Lieberman should be punished for Fillibuster - 81% of Dems say

Thanks for commenting HA.  Seems this story is not getting much play anywhere, except the Huffington Post.

I do not think that anyone is going to scare Sen. Lieberman at this point in his life. If it wasn't for his vote this past week the Republican filibuster would still be going on. The "progressives" or rather "reactionaries" hate independence, freedom, individuality, Capitalism, Democracy, free-speech. Did I leave anything out. Oh yea, they HATE anyone that disagrees with them. There I said it.

Thanks for commenting tikun, seems you hit all the highpoints:)

Here is a Senator I respect.  He does not toe the party line all of the time.  He is more along the lines of John McCain.  He sees the lie that the healthcare process was to be transparent and televised on C-SPAN every step of the way.  He sees that this legislation is being rammed through without the sunlight it deserves.  I am glad there are congressman that will stand up for what is right.  We need Health-care reform, but it needs to be painstakingly pieced together one step at a time.  Thanks for your informative article.  I am always interested when I read your material. 

Lieberman's lack of support should not be a surprise to anyone, least of all Democrats. 

The expansion of Medicare to those who are 55 is a good compromise in place of the public option.  It amazes me every time new ideas are broached and compromises suggested, its viewed by Republicans as not well thought out or "rammed" through.  Health care reform has been in everyone's mind in terms of possible proposals for almost a year.  I would hardly call that insignificant or not thorough review. 

Leadership is what is needed if you want Health Care Reform, not backroom deals.  I say that as one that enjoys universal health care in Canada and one that thinks that it's high time to get the same in the U.S.  Don't ever fool yourself that health care is cheap.  40% of Alberta's budget goes toward health care.  Maybe the U.S. should have taken a page out of our National Health Act and revised it to meet U.S. needs and then tell the States to get on with it. 

I don't say this lightheartedly, I'm dead serious.  There are too many backroom deals that retract from the real issues from my point of view.  But then my brains are probably frozen.

From a tweet I just received:

Obama invites all members of Senate Democratic caucus to WH Tues to talk HC. Will Lieberman ride in separate car?

I am fine with the "states can opt out" provision.  It's self protected.  If a state opts out, thats states' legislature is answerable to the people who elected them.  If a majority of the population in a state agree with that discision, then the process has worked like it should.  If not, the legislators are subject to being removed from office.

I know the price tag is high, but so is the thought that 45,000 people die every year in the U.S. because of lack of health insurance.  We cannot put this off any longer no matter how much it costs.

Well, Lieberman is an Independent, so I don't think he is included. 

Oh I think he is:)

We don't need to pass this health care reform because 40 something thousand people die every year from not having health insurance. This will still happen with this bill. Many of the people that do not have health insurance, don't have it because their priorities are not in order. They prefer a large home, or nice clothes...I've seen it too many times. "We can't afford health insurance"...but they can afford to buy their teenager a nice new car. For those who really can't afford health insurance (I know some of those as well...I have two son's 18 and 24 that can not) we need to find better ways of reform than overhauling the whole system.  Once they are through, none of us will be able to afford it and the care will decrease. They say that the middle class shouldn't have to pay higher premiums because the uninsured run them up...how is raising taxes to pay for their coverage any different. They need to be smart and address each problem head on with common sense solutions instead of stupidity. Our country is in enough debt and I would like to keep more of my money to help those in need that I feel are in need instead of give it to the government to squander. They are not helping anyone, they are enabling people to be dependent.

Thank you for your comments Pam. 

Trivializing the deaths of 45,000 people is not worth a reply to you.  Your priorities are clear.

A couple of more tweets I received.  It seems now that the public option and medicare buy in is off the table for Harry Reid's bill, Senator Lieberman can vote for it.

Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa), key HC negotiator, says Pub Option & Medicare buy-in now out of Reid bill. "It's not fair but it's reality."

In a related development, Sen. Lieberman, key sticking point, says he can vote for HC bill w/out Pub Option or Medicare buy-in. 4 minutes ago from web

   Exiting Sen D caucus 2 lay Pub Opt & M-Care buy-in to rest, Sen. Bayh says of Lieberman: "There was no acrimony, no singling (him) out."

 

And [Lieberman] will at last be only a minor annoyance" -- Casablanca, 1942, paraphrase shown.

