It Was Lieberman All Along

It's time to go, Joe. You can do it the easy way and resign or the hard way and be forcibly removed from all your choice committee assignments and caucusing priviledges.

The Demos should have drawn and quartered this loser years ago.

I thought Joe was a Democrat now, wasn't that whole drama in January with Obama and Reid about readmitting him to the party?

What was the point of letting him keep his committee assignments if he's not going to help now. I'm sure there are lots of more loyal democratic senators who might want those positions.

I can't help the feeling that Lieberman just relishes any and every chance he gets to screw the Democratic Party leadership. Don't know how, of course, but he just may continue to get away with it. Oh yeah, he does have, always has had marked philosophical differences with the liberal wing of the party, but ever since he was dumped by the DNC and friends in his Senate race, then won, he has sounded more dissimulative than ever.

When will he get his karma? I hope Obama goes Chicago on him (ala Paterson after he screwed Caroline Kennedy) when its useful to do so. Joe'd better watch his slimy back.

Reid and the rest of the Dems in the Senate really need to do something about the Senator from Aetna. In the simplest possible terms, one of the key differences between committee chairmen and backbenchers is that chairmen vote with the party on procedure. This relationship between procedural loyalty and the perks of committee chairmanship needs to be made starkly clear to Lieberman.

Just as Holy Joe wants to make the cloture vote a referendum on the bill's passage, Democratic leaders ought to make the cloture vote a referendum on Lieberman's seniority within the caucus. A vote "no" on cloture should be a vote "no" on retaining seniority status, and with it not only his chairmanship but also his entire slate of committee choices. Whoever is next on the wait lists for Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Small Business gets bumped up onto those committees, and Lieberman gets whatever assignments are left after the other 59 members of the caucus have filled the resulting openings.

Presumably, that would give Lieberman the junior seats on, say, the Rules Committee, the Special Committee on Aging, and the Joint Committees on Printing and the Library. Maybe someone on Reid's staff -- or maybe Schumer's, since this is more his style -- can sort through the committee requests, run the numbers, and quietly pass on to Lieberman the list of committees he would be left with if his seniority were reset to zero as of the day of the cloture vote. Then let Joe see if the GOP is willing to kick any of its own members off of the committees he wants in order to make room for him. If he can cut that deal, fine. If not, then Holy Joe can contemplate exactly how to keep sufficient corporate money coming in to his campaign for 2012 if he has to spend the next three years sitting in the back of the room on the crappiest committees in Washington.

No defense of the weasly Lieberamn , but come again how the public option "simply" does not provide an entitlement? If there's mandatory insurance and I can't find a private plan I can afford, I don't get insurance (I may get to opt-out of the tax though), but if I can afford the public option price, I get it -- in this case, it absolutely provides me an entitlement.

Again, the Democrat's Lieberman debacle shows how potent human emotional and psychological reactions can insinuate themselves into the political process---like a wrecking ball.

Joe is still furious at "the betrayal". It's payback time 'til the day he dies, I suspect.

But here's Chait, scratching his head, wondering why Lieberman doesn't "get" the illogic of his position. As though this is what motivates him!!

But then the babbling nonsense seques into those big insurance companies in Connecticut and it all becomes a bit clearer for the rest of us.

The "public option" is this enormous scam. As was noted on Maddow's show yesterday, the PO won't even kick in until 2013. And in seven years only 10% of the population can opt into it. Unless of course they reside in a state that "opt's out" of it. This is what Chait and The Editors call "great progress" in healthcare reform.

Really, how many here believe that when all is said and done the other "progressive" elements [like eliminating "pre-existing conditions" as a rationale for refusing coverage] won't be whittled down to a pale immitation of the letter of the law by the time de jure becomes de facto?

george walton

"....but if I can afford the public option price, I get it -- in this case, it absolutely provides me an entitlement."

george:

Bingo. The conservative spiel about "entitlements". In other words, welfare. That's how we are suppose to think about this vis a vis the relationship between government and citizens.

In other words, if you choose the public option you're a shiftless ne'er-do-well cashing in on the hard earned dough of the middle class. The reactionaries use this retrograde philosophy about the government to bait the Archie Bunkers democrats in election cycle after election cycle. Thus you have the super-rich corporate mouthpieces like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck urging the 9/12 project dittoheads [most of whom are deeply enscounced in the working class] to abandon the liberal "socialism" and embrace the libertarian "individual free choice" con instead.

george

love that Godfather reference:

Hagan: Barzini? You meant Tattaglia?

