Harry Reid Doesn't Need LIEberman

[Segami]

Time to demand that our reps deliver their constituents the most robust unwatered downed public option. Either THEY stand up and be counted representing the People's health care interests or THEY stand with representing their insurance corporate master's interests, simple as that. Bush once said " you're either with US or with the terrorists. Seems they understand such single-celled language so now its time to call THEM ALL OUT on which side of the health care issues they want to stand with.



HuffingtonPost:


When the public option rose from the dead last week, the Beltway Village media reacted with surprise. The public option hadn't been included in the Senate Finance Committee's bill, so pundits and politicians had stopped taking it seriously. After Olympia Snowe declared her opposition to a bill including a public option, Joe Lieberman decided it was his turn for the spotlight; he's playing spoiler to feed his ginormous ego.


But Lieberman has yet to face one inconvenient fact about his intransigence: it doesn't matter. A public option is primarily a cost-saving measure, which therefore qualifies under the Senate rules for budget reconciliation. Harry Reid only needs fifty votes to pass it that way. The media failed to understand the basic realities of Congressional sausage-making, and Joe Lieberman is making the same mistake now.


This inconvenient fact has slipped by everyone so far, but thanks to Reid's slow pace it still has time to penetrate the MSM. Time is not on the side of opponents anymore.


Here's what I'm talking about: the public option in the current House bill would cut the cost of reform by $100 billion. Of course, this is not a "robust" public option (indeed, it's very far from robust), which means it doesn't save as much as it could. H.R. 3200, the House's original bill that opponents hefted to risible applause in August, was far stronger -- and would save four times as much. That's not me talking, it's the Congressional Budget Office.


How is this possible? Quite simply, a non-profit insurance plan doesn't have to waste 25-30% of all premium dollars trying to deny the claim. A nationwide public option would create a very large pool of ratepayers to hold down costs, and force insurance companies to compete in the exchanges. This would help keep down costs across the board.


The media is slow to pick up factual memes these days. Death panels get instant buzz and never seem to die, while the benefits of a public option escape scrutiny. But the longer this fight lasts, the more likely that someone will ask Joe Lieberman: you believe this is the sole sticking-point of reform, that everything else in the bill is okay and it just needs to be more expensive? Because that is basically the only argument Lieberman is making.



Indeed, this inconvenient fact is just now beginning to penetrate the MSM. Paul Krugman led off on Thursday:




The odd thing about this group is that while its members are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of passing health care reform, they’re having a hard time explaining exactly what their problem is. Or to be more precise and less polite, they have been attacking proposed legislation for doing things it doesn’t and for not doing things it does.


Thus, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut says, “I want to be able to vote for a health bill, but my top concern is the deficit.” That would be a serious objection to the proposals currently on the table if they would, in fact, increase the deficit. But they wouldn’t, at least according to the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the House bill, in particular, would actually reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next decade.




To be sure, this was too much for CBS's Bob Schieffer to understand in time for Sunday, when Lieberman gave his third conflicting rationale for opposing a public option:



<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E9zhAJQ5Bs>




First he told Politico it would become a burden on taxpayers; the next morning, he told Faux Noise it would work too well. Senators Whitehouse and Feingold schooled him on these issues afterwards, so his new line is that "nothing" is better than "something" with a public option -- because reform should cost at least $100 billion more than it has to.


Last week revealed the MSM's narrative on the public option as a misinformed fraud. Blue Dogs have managed to make reform more expensive by opposing a strong public option. But we are not at the finish line yet; Reid still hasn't produced a final Senate bill, and even then there is a conference process to produce the final bill for both houses to pass. We are still working our way through the 11-dimensional chess game, so reformers have time to affect the outcome.



In the end, Reid doesn't need 60 votes, and the stronger the public option the less reform costs. These two realities need to be repeated until they penetrate the debate and put opponents on the defensive.



<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-osborne/reid-doesnt-need-lieberma_b_341833.html>

[tekisui]

1. Reid does need Lieberman--To hide behind.

Reid needs a spoiler to cover for his ineffectiveness as a Party Leader.

[Segami]

2. Such a lame tactic would be way TOO obvious even for Reid's standards.

The many watchful eyeballs on this issue will call Reid out if he dares.

[AndyA]

3. Reid also has to consider his own re-election coming up.

He knows health care reform with a public option is popular among Americans, and I don't think he wants to be associated with a failed plan.

But Reid is nothing if not weak and flexible for the Republicans, so who knows what he'll end up with.

Requiring everyone to get insurance--and penalizing them if they don't--doesn't seem to be the answer. Reid should be smart enough to figure out the right will label that as a new tax, one that Obama promised wouldn't be levied on low and middle income America. (This will impact Obama's numbers as well if it goes through.)

I have to think they're making this look as bad as possible, so in the end when they're done it will look as if they've really pulled a rabbit out of the hat. (At least, that's what I'm hoping for.)