Well the progressives including President Obama pushed for single payer (or a public option) which would eliminate abuse on the billing side, at least to the insured.
Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_deat...
By contrast, Lieberman single-handedly killed the public option.
But that's not always the case - Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote to suspend the 60 vote rule. So the rule is available for things that a strong party consensus.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-...
No, as your source accurately states, he was confirmed after a vote to abolish the rule for Supreme Court nominations.
Both sorts of actions decrease the power of individual senators. If anything, abolishing for a whole category reduces senator's power more - if you also read the article, the basic point is the action indeed altered the power dynamic, what those considering individual senator power are worried about.
However, it remains the case that in 2009, 59 senators were ready to vote for a public option, but there was no 60th. By contrast, there were nowhere close to even 50 votes for removing the filibuster and changing to a 50 vote threshold.
Please do not miss the fact that Lieberman had no rational justification for opposing the public option and that one of the keenest observers at the time accused him of being "driven more by a pathological dislike of the liberals who dogged him in 2006 than by any remotely rational policy judgment." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/lieberma...
Those are the facts. You are laying emphasis on the one person who wouldn't vote and I'm laying emphasis on the 51+ wouldn't take take stronger action.
I think it's reasonable to give my emphasis given the way the Democratic Party has behaved over time.
I suppose that voters could have hypothetically had a positive reaction to the public option once actually set up, and rewarded Democrats for it in subsequent elections. But I doubt it. Although Medicare already exists, the public option would represent a significant expansion which would probably come with serious growing pains - plenty of material for Republicans to make horror stories out of. Probably fewer actual cases of huge premiums (which are already not that common), but it's not like statistics have ever been much barrier to politicians and their preconceived narratives. I guess the GOP wouldn't have been able to weaken the law through a constitutional challenge, as they did with Medicaid expansion - after all, the public option can't be unconstitutional unless Medicare is. But the Supreme Court is highly political, and I wouldn't be surprised if the law ended up being weakened some other way by a 5-4 majority...
But politically, Republicans would have a stronger alternative to offer: ACA without the public option. Y'know, the thing they currently portray as the root of all evil; I think they'd have ended up seeing it as a good conservative compromise, that preserved universal coverage availability without requiring the government to be involved directly. Arch-conservatives might not like that outcome (then again, they might) - but they'd likely accept it as an intermediate step, that still accomplished the substantive change of repealing a huge government program (the public option). It would be much easier to get consensus on than the repeal-in-name-only bills they're tossing around in the real world.
I suppose I'm getting way too speculative; the last two paragraphs aren't even directly related to the nuclear option, although they're meant to question the upside of Democrats hypothetically having deployed it. There would've been serious downsides, not just in health care; it's quite possible the 60 vote rule would end up being killed entirely rather than only for 'special' bills, so Republicans in the current Congress would've been able to pass a wide variety of their priorities, and repeal a wide variety of Democrats'. (For all I know you might support the Republicans on their other priorities, but the Democrats whose votes we're talking about certainly didn't.)
A suspension is both procedurally (or textually) more complicated (it either requires changing the rules twice, changing the rules to add a suspension provision and then acting separately to exercise it, or changing the rules to include a tailored exception that applied only to the case at issue) and more politically fraught (rather than publicly defending the case that the general rule is outdated, it requires legislators to defend that the rule is generally valid but should not be applied to the immediate case.) It's very much not the same thing as abolishing the filibuster for a well-defined class of cases.
This is particularly true in the Gorsuch case where the recent Democratic action to remove the filibuster from other Presidential appointees made applying the “nuclear option” to Supreme Court justices much less “nuclear” than it had seemed previously when it been considered.
And then watched it get blown away by next congress as soon as the GOP gained 51 seats to do whatever they want. Blowing away the fillibuster is an awful, terrible, no good idea and there is almost no legislative agenda which would validate it.
And to be clear, the GOP senators were and still are slimey bastards for basically everything they did leading up to Gorsuch. It should have never been done. They will almost certainly regret it as soon as they lose the senate.
Public option is a great solution, because it does not prevent the people who prefer (and can afford) to pay for private services from doing so.
And that is counting Lieberman as a D; a person who backed McCain for president and who later personally killed the public option.
I do think we will get to the public option at some point. It just makes too much sense not to and would strengthen the healthcare as a whole while allowing people more choice.
1) Indian Health Service - the US agency tasked with providing and paying for Native American health care on reservations or "health service areas". http://www.richheape.com/american-indian-healthcare.htm
How does single payer fix that? If the hospital gives you a bill and won't negotiate down, how does the government "fix" this? Which is kind of what my question is: were specifics given in the ACA on how that problem will be fixed?
On national health insurance (monthly cost depends on your salary but for an average person it is a few hundred bucks per month) the hospital pays 70% and patient pays 30%.
It means basic visits to the doctor or dentist are very cheap here. Like $20 for consultation + medicine. ER+X-rays and MRI (appendicitis, sigh) was a little bit over $100.