Don Vito: Tattaglia is a pimp. He could have never outfought Santino. What I know now is that....It was Barzini all along.

What I know now is that it was Lieberman all along.

I'm sure Chait is right about why Lieberman is wrong on the substance, but he seems way off on Lieberman's motivation:

"Moreover, my read on him is that he's furious with the party, resentful of President Obama (who beat his friend in 2008) and would relish a Democratic catastrophe."

All of this assumes that Lieberman has changed since 2006. Hasn't Lieberman often done things that infuriate the Democrats before that? I think Chait is confusing cause and effect here.

You know what I wish? I wish Rupert Murdoch would make Joe an offer he can't refuse. Multiple book advances, gold blog positioning package, etc. Lastly, he can become a permanent Fox News anchor position, and exclusive rights to partner up with Greta Van Susteren. I can just see it. Really.

Lymon, it "simply is not" an entitlement for the simple reason that the word "entitlement" has a definition, and the public option does not even remotely fit that definition. Words have meanings. To the extent that the proposed public health insurance plan would be an "entitlement," then so too is a ticket on Amtrak an "entitlement." Or a first-class postage stamp, because actually Amtrak is subsidized, so a ticket on Amtrak is closer to an entitlement than would be the public health insurance plan. Contrary to Joe Lieberman's lies about the Reid bill, the public health insurance plan would be legally required to fund itself entirely through premiums payed by those who use the plan.

A service where you have to pay the full price of the service to receive it is pretty much the opposite of an "entitlement."

The only entitlement in the Reid bill is the tax subsidy for low-income people to help them afford to buy their own insurance. But that entitlement is in the bill whether the public option is or not, and Lieberman claims to support that portion of the bill. There is only one entitlement in the bill, and Lieberman is in favor of it. The purpose of the public option is to use market forces to maximize the chances that the entitlement Lieberman supports will actually work.

Lieberman wants the entitlement. He just doesn't want the entitlement to work, and he's against using the virtuous hand of the market to maximize the efficient use of tax dollars.

Rhubs (aside: hi! hope you're well/hope to be back here more in the future), I think that's a technicality: Nobody forces you to take Amtrak, even if you can afford the ticket. You can drive. You can decline the trip. But under the generally accepted outlines of any health care reform, you have to buy insurance unless you can't afford it. I mean, you could go through a rube goldberg system where you provide an entitlement for somebody in a certain tax bracket with money you get from an additional tax, but that winds you up exactly the same place.

I think a better analogy is social security, which is widely referred to as an entitlement. You have too pay into it but the benefit is substantial. You have the option to go above and beyond and privately secure your retirement, but you don't have to do that. The difference with Amtrak and the Postal Service is that you pay additional fees for those services, but I'd agree that one might call the subsidized opportunity to use those services an "entitlement" (it fits even more for the remote and/or small towns which would have no rail service but-for Amtrak subsidies). Again, strikes me as a matter of semantics.

I like how you guys can read Joe's mind-he's angry his friend was beaten, so now he's out to ruin Obama.
I also love the concept of a stronger public option-do you call it that to hide from the American public what your true plan/intent is? It's simple and obvious: first, seed the public plan with Medicare rates (25% below what private insurers have to pay)-call that competition, like seeding a football team with 21 points and calling it a fair game, second, more cost-shifting occurs to the private insurers (just like it does today with Medicare-your man, Obama, mistakenly, says uncompensated hospital care costs each family $1,000-the experts say it's like $200).......if cost-shifting occurs there, it will certainly occur with the public plan (then, private rates go up even higher), third, you open the use of the public option to everyone (HR3200, after 3 years, explicitly says some government agency can make it so).
What's actually funny, though, is two experts, the CBO and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (they work for Ms. Sebelius, don't they?) have reported:
CBO-under full Medicare public option-the government's rates will be 10% lower than private insurers (if they're seeded with 25% start and private insurers pay-out 89% of premiums to providers and to states for health premium taxes--then--really, the private insurance rates are actually lower)
CMMS-under Medicare plus 5%-the government's rates will be 11% lower than private insurers (if they're seeded with 25% and private insurers pay-out 89% of premiums--then--really, again, the private insurance rates are lower).
So, best move, and I know this sickens you anti-insurance and anti-business clowns-why not really excite competition and give both the government and the private insurers the same rates?
Finally, as study after study, and poll after poll has shown-and as your Secretary of HHS has said: if you move the uninured to Medicaid or to a Medicare-based public option, doctors and hospitals will not serve those patients.
Most importantly-why balance the health care reform on the backs of the doctors and the hospitals? Do they charge or earn too much? Maybe it's just the general envy I see in the progressives who really can't stand seeing someone else do well (and these doctors, earning an average of $200,000, not starting a career or their lives until their 30's-they be bad).
Enjoy, continually, the silliness of these articles and the posts. Thanks for providing amusement throughout my day.

