You Go to Reform Health Care With the Joe Lieberman You Have

Remember last week's health care deal? The one that was going to save health care reform? Well, it increasingly looks like (as predicted) it wasn't much of one — and mostly because of Sen. Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, who'd previously taken a squishy position on the deal's Medicare buy-in plan, has said that he no longer favors the idea, and cannot support reform if it includes either an expansion of Medicare or a public option. Given that Sen. Ben Nelson is expressing similar reservations, and Sen. Olympia Snowe — the one Republican who's signaled any willingness to consider voting for reform — has also expressed opposition to the Medicare buy-in, that leaves Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid without the requisite 60 votes

Conservatives are already gloating, while liberals, not surprisingly, are furious. Ezra Klein writes that Lieberman "seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score." Matthew Yglesias says he's demonstrated a "willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions." And TNR's Jonathan Cohn suggests that this could count as a "double cross." Yet Democrats may find it difficult to punish the Senator: As TPM's Brian Beutler tweets, "there may be penalties for Lieberman. But he can just say, 'fine by me... I'm your 60th [vote] on everything!'"

So is health care reform dead? Not quite. It's possible, if highly unlikely, that the CBO score, due sometime later this week, could include news that might interest one or more of the dissenters. It's also possible that Democrats could attempt to forgo Senate moderates and pass the bill in reconciliation — although this has largely been ruled out as an option so far, and for good reason. And it's also possible that Democrats could simply strip the offending provisions of the deal and try to go forward from there, though as Sam Stein notes, this "would likely lose Reid several progressive votes — advancing the cause no further."

If there's still a deal to be made, however, I think it's this last one. Liberals are desperate to pass a bill, any bill, and might be willing, in the end, to let Lieberman have his way in order to get something they can call health care reform passed, no matter how watered down the final legislation is from their initial objectives.

Of course, even then, Leiberman could, after pushing them toward a new compromise, change his mind again and decline to support the bill entirely; having proved his point that no matter how much liberals dislike him, they have to bargain with him, he could simply walk away, leaving them with nothing. Indeed, it's not clear whether Lieberman actually wants something specific from the legislation or whether, like General Zod in Superman II, he simply wants to show Senate Democrats (and their liberal supporters) that he is strong and they are weak.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Xeones||

    If Joe Lieberman is what's going to save the country, i'm not sure the country deserves saving.

  • ||

    It is not Joe Lieberman that is saving the country. It is public opinion. If this bill were polling better, it would have 70 votes and would have passsed by now. The only reason the Republicans or Lieberman are able to do this is that they know it is a profoundly unpopular bill and there is virtually no political downside to voting against it.

  • ||

    "a profoundly unpopular bill "

    what ingrates the masses are

  • Bob||

    Of course, thinking of them as "the masses" goes to the heart of everything that is wrong with liberalism.

  • Randy||

    so typical, your contempt for the "masses". It's pathetic.

  • ||

    Mainer, what separates you from the masses besides a lower IQ and a duller wit? You sould cease looking down your nose at the inadequacies of "the masses" and take a hard look at why such a fine socialist as yourself expresses such disdain for the people you claim to champion.

  • ||

    I think Mainer was being sarcastic.

  • ||

    The ingrates are the masses who actually believed this joker and voted for him. They are sure sorry now.

  • ||

    Ironically, one of the worst things about the bill is the insurance mandates over what kind of plan you can buy from a private insurer. the public option is such an obvious trojan horse for single payer that it's getting all the excoriation.

    The mandates are equally bad and those will sail through...

  • ||

    It's profoundly unpopular among conservatives. The Democratic base, however, still has a majority who support it. And to win an election as a Democrat, you have to mostly ignore what conservatives think and concentrate on winning among everyone else.

    Hence, almost 60 votes for a measure polling below a 40% approval rating.

  • ||

    Conservatives don't make up 60% of the elctorate. It is profoundly unpopular among Conservatives and independents. You may not need conservatives to win an election, but you do need indenpendents.

