David Pleasant

This is a matrix comparing the health care reform plan Max Baucus released yesterday with the plan Max Baucus published in November 2008. The matrix is based on Marcy Wheeler’s analysis. Moreover, as Jane Hamsher notes, Baucus plan forces “low- to middle-income [families/individuals] to buy ‘junk’ insurance they can’t afford” to garner Republican support. In other words, it is a mass distribution of wealth to the insurance insurance companies.

Bottom line: It’s worse than a piece of junk and reminds me of the Ally Bank commercial (YouTube).

This excerpt from a Matt Taibbi post a couple of days ago really needs no additional commentary. I suppose it is especially telling given Ambinder’s zinger today.

I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against himself to take the meat out of a signature legislative initiative just because his approval ratings had a bad summer. Can you imagine Bush and Karl Rove allowing themselves to be paraded through Washington on a leash by some dimwit Republican Senator of a state with six people in it the way the Obama White House this summer is allowing Max Baucus (favorite son of the mighty state of Montana) to frog-march them to a one-term presidency?

This one by Sen. Max Baucus (DINO-MT) ranks right up there with “teh Google,” the “Internets,” and the “Innertubes.”

After speaking at a preventive-care conference [in Bozeman, Mont.] last week, he was swarmed by protesters. Or, in Mr. Baucus’s words, “agitators, whose sole goal was to intimidate, disrupt and not let any meaningful conversation go on.” There were a couple of people in the crowd “with YouTubes,” Mr. Baucus added (meaning cameras), and he posited that the agitators were paid and probably from out of state. (“I could just sense it,” he said.)

Are YouTubes protected under the First Amendment or the Second Amendment? Or are they protected at all?

Max Baucus makes Joe Lieberman look like a bleeding heart liberal and one that the Progressive Caucus would welcome. From The Hill: 

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday he hasn’t made up his mind on whether he will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Baucus this summer has infuriated liberals on and off Capitol Hill by working to strike a deal with Republicans on healthcare reform. A “no” vote on Sotomayor would be adding fuel to the left’s fire at the Finance Committee chairman.

Baucus on Thursday twice told The Hill he is undecided on next week’s floor vote on Sotomayor.

“I have no idea,” Baucus said. “I haven’t paid any attention and I haven’t announced … I’ve been so busy with healthcare. It’s under consideration. I’ll certainly know when I vote, but right now I can’t tell you.”

I don’t understand why Max Baucus doesn’t change parties, other than doing so would cost him his chairmanship and thereby drastically reduce the amount of money lobbyists give him. Clearly, having a 60-vote majority in the Senate is meaningless to the Democrats, so what productive purpose does Baucus serve in the Democratic Party?

Late Update: FirstRead reports that Baucus will vote for Sotomayor.

"I have long said that to be a Supreme Court Justice a person must meet three main criteria: personal integrity, professional competence, and a view of important issues that is within the mainstream of contemporary judicial thought," Baucus said in a statement. "After personally meeting Judge Sotomayor, thoroughly analyzing her judicial record, and reviewing her nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor unquestionably meets each of these criteria. Thus, I am proud to support her nomination and will vote to confirm her as a Justice to the United States Supreme Court.”

Well that’s nice. Sen. Baucus decides to vote with the rest of his party. I suppose a stopped clock is right occasionally, huh?

Well, it looks like the $6,414,993 the health and insurance industry paid Sen. Max Baucos (D-UnitedHealthcare) worked out swimmingly well for them. He has nixed the public option plan out of the Senate Finance Committee’s health care reform bill.

After weeks of secretive talks, a bipartisan group in the Senate edged closer Monday to a health care compromise that omits two key Democratic priorities but incorporates provisions to slow the explosive rise in medical costs, officials said.

These officials said participants were on track to exclude a requirement many congressional Democrats seek for businesses to offer coverage to their workers. Nor would there be a provision for a government insurance option, despite President Barack Obama’s support for such a plan.

The three Democrats and three Republicans from the Senate Finance Committee were considering a tax of as much as 35 percent on very high-cost insurance policies, part of an attempt to rein in rapid escalation of costs. Also likely to be included in any deal was creation of a commission charged with slowing the growth of Medicare through recommendations that would take effect automatically unless overturned by Congress.

”We’re going to get agreement here,” Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Finance Committee chairman, said Monday. ”The group of six really wants to get to ‘yes.”’

This absolutely is not health care reform.

TPM is reporting that Sen. Max Baucus (D-Health Care Industry), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is blocking Democrats’ participation in health care negotiations and is granting full access to Republicans. No wonder health care reform is getting absolutely nowhere, especially in the Senate.

Why, you ask? Well, just marvel at Baucus’ campaign contributions from the health care and insurance industries from 2006 to today. A whopping $6,414,993.

Where is Harry Reid and why is he allowing Max Baucus to determine the fate of health care reform?