Why wasn't Medicare buy-in at 40+, removal of anti-trust offered as part of reconciliation?

You know, right when the centrists were trying to get rid of the public option and generally water down the bill?

Why there was nothing on our side to counter this? That's a question I'm really troubled by.

I mean what IF, Lieberman, Snowe, et al were told, "well, we know you have issues with any Medicare buy-in and/or public option, but if there isn't 60 votes for this (weaker HCR bill), we have to go through reconciliation and if we go that route, we don't have 50 for that unless the elements you don't like are even stronger. So take your pick."

Of course, without a counter position, any poker player could have predicted what would happen (and has happened): without consequences, opponents of the bill and the president simply upped the ante because they held good cards (well all of them actually).
Meanwhile, supporters of reform promised they would not fold no matter what. Then the moderates decided to keep upping the ante knowing that no matter what they win.

:shrug:

(I actually still support the industry reforms in the bill because without a public option, we'll need them more than ever, but I feel like we need a class action lawsuit in malpractice for the way this issue was handled.)

insurance companies dramatically escalate policy holders premiums making those health insurance policies in most cases completely unaffordable.

As far as the strategy part of your question I don't know why it was handled the way it was.......

Personally I would like to see Medicare part "E" that is let's have Everyone onboard the Medicare program.

Those among others, would be *new* rules insurers would be required to follow by law. Without HCR, they will not.