  • ||

    It's currently polling at 37% overall support among everyone. Since the vast majority of that 37% will vote Democratic, if you have a marginally Democratic district, then among the 51% of voters you need to win, 37% want the bill to pass, 14% don't. If you vote against it, you're toast in a Democratic primary.

    Again, hence nearly 60 Democratic votes in the Senate despite only 37% of the electorate favoring it.

  • ||

    Liberals make up just 20% of the electorate. They may be a noisy base in the Democratic Party, but they are a small minority in the nation as a whole.

    In a way, Lieberman is saving the Democrats from themselves. If they somehow manage to ram this bill down the throats of the 80%, it will be long remembered and they will pay.

    If they don't succeed in their medical care putsch, the voters may forget about the whole thing and the punishment will be smaller or none at all.

  • Ted Keer||

    How can a columnist in a magazine called "Reason" refer to the current attempted power grab in Washington as "health care reform"? Calling it what it is, an attempt to socialize medicine, is the prerequisite for any rational discussion of the matter.

  • Jeff Perren||

    Good point. Words matter.

  • Naomi||

    I would rather have socialized medicine than be homeless due to an injury. What makes a country great is not how big our wars are, instead, how we treat our weak and sick.

  • ||

    Have you been to any countries with socialized medicine. I have been to two. Canada and Belize. The people talked to hate it. In Belize people that I talked to said the hospitals and ambulances are just good places to die. I do not want the government doing any thing for me. I will take my chances with my free choice, thank you.
    I agree with a previous statement; 20% of the the people are Liberal. I would add that 20% are Conservative. That leaves 60% in between that don't want the other agendas. I wish there was a third party that were concerned about the 60%; talk about real change. What has changed under this liberal administration---NOTHING. Same old good old boy politics. Just a stronger Jimmy Carter administration but still out to doom this country.

  • ||

    umm yeah ive been to Canada and England(our "socialist"allies in the war on terror) and sorry there not fleeing in droves into our borders because of their horrific health care system. sure we have the best health care in the world...."if you can afford it" but how do you excuse a poor country like Cuba having higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than this country. Last time I checked our veterans get "government" health care. Should we refuse them as well by your line of reasoning. The problem is that the Big pharmaceuticals are petrified that the government will be able to negotiate down drug prices...cutting out their monopolistic profits. profits over people i guess? A true capatalist supports fair competion for the consumer not monopolistic business practices that result in 40,000 of your fellow citizens dying due to lack of health insurance(according to a harvard study). A number far greater than those who perished in 9/11

  • ||

    Well, he's not interested in the US, so I assume you mean he's saving Israel.

  • Interested observer||

    How interesting. If a senator is openely Jewish and you disagree with him then he is accused of divided loyalties. Somehow I never heard people accusing a senator of Italian, Irish or other ethnic background as working for Italy, Ireland, or the like....but hey...I guess Jews are treated differently in the land of equality and justice that is the United States.

  • ||

    someow i never see Irish or Italian senators making trips to Ireland or Italy and grandstanding in congress to support Irish and Italian policies. I guess criticizing a Jewish senator by extension makes one anti-semetic.

  • ||

    Is it OK to be an anti-semite if you are a lib?

  • ||

    Gazing at my crystalised balls, I see a scandal of epic, career ending proportion in Liebermans future.

  • ||

    I think your balls are out of focus. Joe for all of his flaws just isn't that kind of guy. You won't find him cruising for gay sex in bathrooms or taking hookers accross state lines. And the Democrats just are not good enough to frame him.

  • ||

    I dunno. They might uncover some shady real estate deals. Or maybe some speaking fees or book deals.

  • ||

    Doesn't matter when Israel has no extradition treaty with the US.

    Dual citizenship for the win, Joe!

  • ||

    Like Obama's Real Estate deals? Didn't stop him.

  • ||

    Ah, Rezco! Forgot all about him. Obama called that deal "boneheaded". Boneheaded is when your favorite show is just about to come on and you've misplaced the remote. The land deal was shady.

