Howard Dean: Kill The Lieberman Bill . . .

. . . and go to reconciliation. If it can be done, I'm all for it. I think it is as likely as Wyden/Bennett or single payer at this point.

We live in the world we live in and have to make choices based on that. So like Atrios, I am not sure if I support a Yes vote on the Lieberman Bill. Still have to go through the Ben Nelson negotiations first.

One thing for sure, it is nothing to cheer about. Certainly not the "most progressive legislation since LBJ." That honor goes to Bill Clinton's 1993 Tax Act. (Good place to make this point - all that money for the 30 million new insured in 2014? It depends on funding by the Congresses of 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and so on.)

Speaking for me only

< Worrying About Mandates | If You Disagree With The Village Bloggers . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bill Clinton was no Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:35:59 PM EST
    and Reagan was transformational or so I hear. When someone tries to tell you who he is, next time please believe them BTD.

    Why not pass this bill, since it contains so many (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:38:36 PM EST
    elements that need 60 votes anyway, AND then immediately introduce a new bill to expand Medicare with the buy-in using reconciliation.

    Passage of this bill does not preclude the next step as far as I know.

    I'm all for it (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:39:25 PM EST
    Without the mandates, it will never happen.

    Oh, I forgot one more step... (none / 0) (#4)
    by steviez314 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:40:55 PM EST
    In between passing this bill and introducing the Medicare Buy-in bill, they have to settle some family business.

    One less chairman (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:29:16 PM EST
    It's not "the most progressive since" (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:43:32 PM EST
    it's gonna be the "most social legislation since SS" and Obama will up his grade to an A-!! I noes so 'cause He saith so, with quotes and all!

    They just played Dean on da ABC news.

    I guess 'most ambitious ... FDR' wasn't working (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ellie on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 07:06:26 PM EST
    I can (barely) tolerate trial balloons for policy. It's innately weenie.

    Sending them up for BS phrases just p!sses me off.


    well (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:59:14 PM EST
    dean is right about this. It's a piece of garbage as it is.

    O.K. here is my argument for killing (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:27:23 PM EST
    the Lieberman bill.

    Per digby the expansion of Medicaid and the subsidies are not necessarily a permanent fixture and can be eliminated.

    *I realize that the subsidies and the medicaid expansion are meaningful. But they are also going to be subject to ongoing funding battles in an age of deficit hysteria. I don't hold out much hope for any improvement on that count. Indeed, I fully expect they will be assailed as welfare and eliminated as soon as Republicans gain power. They have learned from their mistakes --- don't let any liberal "entitlement programs " become entrenched. That's why a big comprehensive program would have been better. It's much harder to disassemble. link

    My argument is goes even further than that. With the insurance industry and pharma given free rein to charge whatever price they want, the expansion of Medicaid and the subsidies are not sustainable. The cost will become too burdensome in a relatively short period of time. While the benefits may go away, what will remain are things like "evergreening" biological drugs, eliminating good coverage policies through taxing them and reductions to the Medicare budget and eliminating good state regulations etc.

    Make Lieberman and Nelson et. al. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:28:14 PM EST
    actually vote against healthcare....Get them on record.  If the whole thing is going to fail, do not let them off the hook by not conducting a vote.....

    Don't let them get away with just threatening....Make them follow through.....

    Bingo (none / 0) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:43:24 PM EST
    rule two in a crisis situation (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by diogenes on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:42:36 PM EST
    Never make a bluff unless you're ready to have the bluff called.  If the libs want play poker with Joe Lieberman, good luck to them. Let the libs vote against the bill and kill it.

    The biggest problem (none / 0) (#12)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:58:43 PM EST
    Is that if they pass this mess they won't get another bite at the apple.  This bill will be IT for health care.  Obama will declare a victory and move on.  Since it doesn't take effect until 2013, why can't they take their time and do it right?!  

    The vote at Kos is overwhelming to kill the bill.  I must agree.  

    Last I heard, the Senate bill (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:13:21 PM EST
    moves implementation to 2014.

    Is that so republicans and cancel the whole thing (none / 0) (#16)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    between now and then?  

    How Medicare Buy-in got dropped (none / 0) (#14)
    by Politalkix on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:42:57 PM EST