By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 1 hr 25 mins ago

WASHINGTON – His calls for compromise rebuffed by Republicans, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled sweeping legislation Wednesday to remake the nation's costly health care system largely along the lines outlined by President Barack Obama.

Sen. Max Baucus' proposal, months in the making, drew quick criticism from liberals who said his vision was too cramped and from Republicans who deemed it overly expansive. Yet whatever its fate, its mere release marked a critical turning point in Congress' long and tumultuous debate over Obama's top domestic priority.

The Finance Committee is to meet next week to vote on the plan, and after combining it with another panel's bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid intends to begin debate on the Senate floor late this month or early October. Across the Capitol, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been waiting to see Baucus' health care prescription before advancing companion legislation toward a vote by the House.

"We cannot let this opportunity pass," Baucus, D-Mont., said as he outlined a $856 billion plan designed to protect millions who have unreliable insurance or no coverage at all, at the same time restraining the explosive growth of medical costs.

Congressional budget experts estimated the proposal would reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 29 million over a decade. They also predicted the plan would trim federal deficits by $49 billion over the same period and suggested savings in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars might result for the decade that follows.

Many of the bill's major provisions would be delayed until 2013, after the next presidential election.

But the impact of one of the key concessions Baucus made in a so-far-unsuccessful search for Republican support — allowing cooperatives, rather than the federal government, to sell insurance in competition with private industry — was judged harshly.

"They seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country," wrote Douglas W. Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office.

Supporters claim the co-ops would compete effectively with private companies and help hold down the cost of insurance, but CBO's assessment is likely to re-energize advocates of direct government competition.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called the overall legislation an "important building block" that "gets us closer to comprehensive health care reform."

Reid, too, described it as "another important piece to the puzzle" on the road to health care legislation.

Pelosi said that while the bill would do less than House legislation to make coverage more affordable, its emergence "will move this historic debate forward."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who has labored to keep his rank and file united in opposition, called it a partisan proposal that "cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program. Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy."

Baucus' legislation reflected nearly a year of preparation by the 67-year-old Montanan, a partially successful attempt to gain support from outside interest groups, and months of painstaking private negotiations with two other Democrats and three Republicans on the Finance Committee.

With White House backing, the nation's drug makers and hospitals have agreed to defray part of the expense of the eventual bill, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America is underwriting a television advertising campaign at a cost of tens of millions in favor of health care legislation. The AARP generally supports the effort as well, despite the cuts in planned Medicare spending, and even opposition from the insurance industry has been somewhat muted.

Even so, the private negotiations involving Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Olympia Snowe of Maine came up short, at least for the time being.

Baucus told reporters he expected he would gain bipartisan backing before the bill emerges from committee, probably next week, an evident reference to Snowe. "This is a first step in the process," Snowe said in a written statement, and she promised to continue to work with Baucus and Democrats on drafting a bipartisan bill.

The other Democrats in the talks were Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

Like other proposals in circulation, Baucus' plan would require insurance companies to sell coverage to all seeking it, without exclusions for pre-existing medical conditions or prohibitively expensive premiums.

The legislation would create so-called insurance exchanges in the states where companies could sell policies that meet criteria set by the government, with federal subsidies available for lower-income individuals and families who would otherwise be unable to afford coverage. Any policy offered for sale in the exchanges would have to cover preventive and primary care as well as dental, prescription drug, mental health and vision services. In general, consumer copays on preventive coverage would be banned.

Additionally the plan envisions cutting a coverage gap in Medicare prescription drug program in half over a decade, although not as deeply as Obama called for in last week's prime-time speech.

To hold down costs, Baucus included only one year of a 10-year, $230 billion increase in doctor fees under Medicare.

The legislation calls for a new tax on high-cost insurance plans, a series of fees and taxes on insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry and other health care providers, and penalties assessed on people who refuse to purchase coverage or large companies that refuse to offer it to their employees.

Planned Medicare spending would be cut by roughly $500 billion over a decade, with about one-quarter of that money coming from private plans sold as an alternative to traditional government coverage. The House bill calls for far deeper cuts in the alternative program, to the point that industry officials say it could disappear.

Among Baucus' critics were liberals in the House and labor leaders who have been among Obama's strongest supporters.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has long been involved in health care issues, said the proposal doesn't go far enough to control costs or guarantee a greater choice among health plans for consumers.

Chuck Loveless, the director of legislation at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said, "Chairman Baucus has made what I would characterize as a herculean effort to produce this, but we think that the cost has been too high, and we want to see major changes."

