California Eye » Max Baucus

Democratic Senators balking at deals cut for their states being cut from healthcare reform

Featheriver — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:13:38 +0000

While the Senate is almost certain to remove the controversial Nebraska deal known as the “Cornhusker Kickback” in a final health-care bill, President Obama’s efforts to cut out other state-specific arrangements are drawing resistance from lawmakers.

Such deals include a provision exempting Florida from some Medicare cuts, an issue Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) raised at the bipartisan health summit, as well as extra Medicaid cash for Massachusetts and Vermont.

“We’ve made it clear to the Senate that the president’s position in the final legislation should not contain provisions that favor a single state or a single district differently than others,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said this week.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesperson responded: “We’re going to do what we have to do to get a bill out of the House and Senate.” He said of the White House’s wish: “We’ll certainly keep it in mind as we pull together a final bill.”

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) also defended the extra money for his state on the basis that Vermont already provides generous benefits to its residents before reform and shouldn’t be “penalized for doing the right thing.”

And Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is pushing back against efforts to cut out a provision granting Medicare benefits to residents of a single town in his state that’s suffered from mining-related health problems. But first, health-care must pass the House.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich talks to Benjamin Sarlin about being the lone liberal “no” vote and Obama’s 11th-hour campaign to win him over.

[Source: The Daily Beast]

Olbermann: Donate to National Association of Free Clinics

Featheriver — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:07:41 +0000

If you have been watching Keith Olbermann on Countdown on MSNBC TV you will be aware of his Special Comment about healthcare yesterday and that he is sponsoring The National Association of Free Clinics.

If you haven’t you can watch his hour long Special Comment delivered yesterday on this blog at Keith Olbermann: Special Comment of Wednesday October 7 2009. At the closing of his Special Comment he made us a proposition:

So I propose tonight one act with two purposes. I propose we, all of us, embrace the selfless individuals at the National Association of Free Clinics. You know them, they conducted the mass health care free clinic in Houston that served 1,500 people. I want a mass health care free clinic every week in the principle cities of the states of the six senators key to defeating a filibuster against health care reform in the Senate.

I want Sens. Lincoln [D-AR] and Pryor [D-AR] to see what health care poverty is really like in Little Rock. I want Sen. Baucus [D-MT] to see it in Butte. I want Sen. Ben Nelson [D-NE] to see it in Lincoln. I want Sen. Landrieu [D-LA] to see it in Baton Rouge. I want Sen. Reid to see it in Las Vegas.

I’ll donate. How much will you donate? We enable thousands of our neighbors to have just a portion of the bounty of good health, and we make a statement to the politicians, forgive me, William Jennings Bryan, “you shall not press down upon the brow of America this crown of insurance, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of blue.”

He reiterated his sponsorship the the National Association of Free Clinics again tonight by donating $50,000 as seed money to finance the free clinics. If you don’t know anything about the National Association of Free Clinics your can check out their website here.

The National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC) is the only nonprofit 501c(3) organization whose mission is solely focused on the issues and needs of the more than 1,200 free clinics and the people they serve in the United States.
Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., the NAFC is an effective advocate for the issues and concerns of free clinics, their volunteer workforce of doctors, dentists, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, technicians and other health care professionals, and the patients served by free clinics in communities throughout the nation.

I just made a $50 donation. If you have been keeping up with you news. The object of the Free Clinics is to show the six Senators the face of poverty and the need for a public option in the healthcare reform bill being bantered about the Congress. It is a hell of a note that such efforts have to be exerted just to get the eye of these Senators, but they don’t really know any poor people up close and personal.

Perhaps, if any of them actually show up at these clinics, they’ll learn something. We’ll see what they do, and if any of it soaks into their hard heads. If it doesn’t there is always the next election to find someone who does understand and will do something about the atrocious stranglehold health insurance and pharmaceutical companies have on people. Remember what Olbermann said about his visit to the drug store:

The woman who needed the prescription spoke even more slowly than the pharmacist had. She had almost no hope in her voice. “Try the Cigna. Please.” Another drug store, late at night. The pharmacist was a friend of mine. “You have to do something about this,” he said as he handed me my refill and then reached for somebody else’s prescription. “You see this? Anti-fungal cream. I just filled this. You know what this costs wholesale? Four dollars. You know what I have to sell it for? Two hundred and sixty-three dollars. I sell it for less and I get fired and maybe we lose our license.”

Now is you chance to do a good deed, to help get the attention of those Senators, to help get a decent health care bill passed WITH A PUBLIC OPTION that will combat the predatory insurance practices perpetrated on us all. Please make your donation today. There aren’t many days left to act, don’t let them slip away.

