Lieberman just wants attention. Maybe he wants to cut a deal with the Dems to not support an opponent next time. Joe is all about Joe and perhaps Israel, though I'm not sure if Israel could count on him if he thought it was a political risk.
Look at TJ's post count for a clue. Even the post count of an accused troll is more interesting than Joe "The Muppet" Lieberman.
I'm not positive, but I think these are two different things. I think the 50 vote reconciliation idea is basically that Reid would reclassify this into a budget-bill of some sort. If that happens, then the bill can only be debated for so long and can't be filibustered. It's a bit sketchy because this isn't a budget bill - it's a policy bill. It's been done before, but I don't think Dems want to go this route for whatever reason (personally, I don't think the general public cares that much or will look down on Dems, but whatever). What you're referring to is the House-Senate conference. If that's the endgame goal, then the Senate could just leave the public option out, easily pass the bill, re-insert it into the merged bill (nothing unethical here - the House will have it, the Senate won't; one has to win out). And then when it comes back to the Senate, it only needs 50 votes which is not a problem. Either way works. And the latter shows why the public option is almost certainly not dead, and never has been.
I think the concern with reconciliation is that with a historic bill like this, it could be unraveled further down the line when Republicans regain control of Congress. This health plan will take several years to implement, and politicians have long memories when it comes to personal history...especially when they get re-elected for reasons other than merit.
Originally Posted by Lieberman "We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now."
Does he? He mentions trouble for the taxpayers, the debt, and the premium payers. On the taxpayers: Outside of a small startup cost, the public option is financed entirely by premiums, not subsidized by the taxpayers. There's no added costs here to the taxpayers. On the debt: This is correlated to #1, but all CBO estimates have the Public Option as a net cost reducer of the overall bill. (I'm not sure why it's not simply neutral - but no estimate actually has this option adding cost) On the premium payers: If the public option turns out to be too expensive or ineffective, no one will use it. I don't see how it hurts premium payers.
"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now."
Once again: "We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now."
A quote from the article: Is there anyone in the country who has been paying attention to what has been happening in Washington DC who actually believes he is telling the truth about this? Anyone? If the bill does not meet these criteria, he will either just insist that it really does despite all appearances, or he will just provide some sort of lame, political driven excuse. Barack Obama will sign any healthcare bill that the Congress passes. No question about it.
"That the insurance industry and lobby that line my pockets and got me elected the last time around reeaaaalllyy don't want healthcare reform."