It's i am ambigious again-wow-took some political science classes at Berkeley, eh my man.
If I remember correctly, your man, Clinton, the first minority president, negotiated and signed the welfare reform act. He had the veto pen.
It's sad that all of you caricature conservatives-sadder that you're so bad at it.
Boys, I'm a conservative and I spend 70% of my time reading your tripe, watching your all-stars (Rachel and Keith) and listening to your all-stars (whatever AirAmerica is now). In all honesty-except for the great fool Glenn Beck-your guys do the same thing as our guys. I especially love Rachel interviews: she brings on some person who's a total coolaid drinker, tosses them some softball like: "do you agree with me that the public option will provide competition in the marketplace and keep the insurance companies honest" Answer-doesn't matter who-"yes Rachel, you're exactly right, that's what Obama, Pelosi and Reid tell us." No matter that the whole premise is false. Repeat the lies and someone will believe you.
There is a reason, boys, that conservative talk show radio and conservative talk TV essentially destroys the progressives in listener/viewers---you can't compete in a truly competitive marketplace. As I've challenged above: if you believe in a public option, fine, once you decide on how to seed its costs (Medicare, Medicare plus 5% or negotiated rates)-then-give the same cost structure to the insurance companies. If you want competiton-and if you want private insurers to be accountable-simply provide a level playing field and watch what happens. Sad news, though, when you do, the public option premiums will be higher than private insurance (it ain't me talking, boys, it's the CBO and the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services).
Stop acting crazy.

I have to say, not so anyone wants to say I'm a Lieberman apologist, but doesn't this drive home the point that you don't shoot the gun if you aren't sure of the kill? All Lamont's fight ended up doing was wasting money and pissing off someone who Connecticut was always going to reelect anyway. We can rue that Holy Joe's still here, but it's increasingly clear that Lamont's challenge was one of the stupidest electoral moves in history.

loboseven: "Sad news, though, when you do, the public option premiums will be higher than private insurance (it ain't me talking, boys, it's the CBO and the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services)."

You may be right, and in that case, companies and individuals will begin to gravitate to the private insurance providers, who are now offering a better deal. Isn't that how markets work? And if that process of competition means also that we start to eradicate pointless expenditure in the system, it seems like the PO can help a lot.

Crock, Holy Joe may have won the election but it was no reason to allow him to caucus with the Democrats. Allowing him to do that is like allowing any Republican to do so. He's the other side and always goes out to prove as such.

Best to have 59 senators instead of supposedly 60 if this is what 60 means. Joe supposedly was a true Democrat on social/non-defense issues. He's anything but. He deserves to be rewarded for his loyalty.

"Sad news, though, when you do, the public option premiums will be higher than private insurance (it ain't me talking, boys, it's the CBO and the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services)."

Huh? I thought the CBO's anaysis showed that having a public option drives down insurance rates. Someone please explain.

"he has the chance to stick in the knife and kill health care reform, I think he'd probably jump at the chance."

That may be true, but he deserves to be kicked out of the caucus and stripped of any his chairmanship now no matter what. He's proved once and for all to be a Republican.

Mr. Road and others-read the reports.

CBO-if you seed public option with Medicare rates (25% less than private insurance costs), premiums 10% less than private insurers
Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services-if you seed public option with Medicare rates plus 5% (20% less than private insurance costs), premiums 11% less than private insurers

Nothing in law allows the private insurers to use those lower, Medicare rates when they set their premiums. This is why I said-it's like starting a football game and giving one team a 21 point lead.

My major point was-if you're for public option for competition and keeping insurance companies honest-then, why can't you let the private insurers use the lower-substantially lower-Medicare reimbursement rates (Medicare pays doctors and hospitals 25% less than private insurance companies)? If you did that, using the same numbers as CBO and Medaid/Medicare Services-private insurance premiums would be less (probably 12% less), than the public option. So, why have a public option.

