Meanwhile on NPR this morning they had a story on health care and part of it was a short snipit from Joe Lieberman saying he would join with the Republican’s and block a vote on health care if he did not like the plan.

You know, I've read as much as I've been able to find about the various bills and the "progress" of the debate regarding health-care reform, and one question keeps on coming up: in the end, why would anyone vote against a program that benefits the majority of Americans, helps reduce costs for businesses and -- finally -- puts us on a similar footing with the rest of the civilized world?

I don't admire the way Dems are tackling this at all -- Grayson aside, no one is really stepping up & saying things that need to be said.

znak, the answer is no Dem will, which is exactly why the Democratic leadership should have a strong public option in the bill and just dare any Dem to block it coming to a vote.

I dare the White House and their congressional allies to torpedo substantive health care reform in order to placate insurance companies.

The weasel in me hopes they do. I believe the world will be a better place if an irreconcilable schism shatters the democratic party, and a third party emerges from the wreckage.

Napoleon, I guess my view is that this is (or should be) a no-brainer. I don't mean that in the Republican sense (ie, no brains) but rather we're the only country whose health insurance is run solely as a profit-making venture & thus, the actual purpose of the companies become perverted. It's no longer about making sure those they insure are properly taken care of, it's all about how much money they can make.

Nobody should count on a vote from Lieberman, btw. Driving through CT, you see huge buildings dedicated to this or that insurance company all over the place. I'd like to think Lieberman has enough humanity to make the proper choice about this, but I do not think this is so.

zhak, are the insurance companies in CT health care insurance companies or life insurance companies. I always thought that CT had a bunch of life insurance companies.

The Big Duh has finally landed in the Capitol

Jonathan Cohn: Requiring people to get insurance is a bad idea if the available insurance options aren't very good.

One small correction: It is not just a "bad idea," it is suicidal-nuts.

The ostensible reason Blue Dogs oppose a public option is because, they say, Medicare+5% would hurt hospitals in their rural districts.

Okay, that may (or may not) be so.

But somebody should ask: How much are those hospitals losing now when they have to provide treatment to uninsured patients. Some of the Blue Dogs represent poor areas, so I'd guess we're talking about a goodly sum.

So: Which is more expensive, Blue Dogs?

Which is a better scenario? 1) Senate puts a week public option in their bill (perhaps with a trigger, co-op or opt-out). Weak version gets forced into conference report. or 2) Senate leaves public option out, House passes. House version is added to conference report, forcing Senate to vote on a good plan.

I suspect the most important people in this debate are those who participate in the conference reconciliation, and frankly, I'd be more comfortable if the Senate has no public option to choose from.

I love Nancy Pelosi. She's fighting both hard and intelligently for a good bill.

Thank goodness she's Speaker, rather than Steny Hoyer.

But, but, but! Lieberman is with us on the important votes! Like renaming Post Office buildings! Why hold against him the fact that he wanders off the reservation on things like war on Iran and letting 45,000 Americans die every year because of no health insurance.

Democratic progressives swallowed hard in the face of the Quest for the Holy Grail of 60 votes. And instead of a Golden Salver overflowing with Social and Economic Justice we got a styrofoam cup full of the warm spit of appeasement of Connecticut based insurance companies.

In a lot of ways Dems were better off with a 55 vote majority. At least back then we were not subjected to individual veto power by Presidents Lieberman, Snowe, Conrad and Lincoln.

55 = strong majority, 65 = overwhelming majority, 60=unlimited possibilities for blackmail. I'd prefer to go 60+ than 60- but Dems need to get off the dime here. Joe needs to be kicked to the curb. I mean when was the last time he was the decisive vote on an actual cloture vote?

201 for as of last night. 17 needed.

Note that we are allowing the differece between a "robust" public option and a weak public option to be defined by what rates they are going to charge. This is not irrelevant, but I would suggest that in either case, the resulting public option would quite possibly be impotent, and unable to compete with private insurance. The real defintion of a strong public option would be one that all members of the American "public" have the "option" to enroll in; as opposed to the one under consideration presently, where only those who don't receive coverage though their employer are eligible, about 10% of the population according to estimates.

The entire public debate, ranging the political spectrum, presupposes that elite interests in the insurance industry, the pharmeceutical industry, and health care providers are protected. Any proposal that would adversely affect these interests is simply off the table.

We should keep this in mind as we argue back and forth over the possibility of establishing a "public option." Even if we win, our victory may turn out to be hollow. In fact, the louder we cheer, the more satisfied we claim we are with the outcome, the more that might be used against us in the future.