Lieberman To Filibuster The Public Option.

And he has little to lose at this point and is likely looking for a new gig for 2013. Hope his thirty pieces of silver cements his rep as the ugliest, most miserable @sshole on the planet.

Silly Jay, you overlooked one important thing.
-
Lieberman only goes back on promises if the promises would have been good for Democrats.

Lieberman's wife is a big-health lobbyist.
Is "home state" some sort of euphemism for the Lieberman family-style corruption?

What a f*cking liar:
.

Chris Dodd for Connecticut
.
Dear Stuart,
.
Have you heard the great news? Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he is sending a health care reform bill to the full Senate with a robust public option.
.
This is a huge victory for us. It came after days of negotiations, where I joined Senator Reid, Senator Max Baucus, and others. Every day I walked into those negotiations, I knew that I wasn't speaking for myself alone. I was speaking for you and for everyone who shares our belief that real reform of our health care system must include an effective public option that keeps insurance companies honest.
.
Your support, including the powerful personal stories many of you have shared with me, made it possible for me to move these negotiations in a positive direction. You had a direct hand in the victory that put the public option in this bill, and you should be very proud.
.
I am extremely optimistic that a health care reform bill with a public option will make it to President Obama's desk for his signature. But make no mistake -- this fight is not over yet.
.
Our opponents -- including corporate health care interests and virtually all of the Republicans in Congress -- will do everything they can to stand in the way of health care reform. If they are successful, we won't have a public option in the bill. They'd prefer it if we didn't have any reform at all!
.
I will be calling on you again in this fight. I will need your support, just as I did at that negotiating table. And with your help, I know we will succeed in passing reform that ensures every American has quality, affordable health care.
.
Congratulations on this great victory, and thank you for everything.
.
Sincerely,
.
Chris

Seriously, do we have to litigate over the meaning of "robust" with these people?
.
Senate Democrats are such liars.

I have heard the same thing from dozens of people. And these are people with good jobs. Premiums are rising at astounding rates. Which should make one wonder how the unemployed will fare in thsi environment.
,
Sure, the government has lengthened the time for COBRA coverage, but the costs are astronomical, and if one is out of work, the question becomes, "How do I pay for my health care?"

Astounding is the right word. They were expecting family premiums to rise sharply - the 30% jump on individual premiums on top of LAST year's 25% jump blindsided everyone there.

With these kinds of experiences, you'd think that the explicit threat from insurance companies that 'the public options will force our hands and make us raise premiums!' would ring hollow, since they're already repeatedly raising them at ridiculous rates.

Fox. Duh.

It would be a short article for KT. First if it was BUsh the left would be apoplectic while the First Tourist merely gets a pass.

Nice try but why don't you try comparing items in the same food group for a change:
.
A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser. Is that really the same as a fly over on your way to a birthday bash when 100's of thousands of people are trapped and dying? No not so much!
.
Snubbing the Dali Lama. -- big whup and that means what exactly, that the meeting was inconvenient at a time when we were dealing with china and they are increasingly nervous. Especially since Bush got us so deeply in debt to China. I don't suppose you had a problem with him getting us so deeply in debt to China or the hoops Bush made Tawaiin jump through in his attempt to placate china while he was indebting us.
.
Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers. Making a deal with corporations so that the rich would get richer or making a deal with a corporation so that seniors paid less for their medication? Yeah that's really the same thing.
.
Freezing out a TV network. -- when its fox the propaganda spewing entertainment entity that lies whenever it calls itself a news network? Yeah why not and like that's really the same as the George Bush white house never giving a single interview to the paper of record for his entire 8 years in office -- just ask the NY Times how they felt about that?
.
Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too. -- Don't forget, that bush deliberately banned his playing golf to make sure he never got caught in one of those unfortunate pictures like his daddy. But of course he lied and played golf secretly anyway so its a moot point. but even if he didn't play golf, his fake cowboy antics in Crawford was enough he spent more time on vacation than any other president before him.
.
I'd take President Barack Obama opver Bush on any of those things.

"Snubbing the Dali Lama. -- big whup and that means what exactly, that the meeting was inconvenient at a time when we were dealing with china and they are increasingly nervous."
.
Well, there you have it. Principles.
.
Dee, you should shut up. I doubt many of your fellow travelers appreciate such bluntness.

Yawn.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910270022

Dee:#

"I'd take President Barack Obama opver Bush on any of those things."

This statement was as expected and you could have saved us all the torture of reading your tangled reasoning if that was all you wrote.

slo:

Yawn.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910270022

Yawn is a medical condition caused by the lack of oxygen to the brain. A symptom of that is reading Media Matters. The WaPo "reported" that Rove attended meetings. No sources just reported. Rove stated last week he did not attend and I have yet to hear that contradicted.

So your problem with Joe is What? That he is not a left wing nut job or that he has principles?