And you all miss the bigger picture-by cutting payments to hospitals and doctors you're penalizing them-they'll work incrementally harder (say 12% more to intake the new patients), but for substantially less money for those extra hours. Your Sec. Sebelius has already warned that if you cut Medicare doctors rates even 10%, significant numbers of doctors will simply refuse to service the elderly. When you add 10 million or so to the Medicaid rolls (again-they also pay doctors and hospitals 25% or more less than private insurers) and another 10/15/20 million to a public option-where are the doctors?

It's important to follow the dollars-who gets paid, how much, etc.

But, lobo, you know more about this -- isn't it also the case that hospitals and doctors, especially hospital groups, now have private insurers over a barrel? In fact, isn't it true that the real criticism is that adding a public option will just add one more fatted calf to the hospital groups' menu?

To be honest, it's looking like single-payor is the solution nobody wants to think about.

tnmats, Didn't LBJ say something about rather having folks inside the tent pissing out than outside the tend pissing in? I'm for a big tent for the Dems. Look at what small ideological purity is doing for the GOP these days.

Road-in most of Europe, here's how it works: government collects taxes from employer and employee, non-profit insurance companies abound and fee schedules are set between insurance groups and doctor/hospital groups. In America, doctors make 2 to 3 times as much as in Europe and nurses make 50% to 100% more. In addition, for all other personnel, our wages are much higher. I'd say, then, about 50% of the difference between our per capita costs and Europe's is due to salaries. In addition, Europe is a fee/for/services world, with none of the accountable care organization/health home ideas. Historically, Europe's health care cost growth, and ours, over GDP growth-is exactly the same.
Remember-the lower payments under Medicare are not due to negotiations-the lower physician and hospital payments are only designed to keep the Fed's cost of the program lower. Those providers-with a mixed basket of patients-Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance-deal with the lower Medicaid and Medicare rates. Your public option wants to expand the lower paying patients exponentially.
I'm aware of no criticism of public option adding one more fatted calf-in fact-you only get public option if you're in exchange-and depending upon bill-intent is to limit access to exchange to firms with 50 or less employees (though, HR3200 allows some governmental agency to allow all firms in).
I'm aware that hospitals have consolidated-some of the studies I've seen suggests that overall cost structures-thereby fees-charged by those hospitals are no higher than competitive areas.
In addition, the fantastic Dartmouth study found something incredibly interesting in Medicare: in those areas where excess beds and doctors abound (insane competition)-the per capita Medicare expenditures were signficantly higher. Prices were probably lower-but usage was higher.
I think most doctors in the US practice individually or in very small groups-hardly having market power to dictate rates to insurance companies.
You're not honest about single payer-a small number of progressives support that. The blue dogs don't. The conservative don't. Signficant majorities of independants don't.
While offended by the death panel attacks-it's clear to me, after having studied a majority of Europe's single payer systems (they all are, really)---they control costs by rationing and price controls.
Listen carefully to Zeke Emmanuel and Budget Man Orzhag---they've both said: our rising costs are due simply to the instant and broad adoption of all new medical solutions: drugs, procedures and equipment. They've also said-on the record-that these accountable care organizations and health homes, etc. are BS and won't work. In fact, the Medicare ADvisory board investigated the accountable care organizations and found them to be more expensive than the control groups.

Lobo: "I'm aware of no criticism of public option adding one more fatted calf-in fact-you only get public option if you're in exchange-and depending upon bill-intent is to limit access to exchange to firms with 50 or less employees (though, HR3200 allows some governmental agency to allow all firms in)."

There's an extremely interesting episode of This American Life, broadcast on 10/16 (www.thisamericanlife.org), that looks at health care costs. It includes a long interview with a forma Cigna executive (beginning around minute 47.20) who explains that group practices and especially hospital groups can fragment the insurance market so that insurance companies are forced to shed members to keep a relatively thin profit margin. His point is that putting a public option into the field adds yet one more competitor on the insurance side without controlling costs on medical provider side.

"You're not honest about single payer-a small number of progressives support that. The blue dogs don't. The conservative don't. Signficant majorities of independants don't."

I wasn't talking about who supports it -- I was talking about whether it's a good idea or not.

rhubs, brother you are on fire.