Baucus hit with ad over blocking public option

Featheriver — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:20:48 +0000

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Democracy for America have launched the above ad in Montana and Washington, D.C., hitting Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus for blocking a public option from his health care reform bill. [Source: TPM]

Democrats opposing Public Option bought off

Featheriver — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:41:43 +0000

OpenSecrets reports, “Today was not a good day for supporters of a government-sponsored health care plan.”

Two senators, John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), offered two amendments that would add such an option to the the Senate Finance Committee‘s version of the massive health care legislation Congress has been considering for months — and the committee handily knocked each down today.

for Rockefeller and Schumer.

CEOs of insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, who tend to oppose the public option, might sleep a little easier tonight. These industries have been implementing a variety of strategies to thwart amendments such as these, including spending big bucks on lobbying and campaign contributions. Lawmakers who sided with these industries have collected more money, on average, than those who voted for these amendments, the Center for Responsive Politics has found.

for all those Senators that voted against the public option amendments of Rockefeller and Schumer.

Here are the details:

The Rockefeller Amendment

The 15 lawmakers to vote against Rockefeller’s version of the public option have collected $69,137 more, on average, from insurers (including HMOs and health services and health and accident insurers) through their candidate committees and leadership PACs since 1989 than the eight who voted for his amendment ($297,089 versus $227,952).
The lawmakers who voted against Rockefeller’s amendment have brought in $167,264 more, on average, from pharmaceutical and health care product companies since 1989 than those who supported it ($467,427 versus $297,163).
The Democrats who voted against their colleague’s proposal have collected $97,472 more, on average, from insurance companies since 1989 than the Democrats who voted for it ($325,424 versus $227,952).
The Democrats who voted against Rockefeller’s amendment have brought in $163,876 more, on average, from pharmaceutical and health product companies since 1989 than the Democrats who supported it ($461,038 versus $297,163).

The Schumer Amendment

The 13 lawmakers who voted against Schumer’s version of the public option have collected $93,177 more, on average, from insurers (including HMOs and health services and health and accident insurers) through their candidate committees and leadership PACs since 1989 than the 10 who voted for his amendment ($313,553 versus $220,376).
The senators who voted against Schumer’s amendment have brought in $210,470 more, on average, from pharmaceutical and health product companies since 1989, than those who supported it ($497,757 versus $287,286).
The Democrats who voted against their colleague’s proposal have collected $195,284 more, on average, from insurance companies since 1989, than the Democrats who voted for it ($415,660 versus $220,376).
The Democrats who voted against Schumer’s amendment have brought in $315,923 more from pharmaceutical and health product companies since 1989, than the Democrats who supported it ($603,210 versus $287,286).

Senate Finance Committee

At $675,350, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the committee’s chairman, has since 1989 collected more from health insurance companies, including HMOs and health services and health and accident insurers, than all but one other member of the committee — Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). And Kerry only collected big funds as a presidential candidate in 2004. Meanwhile, only Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has raised more from pharmaceutical and health product companies in that time ($1.6 million versus $1.1 million). Baucus voted against both amendments.
Insurers have contributed $265,441, on average, to individual Democrats on the committee, while pharmaceutical and health product companies have donated $360,192, on average, to individual Democrats since 1989.
Insurers have given $282,921, on average, to individual Republicans on the committee, while pharmaceutical and health product companies have contributed $466,121 since 1989.
For a list of contributions from health-related industries to members of this committee, visit our health care tools committees database.

I recommend you click the link to the database and see how much money has been collected from the insurance industry by members of the Nevada Congressional Coalition: Senator Harry Reid, Senator John Ensign, Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (CD#!), Congressman Dean Heller (CD#2) and Congresswoman Dina Titus (CD#3). Nye county is in Congressional District #2, Heller’s district.

So, when the next election comes up those of you in CD#2 can vote for Reid, Ensign and Heller or whomever is running against each of them.

Look at the View menu on OpenSecrets’ database page. You will see four different charts you can view: All members, Blue Dogs, Committees and Industry Cheat Chart.

You will be able to see just how much money each of the Nevada Congressional Coalition received from each segment of the health care industry.

I operate on the theory that members of congress either represent for-profit corporations or they represent us ordinary people. For-profit health care industries are opposed to the public option and have been trying to defeat reformation (and are succeeding).

Any member of the Nevada Congressional Coalition that votes for a final health care bill that does NOT have a “Medicare for all” provision I will NOT vote for in the next election.

