Lieberman is probably going to demand a complete rewrite of the bill

[BzaDem]

I think he's letting the Democrats continue to negotiate and invest time into the Reid bill until the latest possible moment, to

a) Make the rest of the Democratic caucus as pissed off as possible when he informs them that the last few months was a waste
b) Run out the clock until very close to the end of December

At that point, he'll say something like "The Reid bill tries to do too much" in that Liebermanish tone of his, and vote against cloture (or state he'll vote against cloture). Then, he and Susan Collins (and possibly Nelson) will roll out a completely different bill.

He will then basically demand that the Democrats swallow the whole thing (or with minimal changes). He can do this, because as the clock ticks closer and closer to December 31, the Democrats will eventually run out of time. December 31 is pivotal, because there is certain must-pass legislation that, well, must pass by then (such as an increase to the debt ceiling). If the healthcare bill isn't voted out of the Senate by then, Reid will have to move to table it in order to move on to the debt-ceiling vote (unless Republicans agree to a unanimous consent request). That means that the Reid bill will then be subject to a 60-vote cloture vote just to restart debate on the bill. And Lieberman could simply vote no there and end it.

Why do I think this is going to happen?

I think his main motive is to make Democrats miserable. I think he has been planning this since August, when he said on CNN that he thinks we need to "put off" expanding access to health insurance "because of the recession."

There have been many other indications in various news articles over the past few months. Most recently, in the Wall Street Journal interview (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574652325364622.html):

"He has the power to strip a public option out of the Senate health-care bill, and even demand a more moderate rewrite."

"Mr. Lieberman says the Democrats' "political problems" come from "supporting two goals which don't go together"—increasing coverage and reducing health-care costs. The bill needs more of the latter. He'll push to finance it with a cap on the tax exclusion Americans get through their employers for health plans because this exclusion, he says, has the "most effect on creating incentives not to overuse the insurance system." He will also work with Republicans to enact malpractice reform."

A cap on the employer tax exclusion would be a completely different way of financing the bill. While it seems similar to the excise tax on high value health plans, it a) is more insurance company friendly, and b) would transparently break Obama's tax pledge. In addition, he is saying he is going to make sure tort reform is included. Rewriting the financing mechanism, including tort reform -- this sounds like he is going to propose a moderate Republican bill and demand Democrats scrap the Reid bill. Why else would he completely skip all the public option negotiation meetings over the past week, attended by all the other conservadems?


What can Democrats do about it?

Option one would be to get Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe on board. Neither has a pathological hatred for the Democratic party, and therefore neither has a massive incentive to kill the bill or water it down into nothing. They would definately require that it be watered down (lower subsidies, lower regulation, etc etc), but not anywhere near what Lieberman would demand. (After all, I think Lieberman is going to demand a lot for the main purpose of kicking sand in Democrats' eyes. At least Nelson and Snowe want changes for policy reasons, even if they are misguided.)

I thought this was possible until recently. Now, the reporting around the Capitol seems to indicate that Nelson has probably already decided to vote no on the Reid bill. Nelson himself has talked about a possible alternative bill ("Number two I don't know what kind of alternative legislation may be offered as an alternative bill," in http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/nelson-ill-filibuster-without-stupak-like-amendment.php). I don't think he would randomly start talking about alternative bills unless he knew of one in the works. In fact, Lieberman's diabolical plan wouldn't work unless he had an assurance that Nelson wouldn't vote for the Reid bill, so it makes sense that Lieberman would tell Nelson about it and get such an assurance.

Without Nelson, we would need Lieberman (even assuming we could get Snowe).

Option two would be to go to reconciliation (a process under which the bill does not require a 60 vote threshold to end debate). However, there are huge pitfalls here. There is very little that can be done under reconciliation. Everything under reconciliation would have to be budget related. This means that basically, only large subsidies for private insurance would work. Banning pre-existing condition discrimination would certainly NOT work, which means any public plan (or opening up Medicare as an option) wouldn't work either.

In addition to the huge policy pitfalls that come with reconciliation, the actual process can be delayed essentially without limit. There is a 20-hour limit for the time to debate the bill. HOWEVER, Republicans can offer an unlimited number of amendments, and they are guaranteed a vote on every single one of them. They could literally offer multiple amendments for every line of the bill. It takes about 15 minutes for a roll call vote in the Senate. This means that if Republicans offer 1000 amendments (which I'm sure they are preparing now), it would take 250 hours of live voting to dispense with all of them. While that is happening, they can write another 1000 amendments. And on and on.

This is why Lieberman is so sure of himself. He knows that he can dictate the entire bill and there isn't much Democrats can do about it. He has been planning this for months. He can't wait for the moment where he will either a) force every single Democrat to amend their own bill into a shell of its former self, grinning and laughing the entire time, or b) kill healthcare reform for another decade or two.

I really hope I am proven wrong.