Road-you're prior and current post are interesting-I don't have time to watch the broadcast-but this whole effort, and the drive in some quarters for single payer, can't be based upon what one guy thinks at minute 47.20.
Your explanation is difficult to appreciate: insurers do negotiate prices with doctors and hospitals. I can't see a doctor or hospital turning down an insured patient, unless, their schedules are already full with better paying customers. If that's case, the insurer can simply agree to pay the provider more, increase premiums and keep their profit margin. That's how business works. If the insurer's rates are above competitors who's rates are lower because they have better deal with those providers, then, customers will move to another insurer-but the patients still have insurance.
Finally, don't see how single payer solves the problem-unless American doctors and hospitals start to reduce their charges while experiencing a major increase in their workload-with Feds collecting all "premiums" and insurance companies becoming non-profit, someone still needs to negotiate the rates.

I agree with rhubarbs that Joementum is an utter snake and that he should be warned that the moment he votes against cloture, he will forthwith be banished to the backest of back benches minus his seniority, minus his committee chairmanships, minus his membership in the Democratic caucus. And told, "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out."

I agree with rhubs and JackR especially. The only reason to keep that smarmy piece of s--t around was to ensure a 60 barrier against fillibuster. If the a-hole can't hold up that piece of the bargain, I say boot him.

What is it about Lieberman that makes a mild mannered guy like me just what to kick the shit outt him? He is so needy and smarmy and opportunistic. God, I hope CT voters boot his sorry ass out next time and he can go back to servicing his boyfriends like Cheney, McCain, Bush, Hannity, and any other Loud Mouth White Male Conservative.

Cookie-you are so tough-four swear words in one short posting. Wasn't he Gore's VP-what did you think about him then? Why believe you're mild mannered-you seem more like a raving lunatic. Alleging he's homosexual is intellectual also.
I'm a loud mouth white male conservative. I take much pleasure in reading the posts of you loud mouth white male progressives.
You are losing, and will lose, on health care reform for a couple reasons: one, your bills are horrible, two, the American people across all polls dislike your bills, three, middle-road dems (people who your party ran to get elected in right-leaning districts and states) and gopers dislike your bills, fourth, Mr. Hope/Change's PR campaign failed completely, and fifth, those of us who actually study the issue and the markets know where you want to take us-straight to Canadian/British style rationing, price controls and sub-standard quality.
So, try to be a mild-mannered "man", take your loss and grow up.
All the anger, swearing, threats, girlieman toughness can't overcome reality.

Lymon, you say "semantic" like that's a bad thing. But as a philosophy minor and once-time varsity debate captain, purely semantic debates are my favorites! (Next up: Are golf, NASCAR, and figure skating actually sports?)

Anyway, I should say that I'm not opposed to creating new healthcare entitlements. In fact, I think a broad healthcare entitlement would be the maximally efficient way to deliver healthcare for the lowest price. So I have nothing invested in the public option being defined as not an entitlement. If it were an entitlement, I'd grant the point to Lieberman and argue its merits as an entitlement.

The reason I cannot see my way to considering the public health insurance program to be an entitlement, or even remotely entitlement-like, is that it really is just like Amtrak or first-class postage. You always have other options. Even under the Reid healthcare bill, even with an individual mandate. The reformed system would not say to you, "You must buy insurance, and if you cannot afford insurance, you can enroll in the public insurance plan for free." That would be an entitlement. Rather, the reformed system would say, "You must buy insurance, and if you cannot afford insurance, we'll throw some cash your way on April 15 to help you pay your premiums. Now go find a plan." The public insurance program will simply be one option available to you, alongside a selection in most markets of two or more private plans, a nonprofit plan or two, and in some states an existing state plan that is an entitlement program.

You can think of it like being called to jury duty when you're away from home for an extended period. One way or another, you've got to get back home by Monday morning to report to the courthouse. You have, in effect, an individual mandate to return home. You have many options. You can fly, which is an entirely private marketplace. You can drive, which is a private but hugely subsidized market. Or you can take Amtrak, which despite being a publicly chartered corporation, like the public health insurance plan would be, charges nominally cost-covering prices for tickets just like an airline. (Putting aside the fact that Amtrak's management doesn't seem to be smart enough to figure out just what a cost-covering ticket price would be; neither are airline managers!)

