And maybe I'm just naive. I don't know. I want to believe that I have a general understanding of the world we live in and life in general, but maybe I'm wrong.
There is much ado about how everything that we have been fighting for on the subject of health care reform has been shot to hell, principally due to the recalcitrant predilections of one particular senator.
Now, everyone is claiming that the end of the world (read: Democratic Majorities in Congress lost) is nigh, and nothing we do now can save us from the abyss (read: Republican Majorities regained in Congress).
And perhaps if the bill that is currently cooking in the Senate was the absolute last word on health care, then maybe all these Chicken Littles would have a point.
But that leads me to ask a very simple question:
Why can't we pass the admittedly disappointing bill that looks like its going to make its way to the President, and then pass the additional provisions that we want (e.g., robust public option) via reconciliation? It is my understanding that enacting just the public option via reconciliation would be entirely a revenue/spending measure that would fit nicely into the purpose that reconciliation (i.e. 51 votes to pass) was established to permit.
What makes everyone think that we are not going to get exactly this kind of resolution? We can't get further federal regulation through reconciliation. We can with a 60 vote majority vote. We can't get benefit cap removal or an end to retroactive denial of service through reconciliation, we can with a 60 vote majority.
I agree that if all we get out of this is what Lieberman wants, then there should be cause for not just disappointment but actual anger at what is being done. However, I am not yet convinced that this is what is going to happen.