Principles? The pre-Lamont challenge Lieberman would have NEVER considered filibustering a moderate healthcare reform bill like the ones that are working through Congress right now. Nobody would have ever considered him an at-risk vote. What Joe is doing right now isn't sticking to his principles...his long held principles would have made him a strong "yea" for whatever bill emerges in the Senate. What he's doing is having a kindergarten child hissy fit...because the Dems wouldn't abandon the guy who won the Democratic primary and support him instead. The guy spent all of last year implying that Obama was a socialist who wanted to let terrorists destroy America. He gets welcomed back into the caucus with open arms and he's even allowed to keep his committee chair, even though many inthe caucus wanted to give him the boot. And the generosity of the Dem leadership is repaid with this?
..
Principles? The man has none.
..
That said, this is a bluff...or a childish attempt to get attention and/or something he wants. If his price is low, give it to him knowing that he'll be gone after 2012. You can even let him stand next to Obama as he signs the bill into law. If it's too high, work on Snowe and maybe Voinovich and tell Joe to go blow.

ogliberal

" childish attempt to get attention and/or something he wants."

Hmmm not unlike the liberals here trying to pull the "health care reform" farce on the American public.

Yeah, trying to enact healthcare reform, something Dems have been trying to do since Truman, is a childish act.
...
I get it...you're a conservative, you don't like it. I don't expect you to like it. But your party is in the minority now...and was put there by the voters of this country. Dems are now trying to do what they've been trying to do for 50 years. Most truly believe that this is the best thing for our nation. Many conservatives think that it isn't. But Joe Lieberman, as I noted above, was a guy who would never have opposed a bill as non-radical as what is being proposed before he got all upset because he lost - fair and square - the Dem primary in 2006.
...
You can disagree with what the Dems are trying to do. But to claim that Lieberman is threatening to filibuster because of "principles" is just ridiculous. He's a spoiled little child, angry that he didn't get everything he wanted, even though he was re-elected, was allowed to stay in the Dem caucus, and was returned to his committee chair after bad mouthing for months the Dem candidate for president and actively campaigning for this GOP opponent.

ogliberal

Speaking of spoiled little children, I can almost hear you stamping your feet.

Actually if the Demos were not so power struck Nixon actually proposed the first National Health Plan. But Hillary wanted him crucified and without legal representation. Gotta love liberals for protecting ones rights. And if the Demos have been trying for 50 years especially when, just like now, they held the presidency, and both houses of Congress. How PATHETIC!

And voters put in a President that essentially was a fraud. Nothing he has campaigned on is he doing. ALl the new Congressman and Senators ran with conservative values. Why? They could not get elected as liberals. So everytime a liberal shows their stripes the public runs. The ideas stink! That is why all liberal plans run thousands of pages, cloaked in darkness and voted on in 2 days with no one seeing them. Arrogance at its peak.

It's a matter of whom pays for it. Making everyone pay for the healthcare of those too damn lazy to take care of themselves along with those that have genuinely fallen on hard times is the problem to me. The government drones will not be able to tell the difference and you and I will go on paying for the lazy along with those truly in need. What a deal!! I can now pay for my healthcare and the healthcare of someone else that may or may not truly be in need of it. Where do I sign up for this?! The government is NOT flexible. There will be layers and layers of beauracracy to make sure the rigid rules are followed. Rules that rarely turn out to be in the best interest of whatever industry the government feels the need to thrust itself into. Layers and layers that will cost money not even thought of now. Money that will render any small inefficiencies found moot. 2 last thoughts. The government almost ALWAYS spends vastly more on things than is projected. There are very, very few exceptions to this rule and healthcare will NOT be one. Lastly, once the government has gotten involved in anything, it is almost impossible to get it out. So, when it becomes apparent what a failure this plan will turn out to be (the main reason practically any results will be felt AFTER Obama's chance for re-election) the only solution the dumb masses will try to enact will involve more government involvement and more money. What a great plan.

Hmm well maybe the Democrats shouldn't have primaried him over a single issue.

Lieberman at work

I'd tell him this: Recant now, before any of the other sellout Democratic stooges jump on your carrion wagon, or your chairmanship is gone. Don't wait for the actual vote; back him down now. If he won't reverse himself it's pretty well over anyway, unless this can be done through reconciliation – in which case, who needs this little weasel?

And that right there folks is why Leiberman doesn't matter.

I would vote for lieberman if he ran for president. This whole health care debate is not about health care at all. These senators and congressmen or women could care less about my and your health. It;s all about control. They want control of 1/7 of the GNP and control of you and me. Vote for me- I got health insurance for you.

Actually Dee he is trying to find out what the President's agenda in Israeli is and Afghanistan, Iraq , Iran, Russia and ............

Very well put.

the trigger
-
Stuart, that makes sense. After the PO was prematurely declared dead, the debate has now shifted to opt-out vs trigger.
.
But obviously the trigger will be carefully designed never to go into effect. On the other hand, I don't believe states would actually opt out, when push comes to shove -- just as states did not turn down stim money.
.
So "opt-out vs trigger" really means PO vs no PO.

Being principled enough to go against party, supporters, and common sense is the very epitome of strong, non-partisan, undiluted moral fiber! I mean, who would be brave enough to claim to do what he could to help the caucus and then vote the exact opposite way, time and time again? That's pure courage, I tell you!

