Ari Melber argues that with last week's appellate ruling against health care reform's individual mandate, it might have been better, in retrospect, to expanded Medicare, which was one of the options being discussed until Lieberman was permitted to shoot it down. (I say "permitted" because the President saved Lieberman's behind when Dems were thinking of not permitting him to caucus with them, and what did the President get in return? Not just that, but when has Lieberman ever been punished for any of his bs moves like when he killed Medicare expansion?)
"Last week, an appeals court invalidated the core of President Obama's health care law.
This may sound familiar, because several federal judges have already ruled on the Affordable Care Act. Some have upheld it. Others say the law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will probably have the last word.
But there's more to this story. The legal trouble facing the health care act reveals some unexpected risks of blind compromise as a legislative strategy – and it discredits this nonsense media narrative that every compromise is automatically pragmatic."
http://www.americablog.com/2011/08/that-proposal-to-expand-medicare-might.html