That proposal to expand Medicare might have been more likely to survive court challenge than the ind

[Lunabelle]

Ari Melber argues that with last week's appellate ruling against health care reform's individual mandate, it might have been better, in retrospect, to expanded Medicare, which was one of the options being discussed until Lieberman was permitted to shoot it down. (I say "permitted" because the President saved Lieberman's behind when Dems were thinking of not permitting him to caucus with them, and what did the President get in return? Not just that, but when has Lieberman ever been punished for any of his bs moves like when he killed Medicare expansion?)

"Last week, an appeals court invalidated the core of President Obama's health care law.
This may sound familiar, because several federal judges have already ruled on the Affordable Care Act. Some have upheld it. Others say the law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will probably have the last word.
But there's more to this story. The legal trouble facing the health care act reveals some unexpected risks of blind compromise as a legislative strategy – and it discredits this nonsense media narrative that every compromise is automatically pragmatic."

http://www.americablog.com/2011/08/that-proposal-to-expand-medicare-might.html

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Lieberman got you the end of DADT. Life, and politics, are about choices. n/t

[Lunabelle]

2. Who cares about him?

He's not even a Democrat.

[leveymg]

3. Since it appears that Clarence Thomas will remain on the Court, looks like Lieberman won.

The option chosen -- the Individual Mandate -- looks extremely vulnerable, which means that the whole HCR exercise was a waste of time the main effect of which was to boost the private insurance industry's stock. Which may well have been the point of those making the key decisions, all along.

[Kolesar]

4. "Monday morning quarterbacking"

(Your vote: -1)