The Trigger ain't happening.
.
In the Senate on the Democratic side you lose Brown, Rockefeller, Feingold, and likely more. And all but one or two republicans will vote against any HCR trigger or not.
.
Plus the House won't go along with it.
.

Paul-NNTO: The point isn't to actually get a trigger.
-
The point is to poison the well to where nothing will actually pass

I agree kryptik1 that's why I disagreed with SZ's speculation.
.
Joe needs to be worked around, not negotiated with, which may be why Reid said what he said (#20)

I'd just like to say, agree with my speculation or not, I appreciate you folks having taken the time to read through my commentary.
.
Thank you.

Are you referring to the Harvard Study that Biden refers to here:
.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-Vice-President-to-the-national-association-of-insurance-commissioners
.
KT, how reliable is that 45K per year figure? There are a lot of studies that say a lot of things. If it's bogus or not well-supported, how is it any different from Sarah's death panels?

Are you referring to the Harvard Study that Biden refers to here...
.
No, I'm referring to the article I linked to in my comment.
.
There are a lot of studies that say a lot of things.
.
So, spob, what's the acceptable threshold of deaths due to a lack of insurance? 40 people per day? 20? 10? 2?
.
If it's bogus or not well-supported, how is it any different from Sarah's death panels?
.
[Disinformation]...#'s 17 and 19.

"So, spob, what's the acceptable threshold of deaths due to a lack of insurance? 40 people per day? 20? 10? 2?"
.
When you can prove that your solution will save them and not result in other lives lost, then talk to me.
.
That's got to be the silliest retort ever.

"So, spob, what's the acceptable threshold of deaths due to a lack of insurance? 40 people per day? 20? 10? 2?"

spob what do you say equal to the amount of our soldiers dying in the battle against terrorists while the First Tourist works on his putts or his jump shot?

That's got to be the silliest retort ever.
.
Hardly.
.
See, I have actually cited numbers from reputable sources. You haven't done anything but throw chaff in an attempt to avoid answering the question.
.
When you can prove that your solution will save them and not result in other lives lost, then talk to me.
.
You have that the wrong way around, spob. It's up to you to disprove the American Journal of Public Health, The American Cancer Society, and the Institute of Medicine. I'm just passing the numbers along.
.
Put up or shut up, spob...or is all you can do is provide misdirection?

Yes Karen could ask Waxman where are the supeonas for ACORN, Fannie, Freddie, various parts of the stimulus bill, the unvetted czars, Geitner, Rangel etc.

Karen has to give Obama a pass less she be accused a racist or she just can't get on the golf course to ask him.

Well, now we have another flu vaccine shortage, and the Administration has fallen way short of what it promised...why is Obama getting a pass here?

Gee, spob, maybe there is nothing that the Administration can do about it. From the right-wing's go-to news source:

Manufacturers around the world disclosed in July that they were having serious problems brewing shots. The chief ingredient is grown in eggs, and companies were getting far fewer doses per egg than they usually do for regular winter flu vaccine.

More fake outrage. Yes, having a H1N1 vaccine shortage sucks - and keep in mind that I've had a family member come down with it - but I can't blame Obama for not being able to wave a wand and magically increase supplier production.

It is an interesting question. Obama promised X with respect to the flu vaccine, and has delivered less than X. Bush took heat for that, and KT reported on that. Why isn't Obama?
.
If that 45K per year figure Grayson spouted were accurate, I would suspect that we'd see a lot more of it tossed around. It's not. So could it be that Grayson is as bad as Sarah Palin's death panels? And if that's the case, why is the Obama Administration calling Grayson a great congressman?

you're right Grape Crush, now, will you be asking Waxman to apologize to Bush?

of course, grape, that doesn't excuse the Obama Administration from promising that the swine flu vaccination would be available in much greater numbers.
.
Guys, you pilloried Bush for the flu vaccine--you cannot change the standard now.

The report grape_crush refers to was published in the American Journal of public Health and came from the Harvard School of Public Health. Of course since MSM does not promote it to the degree you feel it should, the study must be invalid. Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin thought process.
.
Bush argued that his administration delayed the release of flu vaccine because of a flaw in an English company's process. In truth, it was the British that detected the flaw. GW's administration was surprised when the British company told them that the vaccine was not going to be shipped secondary to the action taken by the British. the Bush FDA did not begin an investigation until 5 days later.
.
From the 3rd Bush-Kerry debate
.
BUSH: We relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the US, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.
.
FACT CHECK: It's not true, as Bush claimed, that "we took the right action" in blocking "contaminated" influenza vaccine from entering the US. Actually, it was the British and not the US that blocked shipment. The British Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, according to an Oct. 6 news release, suspended the license of Chiron Corp., the manufacturer of approximately 50% of the US supply. In fact, the Bush administration seems to have been caught by surprise when Chiron Corp. notified the US Center for Disease Control Oct. 5 that the company wouldn't be shipping the vaccine due to the British action. The US Food & Drug Administration didn't begin an investigation until five days later, according to an FDA news release .
.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Bush_Kerry_3_Health_Care.htm