  • Mad Max||

    ‘Sen. Ben Nelson is expressing similar reservations [to Lieberman's]’

    Nelson has another very significant objection, as made clear in the article to which the above quote links:

    ‘Nelson also said Sunday that he still wants tighter restrictions on federal funding for abortion coverage, like those approved by the House.’

    ‘willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people’

    A fair description of the Senate majority, which is willing have the federal government support elective abortions, reversing Congressional policy of over a quarter century.

    Increasing federal support for abortions will increase the number of abortions, and thus cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings.

  • ||

    "Increasing federal support for abortions will increase the number of abortions, and thus cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings."

    The majority of which will be minority and poor.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    The net worth of most fetuses definitely qualifies them as "poor."

  • Zeb||

    Oh shut up. We already know what you think about abortion.

  • Mad Max||

    And doubtless you read Suderman's post because you didn't know what he thought about the health-care bill. You were just on tenterhooks, waiting to see whether Suderman was for or against an increased federal role in health care.

    I mean, if you knew in advance what Suderman thought about the health-care bill, you wouldn't read his analysis, right? ؟

    Same with other Reason articles. You only read the tax articles because you want to find out whether Reason is in favor of high taxes, or against them. You only read Balko's articles because you don't know his position on no-knock raids and other police abuses.

  • ||

    I didn't know Ben Nelson was Jewish.....

  • ||

    Liberals do not think fetus's are human yet. Get over it. I agree no funding for abortions.

  • Ska||

    I'm no expert by any measure, but I always thought it was "Kneel before Zod." No?

  • ||

    "...he simply wants to show Senate Democrats (and their liberal supporters) that he is strong and they are weak."

    Good! The longer it gets delayed - for whatever reason - the less chance it has of passing.

  • ||

    And the closer we get to November 2010 and divided government again.

    Separation of power, it is a beautiful thing.

  • Doug||

    Separation of power, it is a beautiful thing.

    QFE

  • ||

    Amen Brother

  • ||

    Liberals are desperate to pass a bill, any bill

    Right. Because once they have something on the books, they can point to the clusterfuck which it will most certainly be, and say, "SEE? It's not working because we didn't do it right! Now we have to FIX IT!"

  • ||

    Yes, the Left views this bill...any bill...as just a first step on the road to Single Payer. I promise you the ink won't be dry on this bill before they introduce new legislation to expand the terms of the bill. In 2,000 pages, how many "trap doors" for expansion do you think the Dems have built into it? 100% guaranteed the final price of this thing will be exponentially higher than forecast.

  • ||

    Social Security is a good example of this. Social Security pays low benefits (compared to what you put in), and Social Security taxes are higher than federal income taxes for many Americans. Every few years we have to bail it out with another massive infusion of taxpayer money in the form of higher taxes. But just try to think of a more sacred, untouchable Federal program than Social Security.

  • ||

    Anything that makes Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias shriek like the little bitches they are must be a good thing. You go Joe.

  • ||

    Here, here!

  • ||

    I third that

  • ||

    Yes, AMEN to that!

  • ||

    I just hope one or more of the Republicans don't go wobbly on us.

    It's also possible that Democrats could attempt to forgo Senate moderates and pass the bill in reconciliation — although this has largely been ruled out as an option so far, and for good reason.

    Can someone explain to me why they wouldn't go the reconciliation route?
    Desperate times call for desperate measures, after all, and it seems these may be desperate times for Democrats/Obama

  • ||

    Because they understand they probably won't have Congress come 2010. The plan is to get something done and then fillabuster any attempts to change it. If they pass if via reconciliation, a future Republican Congress can repeal it via reconciliation. Dems don't want to give up the power of fillibuster.

  • ||

    They may not have the House come 2010. The Senate they will probably keep, but lose their 60 vote margin.

    But, yes, if they nuke using reconciliation, they can expect retaliation later.