The key difference between your travel-mandate-fulfilling Amtrak ticket and your insurance-mandate-fulfilling Amcare health plan is that federal law will require the public health insurance program to cover expenses through operating revenue from day one, whereas Amtrak still receives direct subsidies. So an Amtrak ticket is in fact more like an entitlement than the public health insurance program now before Congress. Since basically no one regards Amtrak tickets as an entitlement, and the public option is less like an entitlement than Amtrak, therefore the public option is not an entitlement.

lobosven, dude relax. When health care passes you might end up needing it for your spiking blood pressure. You simply can't make up facts to suit your viewpoint. What polls are you looking at? Assertion is not argument, and your whining and moaning is a tad pathetic. I suggest a nice trip to a tropical beach, get a woman, a margarita and get ripped. It is what I do nearly every weekend (minus the get a woman since I am married)

If the Republicans had truly gotten involved then they could have produced a far different bill, one that can allow for something such as an opt-in PO with rates negotiated and not dictated. It would also have allowed them to take equal credit for all of the best elements of the bill, such as elimination of recission, denial of services, increased access and participation of more Americans. But the Republicans simply wish to replicate 93 and will be horrified when they don't. Yes, they will win some seats, but Dems will still have Congress, and Health care will pass, and poor Sven's head will explode.

I promise you Lieberman will cave. He won't filibuster. He will vote for cloture and then vote against the bill.

Blackie: "(minus the get a woman since I am married)" - what, you mean you don't get your own woman? Or you get a man, because you are married to a woman? Or you are married to a man, therefore you don't need to get a woman?

Lobo: "Alleging he's homosexual is intellectual also."

Hmmm. Me don't think Cookie is alleging Lieberman is homosexual. On the fact that he's a servile kiss-ass delta-male who's happier on his metophorical knees servicing Big-Daddy alfa-males there is, surely, no debate? Incidentally, I thought he was a sanctimonious jackass when he was Gore's Veep-choice and don't think of him differently now. If anything, I did not much like Gore before the selection and thought of him less afterwards - and the only reason I vaguely supported him was that he was running against an even worse cad.

"Mr. Hope/Change's PR campaign failed completely, and fifth, those of us who actually study the issue and the markets know where you want to take us-straight to Canadian/British style rationing, price controls and sub-standard quality."

Public option at 72% percent; may we all fail so completely. As for "Canadian-style rationing, price control and sub-standard quality" - as a Canadian who not only pays for and uses our public health care system, but who is involved in policy-making in respect of health and social policy, all I can say is that this is bullshit. There is no more rationing here by our democratically-run and not-for-profit system than there is by US insurance companies; what you call "price controls" are actually public finance measures to ensure long-term viability of health care and, also, reasonable social equity (our top doctors make only about $750,000 a year, instead of multiples of millions - but few complain and fewer leave); as for sub-standard - I'd take the longer life-spans, lower infant mortality, larger coverage, and similar levels of cancer treatment (except in specific areas, and the differences are not hude) offered by our system even if they are "sub" whatever arbitrary standard you wish to consider.

I must admit, if this is the best you can do after "studying" the issue, well, one would have to add the education system in the US to the pile of dysfunctional on offer in the great Republic.

ick, ahem, get another woman, can you actually get your wife (which by definition means woman)? Anyway, you got any tropical beaches up there in igloo land? I think not. Really, what is the point of living longer if you have to, you know, live in Canada?
lobo has a bunch of other trog Republican talking points over at the Treatment. Honestly, it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Blackie, it really all depends, I guess. In certain parts of the world, where you own your wife, I suppose you don't "get" her, cause you can have her any time you like. Without commenting on your marital relationship, of course, I suspect you are not living in such a society. So, yeah, I'd say that if your wife has a mind of her own, you could "get" her ... but I do see your point about *another* woman.

No tropical beaches here, sadly, but we are waiting for the canal to freeze over for some skatin'. emember thought that I have a naturally boiling middle-eastern blood, and so the cool climate here is excellent for instilling moderation, work ethic, discipline - you know, all the great goodness of civilization that one has difficulty finding on a tropical beach - and fewer intestinal parasites to boot :p.

icarusr, you really should consider moving to Minnesota. It's basically Canada, except without the Queen, and there are beaches. Very polite, well-organized, moderate beaches.

(I had an extremely conservative econ prof one semester in college. But oddly enough, he saw Canada as being a generally more efficiently run economy, what with single-payer health, taxation at the time shifting toward VAT rather than income, and greater social order. So he was a huge Canadaphile. An extreme right-wing Canadaphile. He even included on the final exam a bonus-point question: "Define Canadian." For the extra point, you had to have answered, "An American with healthcare and no gun." I don't think anyone got that bonus point.)