From Huffington

Time, now, for the Senate to act under reconciliation. That is what it is there for. And, it need not act on a bill that contains the myriad of compromises that has diluted its effects. It can act boldly. By doing so, it may even induce the naysayers to come back on board for a good 60-vote comprehensive bill in "normal (non-reconciliation) order" in exchange for some compromises. With Medicare, after opposing it as socialized medicine leading to the loss of liberty, even some Republicans voted for it when it was clear it was going to pass. With HCR about to be passed under reconciliation, some wayward Democrats may see the light.

Every part of the health care bill that involves how the government spends or receives money can be handled by reconciliation. That includes: a public option (might as well make it robust), the provision for individuals to buy into the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) enjoyed by Members of Congress; reducing Medicare eligibility to age 55 along with premiums to cover costs; enabling seniors who are on Medicaid and Medicare to purchase drugs at the (lower) Medicaid prices; expanding Medicaid, establishing a minimum medical loss ratio of 90% for insurance companies that take any federally subsidized insured. That's all pretty good stuff and needs 51 votes to pass it.

Those parts that are not subject to reconciliation (not directly related to how the government receives or spends money), such as removing anti-trust exemptions from insurance companies (how the hell did that ever come about anyhow?), prohibiting life-time caps and rejections for pre-existing conditions, establishing a commission to recommend best practices, and so forth, would be handled separately, requiring 60 votes to break the filibuster.

After passing reconciliation-enabled legislation, take these remaining parts and send them to the floor as a separate bill. Since Joe Lieberman and his Republican colleagues have claimed they support these 'common sense' measures, let us call their bluff. If 60 votes do not rapidly appear, however, attach it instead to a Defense Appropriations bill and let us watch them filibuster common sense reform.

Why Lieberman Hates Health Care Reform

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/joe_liebermans_deal.php

Lieberman’s loyalties are to himself

http://communities.canada.com/shareit/blogs/theelephant/archive/2009/12/14/lieberman-s-revenge-is-the-connecticut-senator-fighting-health-care-bill-to-get-back-at-liberals.aspx

Lieberman's position September 2009

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/14/2151687.aspx

a211423...you assume that I don't care that people are dying due to lack of insurance. You assume WRONG. I'm saying this bill is rediculous and probably more people will die if it is passed. We are losing our freedoms and some people are willing just to give our freedoms away while those in congress are stripping our freedom from us.  What will our country do when hardworking americans get tired of working to pay for all the goverment spending...so they quit working and start taking all the government handouts. How will it all be paid for?

rng...it's not the payouts that are hurting healthcare as much as the malpractice insurance the doctors have to pay. To decrease the malpractice insurance, we need tort reform. That is what is increasing health care costs.

Pam

I hear your passion, but we are not on the same page.  And I do not assume anything.   

We don't need to pass this health care reform because 40 something thousand people die every year from not having health insurance.

Those are your words, not mine.  

Tort reform will impact the cost of health insurance 1.5%, which is next to nothing. 

I am not here to convince you or anyone, but at least we can have the correct information. The increase in health care costs is directly linked to health care delivery systems.  If you would like to see how a good system works, I invite you to look at how the Cleveland Clinic operates.  They save money through coordinated patient care. 

http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2009/12/cleveland_clinic_cleveland_mak.html

Buy T.R. Reid's book The Healing of America:  Global quest for better, fairer, cheaper health care.

http://www.amazon.com/Healing-America-Global-Better-Cheaper/dp/1594202346/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260850641&sr=8-1

explores health-care systems around the world in an effort to understand why the U.S. remains the only first world nation to refuse its citizens universal health care. Neither financial prudence nor concern for the commonweal explains the American position, according to Reid, whose findings divulge that the U.S. not only spends more money on health care than any other nation but also leaves 45 million residents uninsured, allowing thousands to die from easily treatable diseases. Seeking treatment for the flareup of an old shoulder injury, he visits doctors in the U.S., France, Germany, Japan and England—with a stint in an Ayurvedic clinic in India—in a quest for treatment that dovetails with his search for a cure for America's health-care crisis. 

It seems to me that the Democrats have given up on publicly delivered health care altogether. It's now about passing any Health Care Bill.   So when this bill, in whatever form, is passed how will it improve anything?