  • NAL||

    Okay, gotcha. So this is a lot like the so called "Nuclear option" when the Republicans had the Senate.

  • Donald||

    That comment is a perfect example of media bias. The reason you didn't recognize the term reconciliation (which sounds so parliamentary rather than destructive) is because when the Dems are doing it, the media gives cover and when the Repubs are doing it, the media goes "nuclear" on the Repubs. Without even knowing it, you perfectly illustrated the prevalent media bias. Without this media bias, this bill would be getting 20% rather than 35% approval. It's been proven the media is worth about 15 points to the Dems. So now you know how unpopular this bill REALLY is.

  • ||

    I just hope one or more of the Republicans don't go wobbly on us.

    Where is Margret Thatcher when we need her?

  • ||

    Where is George Bush when we need him?

  • ||

    Every major piece of legislation in the past (e.g. The New Deal, Social Security, Civil Rights, Medicare) passed with VERY broad bi-partisan consensus. This consensus reflected the support of most voters and that's why the legislation has stood the test of time. Legislation that is not bi-partisan will simply be overturned once the Reps get back in power. And here's the bottom line; although most americans want reform, support for THIS bill is below 35%. The People DON'T WANT IT. What can't the Dems understand about that?

  • ||

    What they understand is that the majority of the majority of voters in Democratic districts want this.

    If you can ignore the wishes of almost half the electorate, then you can pass stuff that as little as 26% of the electorate wants and still have a shot at being reelected.

  • ||

    The GOP already is wobbly. If Republicans were to take over the Senate after the 2010 elections (a very unlikely possibility), I can think of a half dozen or more "moderate" Republican Senators that would come up with any excuse in the book not to touch socialized medicine.

    In short - don't look to the GOP to do anything. In fact, their track record suggests that they would try to "Christmas tree" socialized medicine by adding all sorts of goodies of their own rather than repeal it.

  • ||

    I wonder if the supporters of this so-called "reform" have caught on yet: the more government control of health care, the more this kind of political shenanigans will become the norm.

    Maybe they think that the government will always be controlled by "enlightened" progressives. I think this is wildly optimistic.

  • ||

    No, they haven't caught on yet. Nor will they. "Right people in charge" is the most astute observation anyone has ever made in American politics.

    http://jezebel.com/5425846/fil.....irst-order

  • ||

    They will never catch on because they have no shame and don't think the rules apply to them. They honestly believe it is okay for them to play politics with the availability of healthcare but evil when anyone on the other side does it. They really are that unself aware.

  • ||

    And when things don't go as planned, even with the Right People in Charge™, it will be because of the evil Republicans, also known as the Wrong People Not in Charge.

    Cause, you know, their fat-cat, robber-baron allies work all the magic behind the scenes to make sure these things go down in flames, pulling the puppet strings of the system. The Democrats have no fat-cats and everything they do is above board and up front.

    They are only good and righteous mewling kittens who are at the mercy of the evil establishment, which they are not a part of, of course.

    Why do you hate kittens!?

  • ||

    But .... anything that emerges from the political process is "what the people want".

    It's "democracy" at work!

  • Conservative||

    Gloat.

  • Brett L||

    Payback is a bitch. If your movement tries to unseat a incumbent senator, drives him to run as an Independent, and loses to him in the general election, you should expect him to be less responsive to your priorities.

  • ||

    The funny thing is that even if Lieberman had lost, it wouldn't have changed one thing about US infolvement in Iraq. KOS would be better off spending his time jacking off. At least he would have a little something to show for his efforts.

  • ||

    I recall that Joe was the first Dem to call Bill Clinton out on the Senate floor. He never took it anywhere, but the point is the guy is sort of a maverick

  • T||

    I didn't realize lack of health insurance was fatal.

  • Ezra Klein||

    Denier!

  • Draco||

    It's not -- even though progressives like to claim that 45,000 Americans die each year due to lack of it.

    Link here to an excellent blog post on the matter.

