In the battle over healthcare reform, Senator Joe Lieberman of
Connecticut, the former Democrat turned independent, and Democratic
Senators Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Kent
Conrad have at least two things in common. They all oppose a public
option in healthcare reform, but each is nevertheless a fervent advocate
of socialized medicine. How can Senate watchers make sense of this
ideological contradiction?
The Obama administration promised to reform the financial system and
make it safe for the rest of us, but recent Congressional action is more
likely to reset the fuse for another explosive calamity. The time bomb
in this case is that arcane financial instrument known as
derivatives--the hedging devices that the big banks sell to investors,
corporations and other banks to reduce risk or evade the requirements to
hold adequate capital on their books.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told reporters today that he would in fact
filibuster any health care bill he doesn't agree with--and right now,
he doesn't agree with the proposal making its way through the Senate.
If every kid in class finishes their homework except for one, guess
which kid will get the most attention. That's right, the slacker.
And, when the slacker finally does turn in the assignment, it is invariably a slapdash job that fails to meet minimum standards.
So it is in the U.S. Senate, where the Finance Committee finally got around to finishing its health care reform assignment.
On "The Ed Show" Monday night I said Montana Sen. Max Baucus had to
decide whether he represented Montana or the insurance industry.
Tuesday he made his choice, voting against both public option
amendments to the healthcare reform bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
For weeks now it's seemed more and more evident that instead of
significant, meaningful healthcare reform, we are--if we're
lucky--going to wind up with something akin to health insurance
reform.
President Obama did all the Sunday morning talk shows, as part of a
ramped-up campaign to promote his sincere if ill-defined belief that
health care should be reformed. and he continued to argue, albeit
tepidly, that this reform probably needs to include a public option.
I thought it was weird when Olympia Snowe suddenly started pushing
triggers. Rahm Emanuel has been lobbying for them since early in the
year, and lately the White House has been trying to burnish the image
of "triggers" by pressing liberal validators into service. And now,
according to Marc Ambinder, lo and behold:
At a critical moment in the tense health care debate -- when the U.S.
House and Senate are scrambling to forge compromise reform plans that
might be passed before the Congress embarks upon its traditional August
recess -- President Obama is retooling his health-care reform message.
Instead of the bold rhetoric of last year's campaign, or even of
last month's press conferences, the president is now pitching reform as
more of a consumer-protection gambit.
In
recent posts and in
my last column,
I noted that there's an unspoken deal between D.C. reporters and "Blue
Dog" Democrats to explain Blue Dog opposition to health insurance
regulation, unionization, Wall Street reform and pollution controls as
a direct outgrowth of them representing culturally conservative
heartland districts.
