Wyden Is Causing Trouble Again (For Reid)

Senator Ron Wyden's annoying insistence that Democrats not lie to the American people about health care reform is causing trouble for the party leadership again. His office was not happy with a new talking point sent out by the leadership, falsely claiming that if you don't like your current health insurance you would be offered a new, affordable choice.

That drew a quick rebuttal, not from Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, but from Wyden’s Communications Director Jen Hoelzer. Here's what she sent to 490 Democratic Communicators:

I just wanted to flag for colleagues that their bosses should be careful using the talking point that under the Dem bill, Americans who don’t like the coverage they have, will be able to choose something else. As CBO Director Elmendorf indicated last week, under the current legislation, seven years after implementation, more than 90 percent of Americans will remain barred from shopping for insurance in the exchange. This means that not only will MOST Americans be stuck with the coverage they have – whether they like it or not – if reform establishes a public option, more than 90 percent of Americans won’t be able to choose it. As many of you know, this is why Senator Wyden has been fighting so hard to get his Free Choose proposal into the bill, so that we can tell our constituents that if you don’t like the coverage they have, they can choose something better. But right now, that’s not the case. Let me know if you have any questions. Jen

Will Harry Reid bring the hammer down on Wyden for stepping out of line, like he did on Chuck Schumer for publicly saying it would be Reid's fault if the Senate bill lacked a public option:

They even printed out a copy of the Maddow transcript so that Reid could read it back to Schumer, a person familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

Reid, who has never been shy about jabbing Schumer when the aggressive New York Democrat oversteps, eventually caught up with Schumer on the Senate floor Wednesday and asked him about the quotes.

Later in the week, Reid described the exchange as amenable [sic] — while making clear he was the boss.

“Any conversation I’ve had with Sen. Schumer about health care, including “The Rachel Maddow Show,” has been of a positive nature,” Reid told reporters. “Sen. Schumer is entitled to his own opinion.”

You hear that Wyden? Be prepared for Reid's wrath. You better get in line or Reid may sternly read notes to you and make snide comments behind your back.

Finance Committee Vote On Tuesday

The vote on the Senate Finance Committee health care bill is scheduled for Tuesday. The committee has 13 Democarts and 10 Republicans. The big vote to watch for is Republican senator Olympia Snowe. She is seen by many as the only possible Republicans vote for any health care reform legislation. If Snowe does vote for the bill in committee it could be used as an excuse for including her worthless trigger idea in the bill which is brought to the full senate floor.

“The public option with a trigger would be a compelling thing to put in the merged bill if the Finance bill has the endorsement of Snowe,” said the aide. “When progressives howl, you can point to Snowe’s support.”

The other votes to watch are that of Democratic senators Ron Wyden and Jay Rockefeller. Both Wyden and Rockefeller have been treated poorly by Baucus throughout the process of writing the committee's bill. One or both (as long as Snowe is a yes) could cast a protest vote against the bill. Regardless, the bill is expected to pass out of committee.

Baucus Not Even Talking To Rockefeller

This seems very strange to me and shows the depth of ill will there must be on the Senate Finance Committee these days. Baucus publicly screwed over Wyden on his free choice amendment a few days ago, but Baucus's slight of Rockefeller was longer and maybe more serious.

Rockefeller chairs the Senate Finance Committee subcommittee on health care. Not only did Baucus skip over the Rockefeller's subcommittee, but he selected two lower ranking Democratic senators (Conrad and Bingaman) with less health care experience to be part of his “gang of six.”

Rockefeller has been very public with the fact that he is both unhappy with both the shape of the Baucus bill and the secretive way it was written. Baucus now needs Rockefeller to help vote the bill out of committee, but seems to have left the job of twisting Rockefeller's arm completely up to the White House.

Baucus himself keeps saying Rockefeller will vote for the bill, but hasn’t talked with him. Obama has urged him to, both in person and on the phone, and now the West Virginian’s colleagues seem to be giving him space to let the president’s words sink in.

Rockefeller said Tuesday that “nobody” has approached him. “Has Baucus talked directly to me? No.”

The fact that Baucus has not personally asked Rockefeller for his vote just seems like bad politics--and like an incredibly dick move. This is behavior you would expect at a middle school semi-formal, not from the "world's most deliberative body."

Wyden Is Not Pleased, No One Should Be Surprised

The Washington Post is reporting that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) may have finally reached his breaking point. It is possible that Wyden will vote against Baucus's bill in committee. This is news that shouldn't shock anyone who has been following the health care debate.

Sen. Wyden is a health care policy wonk. He spent two years working with Sen. Bennett to try to craft a health care reform bill that would get bipartisan support and would be deficit reducing. Given Wyden's commitment to bipartisan health care reform and his policy expertise, it was incredibly strange that Baucus shut him out of his “gang of six” negotiations. Wyden and Rockefeller (chairman of the Senate Finance Committee subcommittee on health care) are arguably the top two health care experts on the Senate Finance Committee. Leaving them out of the negotiations was major slight by Baucus.

Since being left out of the negotiations, Wyden has been working independently on his “free choice” amendments. It would have allowed anyone with employer provided insurance to select their own plan on the new exchange if they wanted. The idea received serious praise from health care policy writers. Jonathan Cohn called opposition to the idea “incredibly short-sighted.” Ezra Klein called it “the idea that could save health-care reform.” Matt Yglesias said, it “sounds like a pretty good idea.” Without passing judgment on the amendment, it would definitely be a game-changer that would move us away from employer-selected health insurance. Also importantly, the proposal was expected to save some serious money.