  • T||

    Roughly that many Americans die from driving around. I don't see any proposals to fuck up the entire surface transportation industry just to fix that.

  • Doug||

    +1

  • ||

    Stand by; the Liberals aren't done yet. As soon as the Liberals get done fucking up the automobile manufactures they will be after us on the hi way. Think back to seat belts and every other "Safety" initiative they have thought of to save us from our selfs'

  • Arlen Specter||

    I wish to express my outrage that my new party, the Democrats, has to be saddled with this prima donna named Joe Lieberman, and his seemingly never-ending need to buck the trend and act contrary to his party's main ideological bent.

    My long career has taught me that such individuals are oozing pimples on the hairy ass of democracy, and we should do whatever we can to remove them.

  • Oozing Ass pimple||

    Hey, stop comparing me to U.S. Senators!!

  • eb||

    speaking of spector, why havent we heard anything from him on healthcare? Shouldnt he be one of the "centrists" like Nelson, Lieberman, Pryor, Snowe etc that are "pursuadable" votes? What happened to him?

  • ||

    I think he is on board as voting for anything the Dems come up with no matter how vile. So his vote really isn't in play.

  • ||

    He's being challenged from the left in a primary. He'll do whatever the Dems say because, having jilted the GOP, he has nowhere else to go.

  • ||

    I didn't realize lack of health insurance was fatal.

    Your willful ignorance, and refusal to accept the evidence before you, makes you part of the problem; repent your sins.

  • T||

    Sorry, no can do. I'm very attached to my sins and can't, in good conscience, repent them.

  • ||

    OK, if Lieberman is Zod, who is playing Ursa and Non?

    Snowe is too much of a cream-puff to be Ursa.

  • ||

    And Ursa was pretty hot as I remember, which rules out the entire Senate.

    Of course there is always the one who shall not be named.

  • ||

    There's nothing Zod-like about Lieberman. In fact, I doubt anyone has ever knelt before him.

  • Ska||

    Not even a desperate intern?

  • Colin||

    There is another way they could pass it -- using what they once called "the nuclear option," which they'd like recast as "the Constitutional option."

  • ||

    Lieberman was the Democratic Senator from Hartford Insurance long before he had his little skirmish with the rest of the Democrats. Him opposing a public option is about as predictable as Michigan's Senators opposing tighter fuel standards.

    As for Ben Nelson, wikipedia's bio:

    "After graduating from law school, Nelson landed a job as assistant general counsel for Central National Insurance Group of Omaha. In 1975, he became state insurance director before going back to work for Central National Insurance as an executive vice president and eventually president."

  • ||

    It is interesting that you assume that because Nelson once worked for an insurance company his motives must be nafarious. They could be. But couldn't it also be true that maybe he understands a little something about healthcare and realizes what a disaster the public option would be?

  • ||

    Not "nefarious". He just has a perspective on these issues which is going to be more favorable to insurance companies. It could be that he knows more about these issues than most, and sees the problems. It could also be that those things he knows are from the perspective of the insurer, and so is less condemnatory of standard practices. Or it could be that he is biased in their favor. Any or all of the above may be true.

    Similar with Lieberman. Whatever else you say about Lieberman opposing the public option, it is excellent constituent service (Connecticut is a MAJOR insurance center), and the whole system is predicated on legislators representing their constituents.

  • aredub||

    sure, if that is how you want to discredit legitimate political courage to oppose a crappy bill that is being rammed through only to save Barack's and Harry's reputations

  • ||

    Even if they can get the 60 votes in the Senate, they still have to send it back to conference committee to reconcile with the House version, and then a final floor vote in both houses?

    But without the public option, or with abortion funding, they lose their margin in the House.

  • ||

    I don't think they are going to get anything. I don't think they want to get anything. If they pass something and still get killed in 2010, they might have to admit their policies suck and are unpopular. If they fail to pass something and lose in 2010, douschbags like Klein can whine and cry that everything would have been great if the Dems had just done healthcare like America wanted. Shitheads like him would rather whine and cry and engage in moral preening than accomplish anything anyway.