-

I don't know how many Democrats thought it was more important to be non-partisan and voted for Joe, but this is what they got. Yes, there is a price for electing people without any restraint to their self importance. Both parties will loath choosing candidate for the sole reason that 'they aren't beholding to a party'. Even Newt seemed to realize the bounds of bucking his organization so maybe he does understand history.
We're already on the verge of minority rule and a handful of unguided independents would lead to greater gridlock. It only gets messier when each party is unguided.

We don't know Joe's motives and it doesn't matter. He was one of us, he was rewarded with a shot as potential VP and then decided he couldn't hold office and be a Democrat. Plan B was to get elected and remain a chameleon. Since then he has only proved to be unreliable, disloyal and too chummy with people he knows will piss off the president and leadership.

It's one thing for Snowe to jam us but we don't have to worry if she's a mole in the caucus.
Recent polls indicate more independents (vapidus suffragator) claim distrust of either party so they may elect more people who only promise to fulfill their illusion that working against the system will work better in this system.
Joe isn't radioactive, yet. He can even claim there are Democrats who are as troublesome as he is. But we can cut the praise when he does what he should refuse to reward him with appointments by shake-down.
He can be an independent or against us, but not both.

-

don't knock intestinal parasites, it is natures way of weight control. say hello to my leetle friend.

rhub, minnesota has michelle bachman. There gotta be something wrong in the water there.

Rhubs: wise prof there. Of course, our Conservative government decided to cut the VAT (called the GST - Great Sucking Taxinator) by two points in the name of tax cuts ... and now we have a major deficit instead of the surpluses we used to run ... still, the health care system is well-funded and functioning and we still have fewer deaths by handguns than in the US. And the economy is not doing too badly - our banks, thanks to stifling regulation, ended up being healthy when the hit fit the shan, so there is something about the system that seems to function here.

I really do like the Queen - at least, I better, having sworn to protect her and her progeny three times already. Don't know about Charles, but Wills is cute and wouldn't mind to have him as our distant Sovereign. I mean, as long as the British taxpayers are paying to keep up our head of state, why should we care? We have beaches in Canadia as well, and some of them are even further south than those of Minnesota. I'll get there one of these days - I've travelled in thirty US states and lived in four - but managed to miss the northern ones ... One of these days, I tell ya ...

Impressive.
Mr. B-I'm not making up facts. Look at the polls. You make no arguments, but descend to 3rd grade stuff like: whining, moaning and pathetic. Great arguments all. Glad your life revolves around gettting ripped-I can get a sense of your contributions to our economy and culture very clearly. In May, the GOP sent a letter to Obama, offering to meet, and discuss their ideas for health reform. To this date, Mr. Hope/Change/Post-partisan has ignored the letter. You tell me why. Your predictions on the passage of the bill and Joe's moves are interesting-but-based upon the quality of your reseach, thinking and presentation, I'm not worried about them.
Mr. IC-appreciate your candor on Joe and Gore in 2000. PO-no one, including all of you, can describe what the poll is testing, because, there is no PO. The poll you refer to asks: do you favor PO to increase competition. Sure, if that is what it does. The CBO and Medicaid/Medicare Services studies show that, without seeding the PO with low Medicare rates, the premiums are higher with the PO. Don't believe me-look it up-easy to find: on CBO, it's in their first scoring of HR3200, for the MedMec Services, it's "October 21, 2009, Richard Foster, Chief Actuary-Estimated Financial Effects of HR3200". You are wrong about Canada. One of my clients-and he's one of many-left Canada due to your health care system. In 10 years, in all provinces, your health care system will consume 50% of the tax revenues. You can call rationing, price controls and technology limits what you want-I react only to their impacts on health outcomes. You are also wrong about health outcomes: when experts control mortality for lifestyle differences (obesity, drug abuse, highway deaths), America is number one and when you look at the definitions for infant mortality, you'll find, every live birth in America is counted, but, elsewhere, births below specific weights or specific gestation days------they're not counted as live births. A recent study of your doctors found that over 50% report that waiting periods for specialist referrals are twice as long as medically reasonable. Your little attack at the end, about my research, or my educational achievements, is weak.
I read over 3,000 pages of material this summer-equally from progressive and conservative experts on the health care issue. I've prepared a 30 page white paper on my conclusions. We have little time or space here to outline the whole story.
As some of you have found my work on other NR posting, you'll know, I'm not really worked up, anxious, with blood pressure problems. What is true, is, it amuses me to no end how I can stir up the low end of the gene pool with simple outlines of the facts. You boys, specifically, wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you in the face. Peace. Out.

Always a joy to hear from members of the party that's a big tent.

