Essentially it says (or should say) hey, insurance companies. You have x number of months to get your house in order. If (when) you fail to do that, we'll take over.

I would not object to that, unless the trigger conditions were too weak or the grace period too long.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

   What we have now as a legislative process came about as the replacement (however gradually, and fitfully) of a system which once upon a time "ran-like-clockwork" because, unlike today, there was such a well-organized party system with such awesome and thorough control over who was to be a House or Senate candidate, that, very few if any members --and certainly no members who could be described as "ordinary rank-and-file") ever came to hold office without the blessing of the leadership to whom they were completely beholden.

   For Republicans, this was nothing other than simply political business as usual.  For Democrats, in, for example the heydays of New York's Tammany Hall, it was distinguished from the Republican brand of graft as being "honest graft", in a feat of moral and intellectual acrobatics which is not very different in its base from what some today do to explain, excuse and apologize for the system that prevails.  In  William Riordan's classic text, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall [Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: A Series of Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1963) ], referring to George Washington Plunkitt (1842 - 1924), famous for having said, "I seen my opportunities and I took 'em" (as any Mafia hit-man could as easily claim), we're told of an occasion in which it's admitted that the forces for reform should actually prevail, but that it has to be understood that the time is not yet right and ripe for such reform.  Such a explanation may have been made entirely unselfconsciously.  In the time---unlike in our advanced day---everyone took these things for granted.

 e.g.

  as present-day casebook example of a politician offering a rationale:

  "We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. "To put this government-created, government-run insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayer, for the premium payer and for the national debt. I don't think we need it now."

  http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/65105-reid-doesnt-have-health-votes-yet

 

  That former system was eventually replaced when, in processes which unfolded in a generally similar way in each house of congress---members rebelled against the existing system (which, it has to be admitted, was still one which afforded a certain amount of give-and-take even in its most authoritarian forms), and won for themselves greater freedom to support or oppose their party's leadership as they saw fit.

   In days of tight party control, as I wanted to point out above, House and Senate leaders could literally sit down together (with the President when it was useful) and decide personally the character and details of legislation, trading favors and settling differences then and there--or over a time, depending on how contentious the issues were.  That power was immense, of course.  It meant that the leaders could promise and deliver what they promised.  This situation is one part of the horns of a dilemma, however.  The wonderful controlling power didn't by any means lead to a better representation and advance of the general public's best interests; instead, as you'd guess, those in power got what they paid for and the rest of the people got what the powerful chose to allow them to have---which could include a certain measure of peace and prosperity.

   We're now on the other side of the horns of the dilemma: much greater independence on the part of individual House and Senate members, on one hand, with, on the other, a corresponding weakness in the ability to craft and pass legislation ---except by passing it through the process of bargaining with members one by one.  In each scenario, the interests of the public are easily lost, or sold out to higher bidders in the process.

   Which is better is a quite debatable matter.  Both have evident positive and negative aspects.  I would like a better party discipline and with it, reliable and faithful representation of the general public's best or better interests, without, in the process, reducing House and Senate members to abject slavery.

Maybe Lieberman's reward is a million dollar salary for doing nothing. Just for having made sure no bill is passed in the Senate.

Gross but that's what I'd do if I were the health insurance industry. Cross his palms with platinum.

1. although he promised to caucus with the democrats, it should be clear by now that Lieberman has taken the words "hold your friends close and your enemies closer" to heart. he hates the democrats.
   
2. lieberman knows the GOP is the one that saved his ass. he owes them a lot more than he owes the democrats.
   
2. lieberman knows he can't win with connecticut democrats, and i suspect he won't run for re-election.
   
3. Connecticut is home to several large insurance companies, all of who pay good money to keep lieberman on their side.

Perhaps it's dangerous to be more optimistic than Booman, but on this one I am.