  • ||

    I maintain hope that they won't pass anything. But I do think they are desperate to pass *something*.

    When the Republicans said that health care would be Obama's Waterloo, it created a challange the Democrats couldn't back down from. So now it's "If we don't pass health care reform, the terrorists win." on the Democrat side.

  • ||

    But is a terrible bill that is going to create a disaster they will own. It will be their doom. If this piece of crap passes and people start to see the effects, Democrats are going to lose in places no one ever dreamed they could lose. They will own the entire healthcare system and be held responsible for everyone's bitches. Wanting this bill is insanity.

  • ||

    Dude, they pushed the costs and the effects back past 2012. By the time people start feeling the perverse effects, the media will be all alglow over how well healthcare reform worked, and they'll blame the exploding budget deficits on uture Republican congresses. Who will be too pussy to say that it's the huge expansion of entitlements that are busting the budget.

    Nobody will want to KNOW that the health reform legislation caused the problem.

  • NAL||

    The effects start 2013, but the costs (taxes) start in 2010 right?

  • ||

    And Obama thinks it'll be done by Christmas.

  • ||

    only takes 50 votes to approval a bill after conference committee. We are doomed if this is passes given the Dems senate majority....Nancy will pass this at all costs.

  • Michael||

    This is kind of off-topic, but I've got a request. Could one of the reason scribes please call out the Democrats and their media lackeys for the condescending "why do you hate children" talking point tactic they've been employing lately? I regretfully haven't documented the exact instances of this, but only because it sneaked past me unnoticed each time. To illustrate, here are some paraphrased examples of what I've been hearing...

    "Republican opposition to health care has been strong in the Senate."

    "We are working with our colleagues to get health care passed."

    Has anyone else noticed this? Does health care not currently exist?

  • David Axelrod||

    Dammit, we've been made!

    Quick, folks, switch to Disingenuous Terminology Plan B!

  • ||

    Dem politician

    "we are working to bring healthcare to Americans."

    What are you going to med school?

  • Zeb||

    I recall a mailing I got during the last election which said something about how bad it is that so many people don't have "health care". The poor suffering person pictured on the card was a man, in a hospital bed, obviously receiving health care.

  • ||

    Kudos for bringing Zod into the discussion without using the cliche phrase "Kneel before Lieberman".

  • T||

    Kneel Before Lieberman is a cliche? Who do you hang out with?

  • ||

    Zod and kneeling go together like Obama and incompetence. You can't say one without thinking the other.

  • eb||

    even the media instantly accepting calling this "reform" has a bias in it. Reform necessitates that it will make something better. I hate that all these articles are "the dems are trying to push healthcare reform." "The GOP moves to block healthcare reform."

  • ||

    They say patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I'd like to modify it to say patriotism is the last refuge of a Right wing scoundrel. And...playing the victim card is the last refuge of a Left wing scoundrel.

    I saw Michael Moore talking to an Obamacare opponent recently, and all Moore would say is "why don't you care about the children?" or "why do you want poor people to die?". The comments made by Ezra Klein fall into this same category; an attempt to demonize an opponent by making false claims. Obamacare is UTTERLY unaffordable and must be stopped.

  • ||

    Obama is not in any eletoral danger, its those idiots in congress who are. If the econmy bounces back Obama will be re-elected.
    Lieberman is against any reform, and that should tell you somthing, those who are in agreement are the ones who do not want reform either. Leiberman owes his political life to the insurance lobby.

  • ||

    Craig: Maybe Joe just thinks the current proposal is a bad plan on its face. Why do you need to attribute his stance to some sleazy motive? He comes across as p pretty principled guy.

    I haven’t followed your previous posts so I don’t know if this applies to you, but this habit of demonizing those who disagree with a particular position is way too prevalent these days. Seems like it started ramping up during Clinton’s admin. It’s a really ugly trait that shows a real lack of meaningful response to a counter argument. I just suppose that the libs use it so much because their ideas cannot be defended with logic and sound reasoning.

