductions and tax credits it proposed. It would have simply driven more deficit spending and deficit spending is fiscally irresponsible (one of my complaints with Obamacare that is also going to drive deficit spending in the future).

Obamacare doesn't take down our entire healthcare system and I don't know where that idea comes from. It does increase the number covered by Medicaid (except in Republican States that have refused to expand Medicaid  based upon the Supreme Court decision) but it also increases the number of those covered by employer provided group health insurance policies as well as the number of those being covered by private health insurance policies. As can also be noted under Obamacare any number of national health insurance providers could have been included under a state health insurance exchange. There was no limit imposed if the state decided to create it's own health insurance exchange.

Enzi's proposal did provide portabability for health insurance but we already had that under COBRA. The problem with COBRA, as  well as Enzi's proposal, is that when a person loses their job they can't afford to continue their health insurance policy in many cases. A person that loses their health insurance because of unemployment has to start all over again in finding private insurance and a pre-existing condition drives the costs so high they can't afford it. Of the estimated 3 million uninsured with pre-existing conditions the problem for the vast majority wasn't that they couldn't obtain insurance but instead that they couldn't afford it. Only about 130,000 Americans were flat out denied private health insurance because of a pre-existing condition but about 3 million Americans couldn't afford it because it cost more than many earned for the entire year. The premiums could run over $3,000/mo and that was unaffordable for many households especially when the person might be unemployed because of a catastrophic illness to begin with. Their spouse maybe the only income earner and earn more than the limits for Medicaid.    

I never understood the logic behind the Republican proposals for "Tort Reform" that amount to nothing more than "Screw the Victims of Malpractice" by doctors. First and foremost we should not include the costs of malpractice as a cost of health care to begin with. It isn't a cost of treating illness or injury but instead it's a case of perpetuating illness or causing injury based upon physician incompetence. If we want to "save money" related to malpractice why not limit attorney fees or making them a supplemental payment? Currently a victim of malpractice that wins in court has to pay their attorney out of their own pocket and that can amount to 30% of their entire award for pain and suffering. We can also note that the few hundred million in malpractice awards annually are insignificant when compared to the trillions of dollars spent on health care annually. It's one of those Republican proposals looking for a problem as it wouldn't result in any significant health care cost savings.

I do need to find the time to look at the other Republican proposals though as I'm sure each has some merit just like Obamacare has some merit. So far I don't like Obamacare but it did address the problem of between 30-40 million Americans that didn't have insurance. I haven't seen a Republican proposal that would have provided this insurance but I'm still looking. I also believe that the problems with Obamacare can be fixed and that only Republicans are capable of offering many of the fixes necessary.

The key though is ensuring that the 30-40 million previously uninsured Americans have some form of health "insurance" so that they can receive necessary medical services. How is the best way to ensure that remains the question to be answered.

My proposal, at least for working Americans, is make the employers that profit from the labor of their employees be financially responsible either by providing group insurance or contributing to an "escrow" account that the employee can use to help pay for private health insurance. Employers directly profit from low paid labor while the taxpayers do not. It makes sense to have those that directly profit from the labor of the employee to pay the costs of the necessities of the employees and health care is a necessity.    

I've often stated there are serious problems with "Obamacare" that need fixing but it really doesn't change much as far as healthcare in America. It uses Medicaid and private insurance that have been a component of the health care system since the mid-1960's and it only addresseses about 10% of the US population.

There are of course many transitional problems but those are short term problems that are insignificant in the greater picture. The problems with signing up and with the loss of fundamentally poor quality private insurance policies that will, in most cases, be replaced by other private insurance policies under the exchanges (often costing the person less out of pocket due to the subsidies) are transitional and have no real meaning long term.

On the other hand there are serious problems that are going to be long term that need to be addressed.

There are cost concerns where some are legitimate while others are not.

For example the costs of Medicaid are not a valid complaint as they are merely a correction to the underfunding of Medicaid since the 1960's where Medicaid could not afford to fulfill it's Mission Statement of ensuring medical services for those that couldn't afford them. Had the US Congress and the States fully funded Medicaid since the 1960's so that it could fulfill it's Mission Statement there would have been no expansion under Obamacare. The problem with the expansion of Medicaid related to cost are who's paying for those costs. Basically those that can afford to fund it have the lowest tax burden relative to income in the United States (i.e. the top 1% of income earners). The "costs" are merely a sympom of the problem. Who's paying the costs is the real problem.