Baucus did not allow Wyden to bring up his “free choice” amendment until 1:30 in the morning on the very last day of mark up. When Wyden did bring up his amendment, Kent Conrad was informed via text message that “somehow” the CBO did not fully score Wyden's amendment. Wyden had been told by the CBO that they did score his amendment. This is no small mistake. Wyden's free choice amendment could have brought in over $100 billion in new revenue (even more if the bill also contained a strong public option). Wyden had to withdraw his amendment. Since this “mistake” was not “discovered” until the very last day of mark up, Wyden did not have a chance to get his amendment properly scored.

No one should be shocked that Wyden is both unhappy with the policies in the bill and how it was written. The possibility that Wyden would vote against the Baucus bill in committee sounds very real. If Wyden and Rockefeller both vote against the bill tomorrow, it is possible that it will not make it out of committee. I suspect Wyden is getting plenty of phone calls today.

CBO Messes Up Wyden's Amendment

Sen. Ron Wyden is considered to be a health care policy wonk. He ranks among only a handful of senators who have dedicated years to studying how best to overhaul our broken health care system. His primary goal is to provide greater choice to Americans in what health insurance they have.

To achieve his goal he created his “free choice” amendment which would have allowed individuals to get a voucher equal to the cost of their employer-provided health insurance. They would take this voucher and use it to buy insurance on the new exchanges.

Sen. Wyden was not happy, while in the course of debating his amendment, he was informed that the CBO “somehow” only scored one small part of his amendment. To say this is incredibly unusual would be an understatement.

Independent analysis by the Lewin Group predicted that Wyden's free choice proposal would generate $129.8 billion in revenue for the government. The incomplete/incorret CBO score said the amendment would only save $1 billion.

Cantwell Vs. Baucus, Battle of The Exchanges

As I get more information about Cantwell's “basic health plan” amendment the more I like it. (The modified amendment is available here.) I really wish Cantwell would stop calling it a public option. It is not a public option. I think it is an idea which should be debated on its own merits and not get drawn into the battle for a real public option.

As I have said before, what Cantwell's amendment would do is allow states to create a much better exchange for those under 200% of FPL. It is an exchange with well-defined minimum benefit package with fixed co-pays, out-of-pocket limits, and deductibles. It would allow real economies of scale to affect negotiations, and mandate a minimum medical loss ratio of 85% for participating insurers. Insurers would be required to meet “specific performance measures and standards,” and their performance would be publicly reported. The basic health program must provide a choice of at least two or more similar plans.

This is closer to a Dutch-, Belgian-, Swiss-style, well-regulated, private system. You get to choose from several similar well-defined plans, knowing all of the plans provide sufficient coverage. It is like Medicare Advantage without the option of Medicare. (It would still be dramatically improved if one of those plans was a public option. Medicare Advantage plans cost noticeably more without providing better coverage.)

The main exchanges in the Baucus bill will likely be confusing, loosely regulated marketplaces with dozens of incomprehensible choices. They will lack mechanisms that might engender the best possible bargain or drive down cost. I wish that Baucus's exchanges could be more like Cantwell's “basic health plan” exchanges.

Judging from an interview Cantwell did with Ezra Klein, I don't think I'm alone.

Why only go up to 200 percent of poverty? A lot of the concern right now is for people between 200 percent and 400 percent of poverty because they don’t have as much in the way of subsidies.

Because right now, that’s where 75 percent of the uninsured population lives. They need the health insurance. You create models within our system that are efficient. I’d be willing to do more, but that’s a different question.

What about me? I make more than 200 percent of poverty. What if I want to join your plan?

That’s for another day, Ezra. This is a big mountain to climb. We’ve got to get a foothold and this is the foothold.

It sounds like Cantwell also doesn't have a very high opinion of Baucus reform plan. I think it is clear that she sees expanding her “basic health plan” as a way to slowly replace Baucus's terrible exchanges with a much better ones.

It sounds like Cantwell also doesn't have a very high opinion of Baucus's reform plan. I think it is clear that she sees expanding her “basic health plan” as a way to slowly replace Baucus's terrible exchanges with a much better ones.

Cantwell's amendment is a good but sadly insufficient idea. It is really at best a “foothold.” It is how all the exchanges should be run, not a small subset for some people in some states. If the current Senate Finance Committee bill was passed into law, Cantwell probably hopes progressives will fight hundreds of smaller battles using her amendment to gradually marginalize Baucus's terrible exchanges. I appreciate the effort represented by Sen. Cantwell's amendment; like Wyden's state experimentation amendment it could be a tool progressives might use to fight for real reform at the state level. But I think it is far too early to begin a strategic retreat, to prepare to fight another day. Now is not the moment to accept defeat. This is a perfect time to fight, if only elected Democrats can be forced to remember what the party stands for.

Meet The New Gang; Just Don't Call Them A Gang

The Hill is reporting that a new bipartisan group of seven senators has been formed to try to pass “bipartisan” health care reform.

The new Senate group includes GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Landrieu and Ron Wyden (Ore.). Four of the members — Snowe, Collins, Lieberman and Nelson — played a significant role in helping pass Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package.

But these lawmakers are hesitant to call themselves a Gang of Seven, or any other type of gang. They are still wincing at the memory of the weeks of protracted negotiations among members of the Finance Committee that failed to produce a much-hoped-for bipartisan agreement.

Will this new gang (that is not a gang) succeed where others have failed? Only time will tell. It should be noted that five of the seven senators have publicly stated their opposition to a new national public option that would be available on day one.