In the House, Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York, who favors a government-run program, said, "I think I speak for many members of Congress in saying that the Senate proposal simply will not pass muster in the House of Representatives and fails on very basic levels to satisfy the objectives of the president and the citizens of the United States of America."

Like authors of competing bills in the House and in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Baucus worked his way through numerous controversial issues. Unlike them, though, his reflected a desire to seek bipartisanship.

Thus, the bill includes provisions to keep illegal immigrants from obtaining health coverage through the new insurance exchanges.

The bill also would prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or if the life of the mother would be endangered. It would leave in place state laws that protect health care workers who refuse to participate in abortion coverage.

Yahoo article here

Not sure I know how I feel about this, still a bit confusing. I heard today that that this bill offers coops but no public plan, but even democrats didn't think coops could work on such a scale, didn't they?

And I heard, I think for a family making 62,000(?) a year (not sure), that they would have 13 % of their paycheck deducted and sent directly to the insurance company. If you didn't pay that 13% you'd get a fine of 3800.oo. Yikes.

Wallstreet as celebrating. Sounds like it makes insurers happy, and if they have been increasing premiums all along and they are happy with it, something doesnt' sound right to me.

I am not sure what to make of it either. So he tries to work out a bi-partisan bill all this time and no republicans sign on to it? I think it is clear they are playing games and from what I understand, this bill is going to see a complete make over. Lacks support all around and has some serious issues.

I believe Congress is putting a bill out there to satisfy The President's initiative. They do not believe it will pass. they do not want it to pass(hopefully). They put it out there ...it doesn't make it out of committee or doesn't pass congress. Then we all can move on with other, more pressing, needs.

It leaves out so many of the safeguards Obama wanted. I gotta tell ya, Obama's polite willingness to work with Republicans isn't working for him. I don't know why he keeps coddling them. Especially Snow, she's like having no help at all. They tell him they are working with him then tell their constituents the opposite. With friends like that you don't need enemies.

I'm for public option not co-ops. This morning on NPR news, they were talking about how many times this will be amended.

This doesn't satisfy Obama's initiative, it leaves much of it out and rewards and coddles the insurance companies.

Well this bill pats the insurers on the butt and tells them don't worry guys, we'll make sure you have no competition. They screw us because they have no competition NOW.

Thanks but I'll take my chances with fate than trust these bozo's to look out for me. I have always wanted both sides to work together but frankly if republicans won't lift a finger to help and you have (blue dog/ might as well be republicans on the left) who aren't helping much either, why bother.

The offer of co=ops is bs and they restrict the coop's so bad they might as well not have bothered to offer it. So much for competition, it's about blocking competition. Not to meantion the cost to consumers out of their pay checks and that penalty.

It's all gain gain for the insurers and stiffs the public.

And they named these guys the gang of six? Way to go guys, you sure are acting like a gang.

Government sponsored abortion will kill any bill....IMO

I say Ammend this!! Obama is way too trusting of these two faced twits.

According to BHO Public Option Computer.
Who will get the life- saving transplant?
The woman livin' on the fixed income of Social Security, draing the syastem or the woman who earns $60,000.00 a year and pays the 13% to sustain the program.
The economists would vote for the woman who adds to and not the one who is a drain on the system.

BTW, I don't like the coop option either.

Calling a woman on social security a drain on the system is just plain ugly. I call wall street and bank scumbags 'draining the system', but we focus social security recipients...

You want to kill of the social security recipients? Oh never mind, I don't need an answer to that.

I am against Public Option.
I is a po white boi and don't want BHO's computer deciding between if I live or if the rich white dude lives.

Lucky for me I don't have to worry about pregnancy so I don't have to worry about self righteous religious groups thinking the have the right to make decisions with regard to MY body. I won't argue whether it's in the bill or not because people don't listen or believe it anyway even when it's clear.

Ya' know, Gov. sponsored abortion could bring us a little more in line with China. The Gov. could eventually regulate how many kids a family could produce. If a pregnancy occurd with a woman who had her quota of kids, the Gov. could order an abortion.

A woman receiving Social Security worked and put into that system.

It's not on the bill, Ddn.

I am 'not' against forced competition when it's clear that insurance companies will not stop the dispicable practices in the name of profit.

I remember you saying you like to live below the poverty line or something to that affect. So what does it really have to do with you then?

It won't be deciding. You and your doctor would be the ones deciding that.

There are days when that Sounds reasonable to me, since too many irresponsible women don't know when to stop anyway, and use the amount of kids to collect more welfare. I don't mind helping people, I just don't want to help young women 'use' children to collect more money from the government.

I don't see you taking on all the unwanted babies...

I would take in unwanted babies.
I raised two of my kids alone and would take on some more if I was called to.