  • ||

    if this healthcare passes, obama will not win a state and may not survive a democtatic primary.

  • ||

    You say that like it is a bad thing.

  • ||

    Far more will die if this bill does pass than if it doesn't.

    Because passage will be the ruin of the American medical system, the disincentive for quality people to become doctors, and a greater disincentive for the development of new drugs and procedures.

  • ||

    Obamacare is expensive, unpopular, reckless, partisan. Any reasonable person should vote against it.

  • ||

    Want health care bill? Tort reform, insurance purchase across state lines, high-deductible plans, individual pools that work like small business pools, tax treatment of individually purchased insurance similar to employer-purchased. How easy was that!

  • Will||

    Exactly. I really think the most effective way to do reform is like you just said or just even one thing at a time.

  • ||

    And by the way, whatever happened to "do this for Teddy?" Kennedy must be stunned at how soon they forget.

  • ||

    The procedural mare's nest that this bill has become is one of the reasons I supported Hillary over Obama. Hillary has been down this trail before and managed never to stick a finger in Lieberman's chest the way Obama did last year (Obama was upset at something Lieberman said about him).

    She can work with Boxer and Graham, Dodd and Hatch. The bunch of them could have cobbled something together - not perfect, but better than the current contraption, primarily because it could pass.

  • ||

    A little reading on realclearpolitics.com proves beyond all doubt that the current legislation stinks worse than week-old fish rotting in the lakeside sun.

  • Glenn Koons||

    This socialist monstrosity is made worse by the Reid-San Fran Nan-Obama trio trying to bamboozle Americans with nonsence about not raising the Debt(a lie), by not raising taxes (a lie), by not hiking more spending and still giving great coverage plus allowing more people, some 30 million or more into Medicare without hikes (a lie)and then having the MSM cover for this group is even more appalling. And any business person who ever votes for a Dem in 2010 especially after the tyrants in DC taking over banks, corporations, car companies and then wanting to pass Cap and Trade fraud along with amnesty for illegals, should be boiled in oil.

  • ||

    Funny thing, Mr. Reid comes back from a meeting at the WH, and shortly thereafter crafts together a GREAT NEW IDEA, which would allow Medicare to be open to people 55-64.

    Well, looky there....one Sen Obama is ON RECORD several times during the last 1/2 dozen years, proposing this VERY SAME IDEA, and adding the follow-up that this is the FASTEST WAY TO A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM!]

    Um, interesting.....

  • ||

    What is this mad rush? The W.H. is imploring Reid to now "cut a deal" with Liebermann? This is how desparate they are to pass ANYTHING and then they can twist it into any way they wish in time for New Year's using the MSM arm of the party. What were the parameters of this deal? How much will Reid try to buy him for? Complete and utter madness. WHAT IS THE RUSH? If they want Republican support, why is there no talk of tort reform or buying across state lines? They denigrate the GOP because they just won't play along? It could'nt be that in the end this bill is just a train wreck waiting to happen. We deserve better than this...

  • bill||

    If the bill is so great, why has the House and Senate opted their members and families out of the legislation in favor of keeping their current health plan? I am waiting for one good answer to this question which I have posed over and over again, without ever receiving even a faint attempted response. I'm waiting?

  • ||

    For the same reason they do not have Social Security for retirement. It sucks. They retire at full pay after 1 or 2 terms. I am thinking of running for office just so I can get a descent retirement. They pass the laws. Vote everyone of them out of office.

  • Randy||

    How the hell did the American people actually win a battle against a wingnut crusade? I'm simply blown away.

  • Jeff Perren||

    Because all pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others.

  • Jeff Perren||

    Oops... that is actually a reply to Bill at 6:55 p.m., not Randy at 6:56 p.m.

  • sceptic||

    It's time to pass the Wyden-Bennet Bill. This would actually get bipartisan support.

