I've been speculating about the Baucus bill being a set up. I'm not claiming this as proof, but I think the purpose of the effort by Baucus (who supported the public option very openly last November) has been to give voice to what health reform ala "The Republicans" would look like. Now that the worst alternative has been publicly debated, we can turn our attention to the Weiner (House) and Wyden (Senate) Amendments. The debate will be in its final stages when those two amendments are scored by the CBO. (All IMHO)
From Ryan Grim at HuffPo.
Baucus Muzzles Misleading Insurance CompaniesAs Republicans in the Senate steadily drift away from Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the finance committee chairman is beginning to move the opposite direction. After getting pounded by progressives for a bill that required middle-class Americans to purchase unaffordable health care from private insurance companies (as no public option would be available), Baucus revised the proposal to make the mandated coverage more affordable and reduced the cost of the penalty for not buying it.
At the same time, Baucus fired a shot across the bow of the insurance industry, urging the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to go after insurance companies who are sending letters to seniors with frightening warnings about supposed Democratic attempts to cut their benefits. (See Dawn Teo's reporting on this here.)
CMS responded by muzzling the insurance companies and threatening legal action, writing that "we are instructing you to immediately discontinue all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your websites."
They made clear they weren't playing around: "Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions."
The Wall Street Journal op-ed page hit the roof,
Read more at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/baucus-muzzles-misleading_n_294782.html