Community | December 15, 2009 | 50 comments

Lieberman: Liberal Enthusiasm Convinced Me To Oppose Medicare Buy-In

source: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/lieberman-the-fallout/?hp

Image
UrbanGypsy
In an interview with the New York Times, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) revealed Tuesday that he decided to oppose a Medicare buy-in in part because liberals like Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) liked it too much.

[I]n the interview, Mr. Lieberman said that he grew apprehensive when a formal proposal began to take shape. [...]

And he said he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the proposal by some liberals, including Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, who champions a fully government-run health care system.

"Congressman Weiner made a comment that Medicare-buy in is better than a public option, it's the beginning of a road to single-payer," Mr. Lieberman said. "Jacob Hacker, who's a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, 'This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.'"

Lieberman's comments go a long way toward validating the prevalent theory in progressive blogger circles -- that he, as the Washington Post's Ezra Klein put it, "seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals."

Washington Monthly blogger Steve Benen speculated just on Monday about what would have happened if liberals had expressed disappointment with the Medicare buy-in, rather than enthusiasm. "Would Lieberman -- who not only ran on a Medicare buy-in platform in 2000, but also signaled some preliminary support for the idea last week -- be willing to kill reform over the idea now?"

Lieberman had supported a Medicare buy-in as recently as three months ago.

Meanwhile, the fickle senator said he's closer to supporting reform, but still not there yet.
  1. groups:
    Community
  2. tags:
    News,  Politics,  US Politics,  Health Care,  6 more
  3.     
    |

50 comments // Lieberman: Liberal Enthusiasm Convinced Me To Oppose Medicare Buy-In

  • jubal
  • jubal
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • Image

    • What is decent about mandating insurance without an affordable public option? If you don't want to pay for mandated car insurance, you take public transportation to get from point a to point b. What are you supposed to do when you cannot afford mandated insurance? Die Quickly?

    • 2 years ago
  • current89
    • 0
      current89  

    • Its an option. However, It would still require Max Baucus's approval. The bill without the public option would expand coverage to 30 million Americans. Thats about 2/3 of the constantly uninsured. So, even without the public option, its a decent, historic, bill.

      I have a feeling that during Obama's second term they'll make improvements, but if you can't build a foundation, you can't build anything.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • kennymotown
  • macfan
  • Chique
  • UrbanGypsy
  • Chique
  • theghostofjohnlennon
  • DougChristian
  • Vierotchka
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • UPDATE:

      http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/lieberman-the-fallout/?hp

      [I]n the interview, Mr. Lieberman said that he grew apprehensive when a formal proposal began to take shape. [...]

      And he said he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the proposal by some liberals, including Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, who champions a fully government-run health care system.

      "Congressman Weiner made a comment that Medicare-buy in is better than a public option, it's the beginning of a road to single-payer," Mr. Lieberman said. "Jacob Hacker, who's a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, 'This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.'"

    • 2 years ago
  • isaiahcarter
    • 0
      isaiahcarter  

    • They the (Dems) are using Liberman has an excuse not to reform our health care system. If they really wanted to do it they could. We have to wake up family and vote these people out of office and start working to improve our nation. We need to set real limits on how long a person can serve in the senate and the house. Love and Peace we have the power to change our nation.

    • 2 years ago
  • DougChristian
    • 0
      DougChristian  
    • isaiahcarter:

      You've really got a twisted view of things. "The Dems" are not a unified body that acts in lock step. Stop making up conspiracies and start watching which congressmen are fighting for their constituents and which are not. Vote out the one's that are not.

      "Vote em all out" is exactly the kind of non-think that led to having such a crappy congress in the first place.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • I think Lieberman nows that he is not going to be re-elected in the next elections. But he isn't worried, there's a nice job waiting for him in the insurance industry after he leaves. Connecticut has many insurance companies in the state...

      I doubt the letters of his constituents will sway him at all. The majority of his constituents favor the public option or the expansion of Medicare, but he's not interested in satisfying the wishes of the people he is there to represent; he is motivated by his own personal vendetta with the party.

      Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory at the last minute when he was for it all this time is clearly a move intended to not only halt the legislation but also to try to emotionally drive a stake at the heart of his former party.

    • 2 years ago
  • current89
    • 0
      current89  

    • Admittedly I had first thought reconciliation may be a good idea, but then I looked over the process. It would require the support from both Max Baucus (Chair of the Financial Committee) and Tom Harkin (Chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee). I'm quite sure Baucus would be opposed to such a maneuver. In addition, the bill would completely exclude any non-government budget issues. That would mean that the insurance exchanges, pre-existing condition laws, coverage laws (that wouldn't allow insurance companies to drop coverage), and other regulations wouldn't be able to be included in the bill. Furthermore, any budget reconciliation proposal, if passed, would have to be approved again in five years and again in ten years.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • current89:

      I read this and I imagined that it was why Reid chose to try to pass it in one fell swoop. But then again what politician would ever risk his political career to support taking it away once millions of Americans are already on it 5 or 10 years from now? I'd say it would be akin to political suicide.

      The only ray of hope I see is that they manage to compromise like Lieberman wanted, pass the plan (however reduced) and then add the other missing parts through reconciliation. Is that an option?

    • 2 years ago
  • Chique
    • 0
      Chique  
    • current89:

      Urban, I think that's a possibility. Seems it's vital for the DNC to put at least some reform through, which is why they're bending so far to get the votes needed. If nothing gets passed they're viewing it as political suicide. Adding to it could be an option but I'm not sure either. Current89, what do you think?

    • 2 years ago
  • iPedro
    • 0
      iPedro  
    • current89:

      I too was thinking that reconciliation was the route but upon reading more on the procedure, I came to the same conclusion on the restrictions that you mention in your post.

      A filibuster is a cowardly method of denying democracy. It's clear that a majority of the senate (51 votes) are in favour of the public option and/or the medicare buy-in. Let them vote! Delaying the vote by endlessly debating for the sake of delaying is denying democracy to take place.

      I think Reid should just call for a vote on cloture and see if Lieberman blinks. If he filibusters the bill, Connecticut will take care of him in 2012 and Reid will take his power away from him by removing him from his chairmanship and kicking him out of the Democratic caucus. His political career will be over.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • unimatrix0
  • DJMatt2
    • 0
      DJMatt2  
    • unimatrix0:

      Actually you need to focus your attention on Reid. Lieberman is just doing what Lieberman normally does. A GOOD leader knows this and takes it into account. Reid has demonstrated he is not a good leader. It is time for him to be relieved of that leadership.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mark701
    • 0
      Mark701  

    • Liebermann loves being in the catbird seat. However, after these antics I don't suspect the residents of Connecticut will be reelecting him.

      He's made it perfectly clear he's nothing more than a well bribed tool for the private insurance industry. I hope he can sleep comfortably in his big home, covered by his taxpayer funded government health insurance while thousands that his vote will deny health care to, go off to die. There are no words I can come up with that can adequately characterize the the contempt I feel for this man. His depravity sickens the soul.

    • 2 years ago
  • Robotic091
  • BigJoeSixPack
  • jubal
  • Chique
  • DJMatt2
    • 0
      DJMatt2  
    • Chique:

      That would imply Reid shows any kind of real leadership skills. Reid doesn't even know how to change a lightbulb! He just makes concessions and waits until the lightbulb is willing to change itself!

    • 2 years ago
  • DougChristian
    • 0
      DougChristian  
    • Chique:

      This won't happen until 2010. Look at the budget bill that passed this weekend. It was a simple funding of the US budget from NASA to the FBI to Medicare and all the Republican's voted to filibuster it. They're literally trying to undermine the government. Lieberman had to walk to the Senate on the Sabbath and pass the 60th vote.

      The point is, that while the Dems and Lieberman are opposed on MANY issues, they still need him to do the simple things since the Republicans have to decided to filibuster absolutely everything. It's disgusting.

