Reconciliation: Lieberman Will Filibuster House HCR Bill

This morning:

LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote [. . .]

The why Lieberman gives is irrelevant. The fact that he will filibuster is what people need to deal with. Time for reconciliation.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Football Open Thread | How About Pre-Natal and Birth Care for Pregnant Undocumented Women? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Who cares? (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:59:59 PM EST
    What track record in the last half century are we looking to that makes us believe our completely bought and pair for government is going to do anything that is more pro-citizen than pro-profit for the insurance racket?  

    Everything else is just nonsense to me. This bill will, first and foremost (as EVERYTHING our gov't does is) be a handout to private industry. What coverage comes to poor people, it seems obvious, will be coverage so poor it can hardly be classified as such.

    We do not have a functioning government of the people. Period. It does not exist. And expecting anything good to come from this broken institution is folly. This will be about profit first, people second, no matter how many people without "insurance" (not the same as health care) are supposedly "covered".

    My friend (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by NYShooter on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    you are sadly, tragically, correct.

    you are not being accurate .... (none / 0) (#23)
    by nyrias on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 05:53:38 PM EST
    Insurance companies are owned by citizens. So pro-profit = pro-some-citizens.

    You can argue this may not be pro-poor but even that is debatable.

    If some people who previously have no health insurance receive coverage, then they are better off. Even if the insurance companies are making more money, these poor, previously-uninsured people are still better off.

    And surely some have to pay, which can come from one of the two sources .. a) OTHER companies, and b) tax payers.

    If this thus increase the costs of other companies (other than the insurance companies), you cannot say it is pro-profit .. since it is merely shoveling profits around.


    Send him packing (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:26:22 PM EST
    At this point I would give Lieberman something to really be upset about. I'd strip his chair and oust him from the caucus. Enough of his games. Let him explain his situation to the voters of Conn. The party has played his game for too long.

    I'd be curious to see just how long the Republicans put up with his ego. He'll find himself caucusing in the broom closet by himself.

    i hope people (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:33:34 PM EST
    make sure to give sen. lieberman a wide berth, so when the bolt of lightening hits him, they won't be collateral damage.

    as a matter of conscience

    Relax (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:52:48 PM EST
    Barrack Obama has assured us that Joe Lieberman has a "keen intellect" and "cares about working families". Obama also said that Joe is serving "in our behalf".

    So what's all the fuss?

    And Obama also said (3.66 / 3) (#15)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:43:30 PM EST
    I'm a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I'm a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law.

    Source: Chicago Sun-Times, "I have a deep faith" Apr 5, 2004

    So yeh, what's the fuss.  Keep that faith with him, fan club.  Don't actually think about what was done at his behest yesterday.  (And don't actually think about whether any of the sentences above, any at all, are truths.)


    After the House's performance last night (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by magster on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:03:25 PM EST
    there are a few House chairs that need some repurcussions too.

    Could someone explain (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by pluege on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:44:55 PM EST
    how that rat bastard LIEberman turns being against the public option into a matter of conscience? Does that sick skank not know what a matter of conscience is? The public option is an economic  and a policy issue. It has nothing to do with anyone's conscience.

    It's really very simple (none / 0) (#20)
    by FreakyBeaky on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:48:49 AM EST
    He just makes s4!t up.

    (And no, that sick skank does not know what a matter of conscience is, but that's not really the problem.  The problem is he doesn't care).


    I am sick to death of all of it! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:19:55 AM EST
    It's not going to do anything other than raise insurance rates.  I hope and pray that the Senate does NOT agree to this mess of a bill.  

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:19:44 AM EST
    only in that it looks like it is not only going to raise insurance rates for a lot of us but also is going to do other damage -- and already has done so in symbolic ways, at the least, this weekend.

    Now, does the public option (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:23:07 AM EST
    that the House passed last night save enough money to be considered a budget reduction instrument? Will the Senate Dems play hardball with procedure even if the parliamentarian plays Fred Hiatt?  

    The public option is clearly (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:24:09 AM EST
    budget germane.

    Not even an issue.


    It's all about whose definition (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:29:40 AM EST
    the Dems will abide by. I am really interested to see how they thread this needle, especially if the Senate is unable to pass its own standalone bill.

    There is no definition (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    where it is not budget germane.

    It was my understanding (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:34:39 AM EST
    that it actually had to reduce the deficit to be included. But you may well be right.

    The Parliamentarian knows budget germane when (none / 0) (#6)
    by steviez314 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:54:00 AM EST
    he sees it.

    Can't wait (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:11:55 PM EST
    for Tom Coburn to make good on his threat to have the text of the entire bill read on the Senate floor.  THAT should make for some interesting TV!

    I'd rather see a retrospective of Neighbor Tom's (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ellie on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    ... compassionate side, as cap'd on film.

    Damn, man... (none / 0) (#19)
    by NealB on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:50:16 PM EST
    ...I thought you were dead!