Sen Max Baucus is an energy drain – that is – he sucks up all of the good energy of active Democrats, and makes sure that nothing comes of it. He also acts as assurance to uninvolved Democrats that they have someone in office looking out for their interests, so they fall asleep. I was deeply involved in Democratic politics back in the mid-nineties, and carry with me memories of Max’s supporters, clueless, and his staffers – beady-eyed followers. It was weird – staffers were not just loyal to Max, they were fearsome in their loyalty, more about Max than Democrats in general. They would actively try to steal volunteers from other candidates.
Bob directed me to a Mike Dennison Article in the Helena Independent on Max’s new health plan. It’s everything I’ve come to expect from Max over the years. A little bit, but not without a bow and a kiss on the ring of power.
Max’s plan is not totally without merit – it would expand coverage for Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and Indian Health Services.
If I understand correctly, my wife and I (age 58) would be allowed to buy into Medicare, and that should be cheaper than the plan we have now, MCHA. But since we are uninsurable by private insurers (preexisting conditions), letting me and others like me into Medicare will put additional strain on that already-strained system. Nonetheless, I’ve seen the care my Mom (and late-Pop) get from Medicare, and it’s excellent. I would not mind buying in.
Here’s where Max goes off the rails in a very predictable manner – he leaves the private health care system intact. If a person is unwillingly married to his job because he needs the insurance, he’s still stuck. He does nothing about the current employer-provided system, which is such a drain on companies like GM. Max mandates that we all have insurance, with varying degrees of support. All of that support would be funneled to private insurers. The big problem we have in this country – the hodgepodge of private insurance companies, each with their own multi-layered bureaucracies, each with their own profit requirements, would not only remain intact – it would be strengthened. If you think it’s bad now, wait until these private little tyrannies realize they are no longer threatened by single payer.
Baucus staffers say it would come close to universal coverage over several years, by expanding public programs and requiring everyone to buy health insurance. Still, that prospect relies on the private, for-profit insurance market to fill some big gaps — something it hasn’t done after decades of being in business.
Max says that that real reform, single payer or a true national health plan is “off the table” and “not politically feasible”. Even though that vast majority of the public wants it, the insurance companies don’t. We’re not a functioning democracy.
Welcome to Maxville. Everything good is usually down the road somewhere. He’s like gas station coffee – he only resembles the real thing.
And this is why Max Baucus is so bad for us. He always offers a little, seldom delivers, and when he does deliver, the biggest package with the biggest bow and shiniest wrapping paper goes to entrenched power. Max knows how to play the game.
Six more years of Max. I was one of the anonymous writers over at “Eyebrows Over Highbrows” – I thought it was a fun gag. I never took it seriously. Baucus had no serious opposition, and that allowed him to carry on being Max. Sigh. Montana needs a new Senator – a Democrat to replace Baucus. He’s been sucking our energy for too long.
Addendum Dennison’s Part II here – damn fine piece. Rob Natelson take him on here – hard to believe that a man as erudite and well-researched as Natelson claims to be merely repeats tired old canards, like “Under “regimented national plans” the waiting lists generated in government programs are themselves a form of uncounted cost – because pain and death saves money.
Is he aware of at least 18,000 Americans who die each year due to lack of health insurance coverage?
Piece of Mindful 
Max Baucus is much, much worse than any train robber ever was! Don’t ever turn your back on him!
LikeLike
He’s perfect for Montana’s colonial, non-tax-paying, non-resident, ruling class. K Street’s darling Democrat.
LikeLike
Good job on EoH. Best election site by far.
LikeLike
It was your last statement that flipped a switch.
Whenever I see sob stories about people dying and who’s to blame I approach the premise with a large degree of caution. So I took a chance and followed the link to the health site. And of course it does say “roughly” 18,000 die without health insurance.
But its what it doesn’t say is who these 18K are, so I going to enlighten you. They’re a mixture of retired people who may have had ins. in the past but now rely on Medicare, they’re young people between jobs, they’re adults who’ve decided that booze and drugs are more important, and they’re illegal aliens.
I’m sure that buried some where in that 18K there is truly some injustices, but not enough to bog down working families with the added cost and declining services that a nationalized health care program would provide.
