Senator Lieberman now has a lot in common with Democratic Senators from the Old South in the 40s, 50s and 60s except it is health care rather than civil rights. Strom Lieberman.

Sadly, Droopy Dog is right. Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln and Droopy won't support any bill with a public option (nor will Republicans like Snowe and Collins). And if the public option is pulled, the progressive Senators (i.e., the true Democrats) won't support the bill. Reid is between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If he can pull off passing a bill with some meaning to it, I will be pretty impressed.

"Fewer In U.S. See Health Coverage as Gov’t Responsibility"
http://www.gallup.com/video/124256/government-responsibility-healthcare.aspx

"Wave of Debt Payments Facing U.S. Government"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html

is there any chance they can go to reconciliation with a stronger bill than they have now, if they don't need the senators from Moronia? Obviously they can't get 60 votes, so why even bother with the anti-human crowd now? The good guys have bent over backwards, done their due dilligence, and they've been slapped for it by truly despicable, corrupt politicians like the Senator from the Owners of Joe Lieberman's Wife. Other cheek turned, let's do something right for the American people!

Joementum. Enough said.

Now, I do think that Reid and the Democrats that care about the public option better have some folks testify before the entire US Senate once or twice or three times or four. How ever long it takes. But, the message better be clear: a public option helps improve the number of insured Americans.

And, when is someone going to say to Joe: do you think it's okay for 47,000,000 American citizens to have no health insurance?

Why won't this old woman let the government represent the people?

Since reconciliation is really to be used for budgetary matters, why not just open Medicare to everyone, with those who wouldn't normally qualify required to pay premiums? The goal would be to ensure financial stability for Medicare by injecting it with cash from young, healthy people. If it turns out to be a bad idea, let it sunset. If it goes well, not even Republicans would be able to politically survive taking away people's health care once they have it.

Don't require people to buy health insurance. Don't let businesses buy into Medicare for their employees. Just individuals. Lower incomes could get subsidies, but they'd still need to pay a portion of the premium cost.

If Medicare administration costs are really 1/10 of those of a private insurance company (I read somewhere 3% for Medicare vs. 30%+ for private), then Medicare should be able to beat any private insurance on cost.

Pay for it by cutting waste, as planned, but also levy a tax on health insurance company profits. Include penalties which significantly increase that tax rate (still only on profits) if health insurance rates rise above X%.

In my mind, making a profit on health insurance is a terrible conflict of interest. If denying a treatment to someone improves the bottom line, of course that treatment will be denied. Hell, the company has a responsibility to its shareholders to deny as much as it can get away with to drive up the share price. There is no compassion in capitalism, only profit. Why do we even broadly apply capitalism to something as vital as health care? Capitalism is great, but it's not for everything.

… and no one in the Senate thinks Joe Liarman is anything but a self-serving wind bag who would sell his wife to the highest bidder if, as part of the deal he would get to stand in front of a TV camera and whine an whimper about how he is suffering because his wife is being abused.
What a sad and disgusting scumbag!