The costs of subsidizing private insurance is also an issue of "who's paying for it" as opposed to the actual costs themselves. From my perspective the "costs" for working Americans should be levied on those that are directly profiting from their labor (i.e. the employers). Why should I, as a taxpayer, be subidizing the employers that don't pay enough in wages so that their employees earn enough to afford health care? Health care is a basic necessity of the person and a working person should have their necessitities covered based upon their exchange of labor for goods and services by the employer. Basically I'm being forced to subsidize the employer that is profiting from the labor of the employee but that refuses to pay them enough so they can afford health care.  Employers should be carrying the financial burden related to health care for the workers of America because the Employers are directly profiting from their labor.

Of course those are "my" proposals to fix the funding problems and it is the funding, not the costs, which are what need to be addressed. The costs are based upon the expenditures for the necessary services and they cannot be changed very much. We can reduce them slightly but it's the funding where the real problem lies.

Of note even the Tea Party Republicans are now changing their tune. Long have I advocated that the Republican Party address the problems with Obamacare and now even the Tea Party politicians are also beginning to understand that is what must be done.

Two points are raised with the first being "Bandaid" fixes and the second being the potential cost increases that could be passed on if employers were responsible for the health care of their employees.

First of all I don't recommend Bandaid fixes to anything. I recommend permanent fixes to the problems.

Next is my proposition that employers, that are profiting from the labor of their employees should be responsible for funding their health care needs.

The mistaken belief is that this leads to increases in the costs of goods and services but that is a false belief. In truth "underpayments" by employers actually depress the economy as "consumption" is reduced when they fail to pay liveable wages to their employees. In truth Henry Ford proved that the costs of products can be reduced by increasing wages in manufacturing but that lesson has not been learned by the retail and service industries yet.

Even if we are myopic in addressing wages as a cost they are relatively insignificant related to the costs of goods and services. Walmart and McDonalds spend far more on overhead costs and product purchases than they do on wages. A 10% increase in wages, even if directly transferred to the consumer, only results in about a 1% increase in the cost of the products or services being provided for most low paying enterprises.  

Even as a laissez faire capitalist I've found a problem with the "Law of Supply and Demand" when it comes to labor. No enterprise can "operate at a loss" and based upon the "Law of Supply and Demand" for low cost labor it's actually forcing people (and people selling their labor are engaged as an enterprise) to "operate at a loss" and this is not sustainable. The "Law of Supply and Demand" works for goods and services but fails when applied to labor. We have a serious problem with "underpayments" by enterprise that force a person to operate at a loss that needs to be pragmatically addressed.

Where I believe many "Republicans" are wrong is in their belief that "welfare to mitigate poverty" for working Americans is welfare assistance to the person when, in fact, were actually providing welfare assistance to their employers that don't pay them enough to live on. If the employers provided adequate compensation then their employees wouldn't be collecting welfare assistance.

Personally I'd rather pay slightly more for the goods and services than I would to be taxed to provide welfare assistance to the employees of a company that underpays their employees. At least I have a choice of buying or not buying from the enterprise but I have no choice when it comes to government spending to mitigate the proverty created by employers underpaying their employees so that they require financial assistance just to survive. The employers are profiting and they need to "share" some of those profits with the employees that generate the profits at least to the point that their employees can live without depending upon the taxpayers.  

Allowing people to go hungry, to be homeless, or to deny them medical services because they can't afford them is morally wrong by virtually everyone's standards.

One final point I would make. It is less expensive to pay one or two percent more for a product at a place like Walmart than it is to send money to the US government to fund welfare assistance including "Obamacare" which is predominately a welfare program based upon Medicaid and subsidies for private insurance. It is ironic that "Republicans" complain about government spending but then many oppose spending by private enterprise that could resolve the problem at a much lower cost.

If it were not for underpayments for labor by private enterprise there would never have been a need for Medicaid or Obamacare. It is a point worthy of making.