Government option to Baucus bill to be offered

Featheriver — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:52:37 +0000

Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) [Wikipedia] [VoteSmart] [OpenSecrets] and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) [Wikipedia] [VoteSmart] [OpenSecrets] are readying for a showdown tomorrow with Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the conservative chairman of the Finance Committee, who offered a compromise of creating nonprofit insurance co-ops to drive down costs.

Schumer is joining Rockefeller in saying co-ops won’t work, and mounting an insurrection.

The fear is that if a Medicare-like public plan doesn’t exist, then private firms won’t lower rates, leaving people unable to afford policies – and penalized for not getting them. [Source: New York Daily News]

Good! At last the “Medicare for all” option will get on the table in the Senate. It is already in the House as HR 676.

Doctors support Single-Payer Healthcare

Featheriver — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:35:22 +0000

Despite Senator Max Baucus’ healthcare bill, real doctors who work in the system every day, say single-payer health insurance reform is the way to go.

Baucus-Grassley rake $ in from health industry

Featheriver — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:56:51 +0000

The Gang of Six, three Republican and three Democratic senators in the group, all of them members of the Senate Finance Committee, received an average of $74,600 from health industry lobbyists, according to The San Francisco’s Chronicle’s analysis of records through June.

That is about 25 percent more than the average of $59,632 in such donations that the gang’s other Senate colleagues raked in from lobbyists for the pharmaceutical, hospital, insurance and nursing home industries, according to the analysis, which was based on records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit watchdog group.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, [Wikipedia] [VoteSmart] [OpenSecrets] the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee who is seen as key to influencing other conservatives, received the most this year – $223,600. Committee chair Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., [Wikipedia] [VoteSmart] [OpenSecrets] was second with $141,000.

Baucus’ $856 billion, 10-year bill, which is scheduled to be amended and voted on beginning Tuesday, has been criticized by liberals and conservatives across Capitol Hill.

Conservatives blasted the plan for increasing the tax burden on some Americans. The plan imposes a 35 percent excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans that cost more than $8,000 a year per person, or $21,000 a year per family.

Liberals dislike the Baucus plan because it does not allow consumers to choose a government-run insurance option, which could hold down costs by promoting competition with private insurers.

Baucus’ bill would allow cooperatives to sell insurance as a form of competition for private insurers, but Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said co-ops “seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country.”

Blue Dogs are getting their share too. They have received an average of $31,467 from health care lobbyists this year, more than the $27,385 average of other House members, according to federal figures compiled by The Chronicle.

Money talks. Here is how much Nevada’s Senators/Representives have taken from the health care sector. [Source: San Francisco Chronicle]

[Source: San Francisco Chronicle]

Wasting millions of stimulus money on remote Montana-Canada border posts

Featheriver — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:51:16 +0000

Editor’s Note: This story details how two members of the CNN Special Investigations Unit reported a story about controversial plans to spend $31 million to enhance two remote crossings on the border between the United States and Canada.

SCOBEY, Montana (CNN) — We were driving through some of the most remote country in the United States, chasing a story that seemed hard to believe.

The Department of Homeland Security had announced it was spending $31 million to enhance and upgrade two remote border crossings — just 12 miles apart — on the border between Montana and the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. The spending was lauded by Montana’s two senators, even though only an average of 22 cars a day traveled through these border posts.

We hopped a plane from Atlanta, Georgia, to Billings, Montana, and then headed to Scobey and Whitetail. The six-hour drive took us through some of this nation’s most beautiful country into the high plains of the Missouri River Region. It was a drive punctuated with glimpses of cows and antelopes, but few people.

In fact, Burl Bowler, editor of the Daniels County Leader newspaper, which serves the border towns, advised us where to stop for gas en route, so we wouldn’t run out and then really be in trouble.

Besides seeing a part of the country where Lt. Col. George Custer took his last stand, there was the added benefit (sorry CNN management) of having no phone or Blackberry access. In that respect, it was a peaceful drive.

When we got to Scobey, the few people we encountered couldn’t have been nicer. Everyone we passed stopped, said hello, or waved. But encountering people was the problem — and in fact, the story: We just didn’t encounter that many. Certainly not at the border, where we stood and even sat in the middle of the road to show viewers how few people travel to and from Canada here.

The Scobey border crossing itself seemed perfectly adequate. But the Department of Homeland Security had warned its agents not to allow us inside, so we don’t know what the interior is like. If we came in, we would be too disruptive, one government spokesman had informed us. In Scobey, that claim seemed a little far-fetched, since there wasn’t anything going on here — disruptive or otherwise.

On the Canadian side, farmer Marc Chabot, a U.S. citizen whose family has farmed the area on both sides of the border for generations, said he was grateful for the money his senators — Democrats Max Baucus [Wikipedia] [VoteSmart] [OpenSecrets] and Jon Tester [Wikipedia] [VoteSmart] [OpenSecrets]– steered to northeast Montana. But, he said, like others in the community, he gasped when he learned of the plan to spend $31 million expanding two border crossings that are rarely used.

