Traitor Joe

Does Health Care Reform make sense in a bad economy? Not to Joe Lieberman, who offers up an argument that could drive a stake into the heart of the socialist dream. One more reason why Democrats think of him as Traitor Joe.
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut on Sunday urged the Obama administration to consider postponing overhauling the health care system and instead work on smaller chunks of the issue until the economy improves.
The goal of the leftists is to use legitimate concerns over the cost of health care to trick Americans into turning the whole thing into a social program. By making an argument against this comprehensive approach, Lieberman is putting the goal of a single payer system at risk. Reform without socialism is not what ObamaCare is supposed to be.
“I’m afraid we’ve got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy’s out of recession,” Mr. Lieberman said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “There’s no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms.”
Lieberman's approach is, of course, fiscally responsible, which is why it represents such a threat to the ruling Democrats.
Mr. Lieberman’s comments could further complicate Democratic efforts to get a health care overhaul passed in Congress. They had been depending on the independent senator to support their efforts, even though he often aligns with Republicans.
Hard to believe this guy came within inches of being a Democratic Vice President. Easy to see why they ran him out of the party. The Democratic argument, meanwhile, that private insurers won't be run out of business under a Public Option system continues to baffle me.
But on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Howard B. Dean, former governor of Vermont and former chair of the Democratic National Committee, said a government program would be far cheaper than any private alternatives. Mr. Dean said that only 80 percent of the revenue of private insurance companies goes to medical care while the rest becomes profits for investors in the insurance company and for costs like administration.
How in the world would they survive against a government subsidized program that charged 20% less?