Lieberman, Reality

The late William Simon (the elder -- not his son who has dabbled as a GOPer in Bluey California politics, like a bait fish dabbling in a shark tank) said it so well about (the older, longer-lasting definition of) neo-cons as "liberals with economic common sense."

Well, Lieberman is a Dem with at least foreign-policy common sense. Is that why he's hated by some?

It's the fights he decides to pick that cause him problems. For instance he can be a hawk and still be liked but when you are only a hawk in the Middle East some start to wonder why? Also on the issue of turning his back on the Public Option I suppose its not a problem if you think health care is a great deal in the US but as for me and many others finding a way to move to Europe or Canada is becoming a much more attractive option than it should be since we are being extorted by mega-corps to keep granny alive for just a few more days. We do not care, or at least I dont about Public/Private healthcare we want something sane and affordable and we do not have that. We dont want pol's telling us what we can and cant do but have private corps office workers doing that to us now.

Instead we have a great way for investors to make a killing by denying coverage to people exactly when they need it. It reminds me of Reagen and the legend that homeless people want to be that way, some do and they should have the right to but I do not want to live in a country where you retire to pick through garbage cans. You can call it freedom but I will call it the sign of a twisted and sick society and decide to vote with my feet and my education and dollars elsewhere. The migration last century for the moralists moved here and it helped us greatly to become a superpower but we are now losing those people.

"of turning his back on the Public Option"

This is nothing but an incrementalist move toward 100% public health care, and transparently so. There is no surprise why many Dems (who pay attention to their constituents) are reluctant to rush stupidly into this realm (especially while neglecting or avoiding entirely the cost issue, which is dishonest and worse).

You would think in a democracy they would look at the high levels of support but of course those are not the numbers we want to pay attention too. How about we stop paying more for our Pharm. than the rest of the world to subsidize poor or socialized medicine nations? How about we make it illegal to have insurance companies traded on the stock market where they have to make ever larger profits every quarter? If they have to lower costs to make a profit and they cant cut back on paying doctors and hospitals and have to pay their investors guess who is getting the shaft, yup consumers. We could go to a non-government non-Profit only model for health care but again totally not on the table. Why are we "protecting" an industry that has handled things so badly over the last 40 years that it is about to take our entire nation down with it. How sane is that?
Personally I think there are rare instances when the government does a better job than the private sector and health care is one of them. Criminal justice is another, is it any wonder why our prisons keep getting larger when we keep privatizing more and more of them. Could it be because we are making someone's lunch depend on it?

"This is nothing but an incrementalist move toward 100% public health care, and transparently so." Also where as I do agree with this statement why cant we allow the people to choose and vote with their dollars? This is also as true as saying that Republicans try hard to prove how bad government is by running it as badly as possible, let me know if you would like examples as I have around 30 years worth to offer up since the time of the great Ronnie who gave us the brilliant plan of cutting taxes while ballooning spending.

Overall, costs are way to high. When a hospital administrator pulls in millions a year from pharma and med legal kickbacks, that’s simply a stupid waste of money that comes out of all of our pockets.

The reason why the rest of the world can afford nationalized healthcare, (and are quite happy with it), is because the costs are not driven up by artificially high prices and salaries. We can no longer have free market “supply and demand” healthcare. Free marketing of healthcare has become financially oppressive beyond all reason. With supply and demand, demand will forever go up and so will costs right along with it.

I find it interesting, that in Europe where healthcare is nationalized, that you can still purchase if you wish, private healthcare insurance should you want a variety of perks or luxuries that you may not get with national healthcare. Most interesting, is that you will pay considerably less for a full coverage package, than any comparable health insurance here, group plan or not!

In America, greed is destroying our country. Nothing else but greed. The European nations, (some more so than others), have clearly shown us that greed can easily be controlled with regulation. Simply put, for the long term, uncontrolled capitalism is bad and controlled capitalism is good. Conservatives are just going to have to admit they were wrong and that America needs more and better business regulatory laws to protect our people and our nation’s best interests as a whole.

Who pays for Joe Leiberman's healthcare?

Pete, Pete. Come on. This is not about a "call-'em-as-he-sees-'em" approach. Come on now. What industry comes first to mind when you say, "Connecticut"?

I agree with Kathy- this is not Joe necessarily being an independent ,"call 'em as he sees 'em" type guy, but rather likely reflects his understanding of CT's corporate interests (and thus his). And perhaps it has a bit to do with increasing his own senatorial currency by essentially forcing both dems and republicans to "woo" him onto their side of any given issue, and in this case, it happens to be health care.

The issue of the public option causing too much debt is a red herring. Anyone who says anything about that is simply ruling out any sort of tax increase that would pay for it.

Here's the thing - there are millions without healthcare in this country. To give them any coverage at all will cost something. Duh! So let's simply set about finding the best combination of coverage and cost-sharing.

Who pays for Joe Leiberman's healthcare?

Us! You and me! The taxpayers! The American people! :-)

Of course, I'm sure you already know that, and it's the reason you asked the question. :-)

;-)