“It would be wiser spent on something more useful to the public generally,” he told us, adding that come winter, the average of 20 cars crossing a day in Scobey drops to almost none.

Editor Burl Bowler told us the area could certainly use stimulus money for jobs, but not at the border. We asked both Bowler and Chabot about the possibility of terrorists creeping across the frontier.

Both said that after the attacks of September 11, 2001, everyone needed to be more mindful of the porous border. But Chabot said the government had the area fairly well covered. “Trust me, they know we are here right now,” he said.

And a massive new building costing more than $15 million in Scobey, Montana, wasn’t exactly a deterrence to someone set on harming the United States, he added. Chabot joked that any stranger in the area certainly would not be a stranger long, since everyone knew everyone — a point echoed by Bowler, who pointed out that while he hadn’t told many people that CNN was coming to town, everyone seemed to know it anyway.

In Whitetail, it was even quieter. The town has grain elevators and a post office. Bureau of Transportation statistics show only about two people a day cross the border there, and the agents’ building seemed in good shape, save for maybe needing a paint job.

The DHS planned to spend $15 million on the outpost. That would buy a lot more paint than the building seemed to need. So why did these two areas get so much money? Locals and critics suspect politics might have played a role.

Baucus is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee; Tester is on the Senate’s Homeland Security Committee. Both took credit for convincing the DHS to give these towns millions for border crossings, bragging in a joint press release that they pressured the agency.

“This is good news for all of Montana and especially communities across the northern tier,” Baucus said in the statement. Tester said the spending would “pay off for generations to come by creating new jobs and opportunity that will benefit all of Montana.” As late as Wednesday, his spokesman reiterated Tester’s support of the spending, saying that it would seal security gaps on the border.

So, the nagging question: Did politics, rather than security, guide the DHS? Especially when a border town like Laredo, Texas, which sees 66,000 crossings a day, was getting not one dime of the $400 million in DHS border stimulus funds. Montana, in total, was to receive $77 million.

In an interview Wednesday with CNN, Trent Frazier, the director of port modernization for the Department of Homeland Security, denied that politics played any role.

“We feel that these ports, like all ports of entry, are a vital part of the network of security that we have established across the border apparatus that we employ across the borders, and the investments we are going to do along these borders are a critical step in ensuring we can perform our mission,” Frazier said.

But if Frazier did not believe politics factored in the decisions, it appeared to play a big role by Wednesday afternoon. Fellow Democrat Sen. Byron Dorgan, from the neighboring state of North Dakota, sent out a news release urging DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to suspend the stimulus program. He said that spending the money on such remote ports — including the nine in his state — was “just nuts.” Dorgan said the plan “just defied common sense.”

Within hours, Napolitano announced she was ordering a 30-day review to see if the money was being spent appropriately. In her letter to Dorgan, Napolitano said 39 of the 43 Custom and Border Protection posts were located in the northern United States. She said most of the Southern ports were owned by the General Services Administration, and the money directed by Congress was earmarked for the Custom and Border Protection properties and required to be spent within 24 months.

“Nonetheless,” she wrote, “in order to ensure even further transparency in this process, I am ordering a 30 day review” of all port construction decisions by officials who did not make the initial allocation decisions.

So, for now, if you want to travel to Canada through Scobey or Whitetail, the agents who inspect your vehicles will be using the buildings now in place — and according to the locals, you will be adequately served.

[Source: CNN]

Wendell Potter on the Baucus health care bill

Featheriver — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:32:27 +0000

Olbermann and Wendell Potter are talking about the Baucus health reform bill. Democratic Senator Max Baucus [Wikipedia] [SmartVote] [OpenSecrets], in my view, has sold out the American people, particularly Democrats, with his proposed health care reform bill. He is so embedded with the health insurance industry and their financial support of him that he has forsaken his constituents (which in a broad sense includes us all) in favor his personal concern to retain his position of power. In short, being owned by the for-profit insurance industry, he believes he can retain his Senate seat.

Read the sections in Wikipedia entitled Health Care Reform; his opposition to single-payer healthcare; and Conflict of Interest Charges.

Baucus has come under criticism for his ties to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries while significant numbers of his own constituents lack health insurance and access to health care.