  • sceptic||

    It's time to pass the Wyden-Bennet Bill. This would actually get bipartisan support.

  • ||

    sounds great...all read this...http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=674

    I can't wait to give up my competitive, employer-based insurance for a "state pool".

    You libs truly don't understand a free market...instead of a federal govt option, this is a "single payer state" option. Next stop, utopia (single payer!!)

    While everyone can bitch about the insurance companies, they have to treat us "employees" nicely...too many complaints, and the employer gets rid of them. try that with the state-pools, govt option, medicare, etc...

    Why don't you PLEASE move to Canada so you can experience the single payer nightmare...oh, then you'll come back to get actual care!!

  • ||

    Bravo for Lieberman!! The Democrats tried to shanghai him in his own home state and they deserve much worse than this. I can only wish Mr. Lieberman (one of the more sensible Democrats in Congress)would come to his senses and sit with the Republicans going forward.

  • ||

    This is why we have the Senate. If we had two legislative bodies like the House, we'd have Cap & Trade and Government-Run Health Care currently the law of the land.

    Our Founders weren't stupid.

  • ||

    I don't really care why Lieberman's doing what he's doing, so long as he keeps doing it!

  • ||

    Not sure why thee yahoos (both sides) don't find the common ground and figure out something. This one sided argument is silly and wasting my time.....

    HC as it stands is undoable for one fact - The economy. I can't even think about HC until we get the deficit under control....Makes me sick.....

  • ||

    The American people do not want this bill, and if Congress passes it voters WILL get revenge at the polls.

  • ||

    cant the democrats just kick some else out of the senate and appoint the 60th vote? i mean they the did steal the election from norm coleman and put AL FRANKEN(haha) in and change the the mass laws they themselves enacted to protect ted kennedys seat. geez, seems like after stealing elections and changing laws to keep there seats they could get thing taken care of. im anxious to see what they do next

  • Romo||

    This is just democracy, the people don't like this bill so naturally it will fail.

  • bill||

    Those who want health reform, why don't you ask your reps why this isn't good enough for congress and their families. They have exempted themselves from the plan

  • Romo||

    This is what happens when we vote for Democrats.

    John McCain would have passed health care reform by August.

  • ||

    LOL. That is funny and most likely true. The choices last election were "Terrible" and "Worse". It is still a free country so you make your choice who was which one. If the Dems win in 2010 you won't have that choice.

  • ||

    Interesting how all the lib groups are going after Lieberman's wife and punishing her for her husband's unwillingness to play ball with Reid. A Planned Parenthood funder, the Kohmen Race for the Cure, is seeking to oust Hadassah Lieberman from further affiliation and is pressuring every "liberal" group she's a part of to ex-communicate her. I don't understand what's supposed to be "liberal" about the modern day Democrat party, they're just naked fascist thugs and won't be satisfied until the economy is destroyed and auctioned off to China and being born a US citizen means being a slave to paying off a couple hundred trillion in debt.

  • bill||

    This is like waterboarding the people who voted for this mindless jackass. I hope they are about to drown when the people with intelligence rescue them from themselves. Maybe they will think twice the next time they vote for "hope and change".

    We already have a "lame duck" President with 3 years to go.

  • Romo||

    Maybe the boob job tax killed it?

  • Hays Brickell||

    The problem that liberal Democrats are having is not Joe Lieberman but an American public that is increasingly opposing this 2,000 page monstrosity called health care "reform". If this bill would actually do all of the wonderful things that Obama and his hacks in Congress say that it will(which it obviously will not), then 20 to 30 Republican senators would be in favor of it.

  • ||

    democracy at 60 %, of course.democracy at 50 % plus one vote, it's for the others.

  • Michael Kirsch, M.D.||

    Why would we want to expand Medicare? It is facing insolvency and has no cost control. It pays MDs and hospitals so little, that expanding the program would drive many out of business or into retirement. Is Joe Lieberman really the villain? www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement