No, he's just more outspoken than many Democrats from conservative districts who also oppose th public option.
I think he is more than outspoken. He endorsed the Republican canididate for president last year. He also was the keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention. He also traveled around the nation campaigning for the Republican canidiate for president last year. So I would say he is more than just outspoken.
Maybe it is time to reevaluate his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. And maybe he should start caucusing with the Republicans. I think it is time for Mr. Reid to start playing a little hardball.
It wasn't that long ago that they needed every vote they could get to maintain their majority. And who knows what 2010 will bring. I'd advise against showing Sen. Leiberman the door... But I'm sure the Republicans would be happy to welcome him to the party should Mr Reid (whose seat may be one of the ones the Dems lose come 2010) give him the boot.
And so if Lieberman doesn't vote with them on important issues, then he ceases to be critical to the maintenance of said majority, no? The point of maintaining a majority is to be able to pass legislation on your own terms after all. To the extent that said "majority" is an obstacle to that, what's the value?
Clearly there is value in maintaining control of all the various commitees and being able to set the agenda. Or would you disagree? Lieberman is an independent who would probably fit equally well in either party. If he caucused with the Republicans, he'd vote against them a lot of the time too. With 2010 looming, I'd be shocked to see the Dems take any action against Lieberman.
(chortle!) (chortle!) Like that's ever going to happen. Reid was over even before FISA reform. All I have left to hope for is ... well, Krugman played the ultimate cheerleader this week— Conservatives insist (and hope) that reform will fail, and that there will be a huge popular backlash. Some progressives worry that they might be right, that the imperfections of reform — what we're about to get will be far from ideal — will be so severe as to undermine public support. And many critics complain, with some justice, that the planned reform won't do much to contain rising costs. But the experience in Massachusetts, which passed major health reform back in 2006, should dampen conservative hopes and soothe progressive fears. Like the bill that will probably emerge from Congress, the Massachusetts reform mainly relies on a combination of regulation and subsidies to chivy a mostly private system into providing near-universal coverage. It is, to be frank, a bit of a Rube Goldberg device — a complicated way of achieving something that could have been done much more simply with a Medicare-type program. Yet it has gone a long way toward achieving the goal of health insurance for all, although it's not quite there: according to state estimates, only 2.6 percent of residents remain uninsured .... .... And reform remains popular. Earlier this year, many conservatives, citing misleading poll results, claimed that public support for the Massachusetts reform had plunged. Newer, more careful polling paints a very different picture. The key finding: an overwhelming 79 percent of the public think the reform should be continued, while only 11 percent think it should be repealed. Interestingly, another recent poll shows similar support among the state's physicians: 75 percent want to continue the policies; only 7 percent want to see them reversed. There are, of course, major problems remaining in Massachusetts. In particular, while employers are required to provide a minimum standard of coverage, in a number of cases this standard seems to be too low, with lower-income workers still unable to afford necessary care. And the Massachusetts plan hasn't yet done anything significant to contain costs. But just as reform advocates predicted, the move to more or less universal care seems to have helped prepare the ground for further reform, with a special state commission recommending changes in the payment system that could contain costs by reducing the incentives for excessive care .... —and that is the best we have to hope for. If Reid wakes up and decides to play hardball? I'm afraid of what we might get out of this. In the first place, this is Congress. And Reid is anything but a liberal Democrat. ____________________ Notes: Krugman, Paul. "After Reform". The New York Times. October 26, 2009; page A23. NYTimes.com. October 27, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26krugman.html
I think the Democrats should let Republicans fillbuster to their hearts content. And when things start to backup, I would love to see Republicans explain their rational for sacraficing the funding of troops so they can deny healthcare to American citizens and reduce healthcare costs and federal deficits. I would absoutely love to see those clowns try to justify their actions when Joe American starts feeling the resulting pain.
It is sad that a Christian nation like ours is either so Greedy as to have sold our morals to the drug companies - Or more likely, the people who are against Public Option really do not know what it is. Most of the pollsters ask questions like this: "Do you oppose the Obama-Pelosi health care takeover plan that would bring Washington bureaucrats between doctors and patients, ration medical treatment and deny critical care while skyrocketing the national debt?" When one of my senior friend got mad and said "hell no", she really had a confused look when I told her that she has the government plan called Medicare! Those democrats who do not support the Public Option should be voted out in the next election including the traitor called Lie-bermann It is the Christian thing to do as the plan benefits the poor and the sick and does not make a dent on the life style of the rich and powerful.
Not only is it the moral thing to do, it is the fiscally responsible thing to do. And it is the selfish thing to do, because when all is said and done with the implementation of quality measures healthcare can improve. At the moment, the industry has fought metrics tooth and nail. They like living in the darkness. Light can only mean change for industry insiders and that is why those that benefit the most in the current healthcare system fear change/reform the most.
But She does have something to worry about, as the Obama plan will gut Medicare and Medicaid, (to the tune of 500 billion dollars) with nothing to stop the fraud and waste from continuing into the new Obama Care.
Buffalo Roam, you should know this is not true even in the most remotest sense. Why would the American Association of Retired People favor this reform as they do if it gutted Medicare? The truth is it doesn't gut Medicare or Medicaid. The 500 billion dollars you reference was a gift of tax payer dollars made to insurance companies by Republicans. People will still be entitled to their full share of Medicare under all of the Democratic plans. It is curious that what is not mentioned by Republicans is that a lot of folks leave Medicare Advantage problems each year because they are dissatisfied with it. Why, because they have trouble getting the private insurance companies to pay. Gee, doesn't that sound familar? Where have we heard that before? History has shown that if you are on Medicare Advantage, not only does the government and the insured pay more money for the insurance coverage. They also have difficulty getting insurance companies to pay the bills particularly if the insured has a chronic illness or is disable. No such problems exist under standard Medicare coverage.
I thought you are a smart and well educated person. But then again some smart people get blinded by ideology or religion or both. You see, everyone is harping on how we are going to pay for this. But dumb ones do not realize (that is why they are dumb) that : 1. Get out of wars - it is called a peace dividend 2. Rebuild domestic infrastructure - improves industrial production 3. Reduce employer health tax - improves product competitiveness 4. Improve industrial production - Improve GDP 5. Less sick people - increase production Basically improve the quality and quantity of life. reinvigorate economy and thus increase tax base.
1. What happened to the last so called peace dividend? It was spent plus, 2. How does that improve production when the means of production have been driven out of the country because of the tax structures? 3. What employer health tax? Medicare and Medicaid? and exactly how is that going to be accomplished? Nice slogan now how about how it is going to be done. 4. Again how is this going to be done? and as the industry leaves America and moves overseas exactly how does this improve GDP? 5. And you can prove this how? Doesn't seem to be the case in Britain or Canada, and we have 9 million unemployed already and no signs of job growth in sight, and even more companies looking to move overseas. U-6 as of September is 17% and that is from; http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
Unlike other developed nations who have national healthcare, our businesses burden themselves with health insurance premiums. That is the Health Tax to Businesses. You need proof that healthy Americans is good for the society? Do you also need proof that unhealthy Americans drain the resources and productivity from the nation? Have you ever heard of Balanced Trade? No matter what tax structure you have (you still have to pay for the Wars), you can not compete with the Chinese Production on free trade. If you do not believe, so me how!
I don't recommend that we sidetrack this thread but these questions are actually much more complex than they would seem on the surface. It was not tax structure that drove production out of the USA. It was the attraction of cheaper labor at all skill levels that drew production of of the USA. Lower taxes and less regulation and less pollution controls were lesser factors drawing production out of the USA. The USA had the option to keep production in the USA with trade policy but chose to let the production go. I think the people making the choices were in denial about and unaware of what they were actually choosing. I agree with your main point: "How does that improve production when the means of production" has left or will be leaving "the country"? If we are not going to produce in the USA what use do we have for higher quantities of healthy citizens? Government is supposed to be for the citizens. Production is only relevant because citizens want the means to acquire products. Should the government make one group of citizens pay for another group of citizens health care? Then kmguru responding to Buffalo's point: I need proof. If I put my loyalty to the happiness of my less fortunate fellow Americans aside and dispassionately consider these questions they appear to be extremely complex economic questions. How do we define productivity? Don't unhealthy Americans drain resources mostly because somebody is wasting money by trying to keep them alive? Given how many jobs have been outsourced or given to illegal immigrants and how many more jobs will be outsourced in the future we have a vast supply of excess labor in the USA. Suppose I am a selfish man who's household has a greater income than 95% of American households. Suppose my patriotism does not extend to my being loyal to any Americans who's households income is below the median income or to any Americans who get sick. If I have have almost no compassion and am doing OK how would it benefit me for Americans to be healthier? Who is a bigger drain on society somebody who is going to live thanks to ongoing expensive medical care or somebody who will die quickly due to receiving substandard medical care? Most Americans are just a waste of space who drive up land prices by living. They are only useful as consumers. Their jobs can be done at a lower cost by illegal immigrants, poor third world workers or by highly educated third world workers so why should those who posses capital care whether this useless majority of Americans receives any medical care at all? Giving Americans health care just enables them to drive their cars more and cause global warming. Why shouldn't harder working, healthier, poorer, more deserving people be allowed to replace the whining Americans who are just taking up space?
I) The Peace Dividend realized from the end of the Cold War was used to reduce the deficit. 2,3,4) As previously pointed out, taxation is not why businesses have left the country. Lower production costs overseas has everything to do with the movement of domestic production overseas. Lower costs attributed to healthcare also lower American production costs. Since healthcare is a part of the production cost equation. Healthcare costs in the United States are funded in a number of way, employee expense and through taxation. I take it you have heard about Medicare, it is funded by a tax on business and employees. Lower production costs make production more attrative in The United States. What about this is so difficult to understand?
Really? Then why did the deficits continue to go up under Clinton? there was never a decrease in the debt of the nation, and hasn't been since Johnson, under Clinton it was only as a percent of the GDP, which was inflated by bubbles in the markets.