Saying that the public option will cost less is complete nonsense. Nothing ever costs less. We might get a lot less but it still will cost more. There will be more waste and more fraud. There already are millions of people who work "off the books" and get free medical care, food stamps, etc. while driving around in Mercedes, BMW's and Corvettes (I know of dozens of them personally). In the meantime, I pay more in Medicare taxes than the $12,000 I already pay annually for medical insurance for my wife and me. I will pay more in social security taxes between the ages of 58 and 68 (if I am even able to retire then) than I will ever recover in benefits. I pay ridiculous amounts of taxes, both federal and state income taxes and property taxes, almost 10% sales taxes, utility taxes, etc., so that government employees can retire at 55 (or 50 for "public safety" employees) and get pensions greater than their last year's salary (already bloated by overtime) and indexed for inflation. In the meantime, the President, the Congress and the Federal Reserve are creating inflation that will erode the value of my lifetime of savings (I have worked since I was 10 years old and had my first savings account at age 12) while protecting themselves from the adverse effects of their confiscatory policies. And I am the bad guy, vilified by brain-dead liberals. Comrade Obama and his minions are thieves. Call it what you want; they are communists and they engage in legalized theft. I would say they belong in China but China is improving; the U. S. is moving in the other direction.

Lobo(tomy): I find it endlessly amusing that someone constantly carping about other people's ad hominems would come up with a line like "What is true, is, it amuses me to no end how I can stir up the low end of the gene pool with simple outlines of the facts." Yeah, this particular low end of the gene pool also gets stirred up faced with "facts" such as flat earth, perpetual motion and Intelligent Design. Quite amusing indeed.

FoggyDen: "There already are millions of people who work "off the books" and get free medical care, food stamps, etc. while driving around in Mercedes, BMW's and Corvettes (I know of dozens of them personally)." Yup - they work on Wall Street.

"Call it what you want; they are communists and they engage in legalized theft."

There was a New York idiot who ranted like this - I forget his moniker - are you him by any chance? I mean, seriously, is it at all possible to be more brain-dead than to come up with a line like that? After all, "theft" is a purely legal construct, given that "property" is a purely legal construct. You own something because the law says you own it, and if the law says you don't, you don't. By definition, a taking that is done by law and with due process of law cannot be "theft"; otherwise, any taking - including fee for service, toll-booths and so on - could be characterised as "theft".

Now, anyone who posts like this should be put in remedial grade three - evidently basic logic eludes the person - but, to be nice, here is the answer: premiums going to fund a public insurance scheme are not "theft", even if the scheme is redolent with fraud and waste by the recipients, unless it is the insurance company that is doing the fraud and the waste. (Just because taxpayers cheat on their taxes does not mean that there is anything wrong with the tax system.)

WAIT! But it means that all insurance companies that are engaged in all kinds of shenanigans right now are legal thieves. Or is it that you think that only democratic institutions and not private industry are capable of theft?

Rhubs: I'm worse than an extreme right wing Canadiaphile -- I'm a Canadiaphile who doesn't like hockey.

For the record if it were up to me I'd go to a Medicare-for-all single payer with less procedures covered for under-55's, and let people buy supplemental for the rest.

Lobo: "If that's case, the insurer can simply agree to pay the provider more, increase premiums and keep their profit margin."

Or they can also deploy one response you don't mention: shed members. And that's exactly the problem. But I mentioned the show as I thought you might be interested in listening to a guy who had worked for years in health insurance and thinks our system is beyond crazy.

Good news, all you insightful predictors of the future: from NPR-Pelosi admits not enough Democratic votes to secure the robust (based upon low Medicare reimbursement rates) public option. So, Uncle Sam, will start a company, hire a bunch of people, establish networks, negotiate rates and service the customer. Good luck!

Well, we managed to establish and operate the VA. That's Uncle Sam too, in case you didn't realize.

Lymon, you exactly describe my ideal system. Establish a universal baseline healthcare entitlement with graduated benefits by age -- total coverage of basically everything through age 16 or 18, bare-bones coverage plus basic preventive visits through age 55 or 60, then Medicare as-is after that. Leaves plenty of room for supplemental insurance, out-of-pocket spending, or even non-governmental charity care like some Christian denominations used to provide. I think such a system would achieve maximum efficiency of overall expenditures, and particularly maximum efficiency of government spending.

And as to hockey, I might be able to go one worse than you: I was raised in Minnesota, but never learned to skate.