Scenario One: If Olympia Snowe votes in favor of Max Baucus’s plan — which is favored by the medical-industrial complex because it dramatically increases their customer base without a public option that squeezes their profits — the Baucus plan will be the bill that goes to the Senate floor. Why? Because her vote will give enough political cover to waivering Dems Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Jim Webb, and Evan Bayh to gain their support for the Baucus plan. Which means the White House and the Democratic leadership in the Senate will have a good chance to get the 60 votes they need when the bill goes to the Senate floor in a few weeks. – Robert Reich
Someone got to Krugman. Okay, maybe that’s too dramatic. But someone’s been talking to him, it seems obvious to me, but who from the Administration called him and what exactly was said? You make the guess, because all I’ve got is the obvious. But how else can anyone explain going from what he’s written in the past on health care to today’s rhetorical refuse. Unless… Maybe Krugman, being seen as a liberal menace by Republicans, is trying to pull a fast one so that Snowe has to do as Reich explains above, voting no on BaucusCare? After all, if Krugman likes BaucusCare, Republicans can’t support it, right? I don’t know, but I smell something fishy and it’s giving me a headache.
Krugman ruminates, how bad does a health care bill have to be before the Democratic majority votes against it? That a bad bill is “much better” than nothing. He couldn’t paint a more desperate picture; one that is also the weakest position you can possibly be in when you’re in the throes of hardball political bargaining.
If this is true, Democrats obviously don’t have a clue how to use their majority.
You see, it has been clear for months that whatever health-care bill finally emerges will fall far short of reformers’ hopes. Yet even a bad bill could be much better than nothing. The question is where to draw the line. How bad does a bill have to be to make it too bad to vote for?
Now, the moment of truth isn’t here quite yet: There’s enough wrong with the Baucus proposal as it stands to make it unworkable and unacceptable. But that said, Senator Baucus’s mark is better than many of us expected. If it serves as a basis for negotiation, and the result of those negotiations is a plan that’s stronger, not weaker, reformers are going to have to make some hard choices about the degree of disappointment they’re willing to live with.
Or maybe this is Paul Krugman sending a message? BaucusCare is the bargaining point, so get with the program.
In a word, no.
Rocky agrees. Ezra Klein has an interview. Paying for it is still an unknown.
Is this bill affordable?
Of course it isn’t. [...]
Are you optimistic about getting a bill?
Very. The meeting we had last night helps me say that. Max Baucus does need our votes to get the through the Senate Committee. And there was a coalescence of Democrats that hadn’t been pre-plotted. Some of these members had been quiet, and suddenly they were speaking, and loudly, about what was wrong. And if those things weren’t fixed, they implied they wouldn’t vote for it.
How will you pay for all this?
We’re not sure exactly. We spent the first hour talking only about affordability. But we had to talk about some other things, too. How we’re going to pay for this, I can’t yet answer you. That’s the amendment process. That’s the next few weeks.
Comments are closed.