      Come November, 2010 the Dems will either loose their "60 votes" or go above it. It's looking like the former so far. Either way, Joe's leadership positions are in trouble at that point.

    • 2 years ago
  • DJMatt2
    • 0
      DJMatt2  
    • Chique:

      you're assuming that they've always HAD those 60 votes. As long as Lieberman is part of that number then they NEVER HAD 60 Votes. Lieberman cannot be trusted! He never COULD be trusted! And only a Bush-level FAILURE would not realize that by now!

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
  • SageRockandRoll
  • neocongo
  • Chique
  • macfan
  • SageRockandRoll
  • iPedro
    • 0
      iPedro  

    • This is a big loss to the bill. Allowing 55 year olds to buy in to Medicare would strengthen it, not weaken it. Statistically, 55-65 year olds are less likely to need to use insurance than 65-120 year olds. More money stays in the system. The younger the demographic, the more solvent Medicare would get.
      Lieberman is simply looking out for the interests of private insurers, big employers in his state. Nonetheless, lying to make it happen and being a single Senator against the bill on a Democratic caucus that overwhelmingly supports it -- or at at least this compromise -- is hard to swallow. What happened to the will of the people?

      Using the filibuster to prevent the Senate from voting is a dirty strategy. If the Senate were allowed to vote, this bill would pass by simple majority.

      Having Lieberman allowed to sit on the Democratic caucus is like having a Republican insider, like having an Al Qaeda operative working inside the Pentagon. What Joe's been doing since turning independant is a kick in the pants.

      Reid kept him in the caucus because he needed his support. Well, Lieberman hasn't supported anything. He's lost his purpose. He should lose his committee chairs and be kicked out of the Democratic caucus. Let's see how popular he is without any power when he faces the people in an election.

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • iPedro:

      Lieberman supporting the filibuster is just clear out opposition. This man no longer deserves to be considered a part of the Democrtic caucus. Who perpetuated the myth that we ever had 60 votes? Because I'm not sure we ever did.

      Shame on the people of Connecticut for electing him.

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • iPedro:

      Well, the media likes drama and storylines. I'm not surprised that they made it seem like the Dems had it all this time. They kept assuming thay Lieberman caucased with the Dems when in fact, he was just as likely to vote with the GOP. I think they knew but they like to spin.

      It made the 2008 election news much more newsworthy if they made the viewers think the Dems had reached the 60 filibuster proof majority. Yeah, filibuster proof my foot...

    • 2 years ago
  • Chique
  • DJMatt2
    • 0
      DJMatt2  
    • Chique:

      Lieberman is just being Lieberman. You need to focus your anger on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Reid set the stage for Lieberman to do what he does best.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • Reconciliation is sounding better and better by the minute. But I don't think the Democratic leadership wants to even consider it for some reason. I've never seen a more timid majority.

    • 2 years ago
  • DougChristian
    • 0
      DougChristian  
    • UrbanGypsy:

      There are severe limitations to what can be passed under reconciliation. It only applies to the ways the government spends money. So certain laws can not be passed under reconciliation. This includes regulations of the insurance market such as the preexisting conditions and lifetime caps bans as well as the individual mandate laws. So they would need to pass that stuff in a second bill. In addition, any bill passed under reconciliation automatically expires in 10 years, so while they could set up a public option, and subsidies and the Exchange under reconciliation it would have to be voted for again sometime in the next decade.

      It seems to me the way to go is to pass this bill without the public option and then do another bill setting up a temporary public option under reconciliation.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • UrbanGypsy:

      I agree. Thats what I considered. By the time 10 years roll along, taking away Health Care from the millions of Americans already covered by it will be akin to political suicide.

    • 2 years ago
  • Chique
    • 0
      Chique  
    • UrbanGypsy:

      What do you get when you cross Joe Lieberman with a frog?

      A fascinating, frog-voiced lump of wrinkles whose blood runs cold with reptilian contempt for those in need.

      And a frog.

    • 2 years ago
  • Minimalmonger
more from Community:
from the community

top videos