Despite this backdrop in his home state, Senator Baucus has been one of the biggest Senate beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries. From 2003 to 2008, Baucus received $3,973,485 from the health sector, including $852,813 from pharmaceutical companies, $851,141 from health professionals, $784,185 from the insurance industry and $465,750 from HMOs/health services, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[OpenSecrets]

Any wonder why Warren Potter said the Baucus plan is “a gift to the insurance industry?”

Commentator Ed Schultz stated on his MSNBC TV show that Baucus has received “more money from pharmaceutical companies and insurance industry folks than any other Democrat in the Congress. Baucus got $183,000 from health insurance companies and $229,900 from drug companies” [Wikipedia]

Want to read more? Run a search on “Baucus” in the search box at the top of this page to bring up all the prior posts mentioning Baucus. Run another search on the name of “Frank Luntz” as well.

Beyond Baucus I am concerned about President Obama’s connection to Baucus. Obama was expressing his gratitude to the hard work Baucus was doing in drafting of the Senate Bill when he spoke a week ago in Wyoming. That was before, of course, the Baucus plan was revealed to the public this week. I am hoping Obama see’s the problem.

The problem is, as Wendell Potter has pointed out, the Wall Street-for-profit insurance industry connection. Wall Street demands constant increases in profits each quarter from each insurance company. To meet that Wall Street pressure the insurance companies continue to diligently cut payouts for medical claims in order to increase their profitability—thus attract more and more investors and their stock values. That, in turn, justifies higher pay to the CEOs, executive and Boards of Directors. But less coverage to their customers.

The insurance industry has been resisting health care reform for years. Single-payer health care, aka “Medicare for all,” in particular because it would result in decreasing their profits. Anything that might reduce business profits is opposed by the Republican Leadership. Why? Because they are at the same money trough as Baucus. Baucus is a DINO (Democrat in name only).

The Republican Leadership hired Frank Luntz to devise talking points in opposition to health care reform. Luntz is a propaganda expert and showed them how to attack reform in a way that capture the support of more and more Americans.

The result has been what you have been seeing as “T-Bagger” demonstrations, the continual ranting of paid political pundits as talking heads on TV, newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, empty headed bloggers and the like.

Simple minded Americans jump onto that “anti-change” bandwagon and parrot their “leaders,” such as the esteemed and eminent philosophers Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Shawn Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly. Unthinking, empty headed, “ditto-heads.”

I am hoping President Obama will summarily reject the Baucus plan. Forget this futile bipartisan idea, the Republican leadership isn’t interested in effective governance. They were interested in it during the Bush administration and certainly are not interested in aiding legislation during the Obama administration. So forget them. They are a lost cause. They may have to, like Moses, wander around in the wilderness for 40 years, before they can get their heads on straight.

They will, eventually. But for the moment the Democrats have to pull their heads out of their rear ends. Ignore the Republicans and move forward constructively without wasting so much time. Democrats wanted the power, it was provided them in the 2008 election, now they’re scared to death to use it. Go figure!

Wendell Potter Slams Baucus Bill: ‘An Absolute Gift To The Insurance Industry’

Featheriver — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:12:56 +0000

Wendell Potter [Wikipedia] — the insurance industry whistle blower and former communications director of health insurance giant Cigna — called the Baucus framework “an absolute gift to the industry.” “And if that is what we see in the legislation, [America’s Health Insurance Plans chief] Karen Ignagni [Wikipedia] will surely get a huge bonus,” Potter said at a briefing for reporters.

The bill establishes a new regulated health insurance exchange and compels every American to purchase qualified health insurance coverage by 2013. Americans with employer-sponsored insurance can stay in their existing plans, while the uninsured would have to enroll in an expanded Medicaid program, a new plan in the Exchange or the now-regulated individual health insurance market. According to a report released by the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would cover 94% of Americans and cost $880 billion over 10 years.

Potter argued that the lax employer requirements would shift the cost and risk of coverage onto the individual and maintained that the bill’s “network of cooperatives” would be unable to compete in today’s concentrated health insurance markets. “The co-ops won’t stand a chance,” he concluded.

Reform must also do more to regulate insurers, who have agreed to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions but are insisting on benefit and rate flexibility. Potter argued that the benefit package standards in the Exchange and the high deductible option for younger beneficiaries would allow insurers to design almost anything that they can sell in the health market place and push the country towards consumer driven health care.

Under the Baucus legislation, private insurers could also charge older individuals up to five times more for coverage. “You’re just using age as a proxy for health status,” Uwe Reinhardt, an economics professor at Princeton University told the New York Times. Reinhardt estimates that “Senator Baucus’s age-rating plan would allow insurers to cover roughly 70 percent of the additional risk they’d take on by being required to accept all comers, regardless of health.”

Baucus and Congress is owned by the corporate health care industry.

Source: Think Progress