The flaming obvious: There would be a Medicare Buy-In without Lieberman:

[denem]

A proposal that got Dennis Kucinich's attention front and left and center. And not only that, a proposal that could have been reworked and expanded in Reconciliation covering, say, 50 - 65 year olds with a more flexible fee structure.

And there was an agreement. When Lieberman (I-Aetna) welshed, Reid and the rest were stunned.

I am not going to excuse Obama's remarks about his 'campaign'. How could anyone? The point remains, Lieberman is a tumor eho can't be surgically excised 59-41 with a flat out bully pulpit assault of Tiger Tanks. He's too much of a man of 'honor' and 'integrity'. Far too much.

One vote. One vote, between this time line and a real public option.

PS. Gore/Lieberman looks more of a risk all the time.

[regnaD kciN]

1. Not just a Medicare buy-in...

...but at least a "triggered" public option -- and one with a trigger that might actually have worked.

:grr:

[denem]

2. A full Medicare Buy-In was on the table, signed off, then Lieberman

heard some voices in his head.

Medicare is a gimme. An easy sell that required no introduction. The problem with the trigger is that it would be a limited operation which would only kick in via the Exchanges, in 2013 at the earliest. Medicare can be opened in three months.

[Lasher]

3. Spite, plain and simple.

Lieberman would have voted for the Medicare buy-in before he lost the Connecticut primary to Lamont. He's doing this to spite progressives.

[denem]

4. Yeah. I'm with Krugmann on this one.

When people talk about threatening Joe, they overlook the sheer gall of the man. Words fail me.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. No, he's doing it because he wants a job with the health insurance industry

Lieberman is through with politics and he's going to cash in and get a 7 figure lobbying gig.

[denem]

6. I only wish that was true. There might still have been some leverage.

I think Paul Krugmann's correct - 'pure spite'.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. How would there have been leverage?

I'm sure there's a spite aspect here. But the main thing is that he's not running for re-election in 2012 (my guess is that he's going to take a job with the insurance industry). That's the main reason that there is no leverage.

[mmonk]

7. We do not know why Lieberman changed his stance at the last minute.

It could be spite or it could be pressure from Rahm. I would not assume either hypothesis without back up knowledge.

[denem]

8. What we know is we lost a REAL public option.

I cannot stand the man. Period.

[mmonk]

9. Me either. I would be for passage if the medicare buy in stood.

It was our foot in the door (besides, my cousins firm was hired by and helped run the Lamont campaign so when people say it was us that caused his vote change because of spite, I'm interested whether they are sure there is merit that it is us that bear responsibility or does it lie just with Lieberman or elsewhere).

[denem]

10. That's the problem - We are not sure - One of the most opaque Administrations

ever. And that's saying something. Is Rahm pulling strings in any particular direction? The goodies for Nebraska suggest the WH is playing ball to some extent, but to where?

Still, given how astounded Reid et al were when Lieberman pulled out, I find it hard imagine direct WH involvement. IF there was it would mortally ruin the Administration's credibility with Congress.

[mmonk]

11. I suppose we won't really know.

The excuse he gave for the change didn't seem genuine though. If Senate Democrats are so upset, then they should act.