LikeLike
Swede – you’re sort of missing the point – the people who died for lack of health insurance didn’t die of nothing. They died due to lack of treatment of treatable diseases.
You seem to think they are disposable. Is that your final solution?
LikeLike
The problem I’m having is the Institute of Medicine opening statement.
Let’s review, they said,”Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States.” That sentence could take on all sorts of meanings. Could it mean that Blue Cross isn’t giving the famous ballplayer a liver? Or how about Aunt Margret’s miracle witch doctor cancer cure that the insurance doesn’t endorse? How many lung cancer patients, whose smoked since 12, can you feel sorry for when they didn’t buy insurance, but bought cartons of Camels instead. And finally, do doctors and clinics really say, damn sure wish you had insurance, cause without it, you got 3 weeks to live?
Lack of any statistics about these “disposable” people makes me wonder what the real number is, and more importantly, why.
LikeLike
The study is available for review, pages 25-45 cover methodology. Your questions are very broad and don’t give much credit to the ability of the people who did the study to be objective, and not to overlook the obvious. They are talking about people who die of cancer, diabetes, HIV infection and AIDS, heart and kidney disease, mental illness, traumatic injuries, and heart attacks. I have no doubt that some of them smoked.
LikeLike
You’re right, I missed the methodology part, but I’m not overlooking the obvious. I do believe that the IOM does have an agenda in all this.
Let’s look at this question/answer from the IOM.
<<Is IOM part of the government or quasi-government? Who does IOM work for; where does your funding come from?
The National Academy of Sciences was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters. However, the Academy and its associated organizations (e.g., the Institute of Medicine) are private, non-governmental, organizations and do not receive direct federal appropriations for their work. Studies undertaken for the government by the Academy complex usually are funded out of appropriations made available to federal agencies. Most of the studies carried out by the Academy complex are at the request of government agencies.<<
I had to read it a couple times. It states its “private”, “non-gov.” non-direct in funding, and yet it was created by, funded indirectly, and reports to said govt..
And lastly, wouldn’t you think, in the case of mandated health care or any facsimile for that matter, wouldn’t the IOM be first in line in running the show?
LikeLike
I guess that part doesn’t bother me – I’m not put off by the “g” word, and see more agendas in the private sector than the public. It seems as if you are looking to undermine their credentials and are avoiding dealing directly with their findings.
LikeLike
>>>>pages 25-45 cover methodology.
They survey some studies in the field to support their narrative.
They go on at length about how the insured have better outcomes than the uninsured. What struck me was that this looked like an upper class/lower class thing. Wealthier people tend to take better care of themselves in general. Poorer people have a shorter time horizon and discount the future more. Piling on more doctor visits won’t necessarily much change the mortality rates between these groups: we’re talking lifestyle and diet differences that aren’t amendable by more visits to the medical complex. The study claims they adjusted for socio demographics, but I have my doubts. At one point they mention that the uninsured have similar outcomes to those under various public health care programs. The 25% higher mortality rate for the uninsured (which extrapolates out to the 18,000 figure) doesn’t seem particularly high. If it was 3x or so, I would think it is time for some intervention. But in these kind of things we tend to have a conservation of social momentum, and I suspect it will be hard to change this figure. You are anxious to get rid of health insurance companies, but I suspect doing so won’t change this figure. We like to focus on one shot solutions, but the nature of the beast tends to hang on. For example,the credit card companies were asked, “why are your charges so high?” They responded, “the bankruptcy laws are killing us. Reform bankruptcy, and our fees will go down.” So we passed bankruptcy reform, and guess what: no lowering of fees.
I’m guessing Baucus wants to keep insurance around because many people want the option of buying their own health insurance. They see it as a way to avoid a poor to mediocre public system.
LikeLike
>>>>and see more agendas in the private sector than the public
I’m concerned about the feedback mechanisms. The fear/danger of going broke gives us some dynamic. Once you go “g”, it seems you can never go back (until the next revolution).
>>>>It seems as if you are looking to undermine their credentials
It looked to me like they were slanted left a ways. They still did good work, but I’m a bit put off by the notion that “we are objective” when they are pushing an agenda. One key was their focus on infant mortality, where the US looks worse partly due to well known differing standards of what constitutes a birth.
LikeLike