TPMDC
CORRECTED: Lieberman Proposed Public Option In 2004, Opposes It Now
Eric Kleefeld | October 28, 2009, 2:56PM
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
Share
Send to a friend!
[CORRECTION: We have been told that Joe's program here was not properly termed a public option, but was two different concepts -- an expansion of government-run health care programs for the young, extending it up to age 25, and the creation of private health care exchanges in order to create a competitive, organized marketplace. So to be blunt, we bungled this one. TPM regrets the error.]
Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) seems to have seriously changed his position on a public health insurance program -- from supporting it years ago, to staunchly opposing it now.
Back when Lieberman was a full-fledged Democrat and sought the party's nomination for President, he said this at a debate in South Carolina on January 29, 2004:
"And one of the things we will do when we're one nation is to end the moral outrage of 44 million people without health insurance in the richest country in the world, nine million children whose parents can't take them to the doctor when they get sick 'cause they can't pay the bill. I'm gonna do that, and also help the millions who have insurance that can't pay it, by creating national health insurance pools like the ones members of Congress get our insurance from.
"Promises: When you're born, child in America, you get a membership card, and MediKids covers your insurance. Two, if you lose your job, you will not lose your health insurance. Three, underemployed, self-employed, small business, you can buy into this plan, it'll cost you a lot less, and incidentally, you'll get drug benefits with it. That's the kind of centrist leadership that produces results, and that's the kind of president America needs and I'll be."
(Transcript via Nexis)
Back then, Joe Lieberman was presenting the public option as a sensible, centrist plan for the country. But now he's promising to filibuster a Democratic proposal to establish one. So what changed?
We've placed a call with Lieberman's office, but they have not yet gotten back to us.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- Where Does This Leave Us?
- Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign
- Senate Agrees To Debate Health Care Bill
- Sarah Palin Goes Rogue With Bill O'Reilly
- Lincoln: "I'll Filibuster A Public Option Bill"
- Reid Slams Broder As A Retiree Who 'Writes A Column Once In A While'
- HCAN: "It's a Shame Not a Single Republican" Voted To Allow Debate
- Bernie Sanders: 'My Vote For The Final Bill Is By No Means Guaranteed'
- Stewart Takes Down KSM Trial Fearmongerers
- Owens Winning The Absentee Ballots In NY-23
- Lincoln: "I'll Filibuster A Public Option Bill"
- Landrieu To Reid: No Triggers, No Bill--Negotiating Compromise With Schumer
- Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign
- Reid Slams Broder As A Retiree Who 'Writes A Column Once In A While'
- Senate Agrees To Debate Health Care Bill
- 60! Blanche Lincoln Says She'll Support Health Care Debate
- RATIONAL RATIONING
- Senate Debates Historic Health Care Bill
- Sarah Should Take Her Shirt Off
- Background and Foreground: The Cause of Irrational Fear
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Hussein Stemper
October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To think that this man was once our party's VP candidate, and now we can't even count on him to let his old party's bill be voted on. Sheesh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 28, 2009 7:38 PM in reply to Hussein Stemper
I ewaa thinking that this morning. Gore was so intent on throwing Clinton under the bus and getting a "conservative" dem on the ticket so he wouldn't look so liberal, that he almos threw us all under the bus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 28, 2009 3:09 PM
Heh. Don't cancel any social engagements to wait for that return phone call.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
October 28, 2009 3:12 PM
He makes Arlen Specter look like a model of principle and consistency by comparison.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
October 28, 2009 3:14 PM
JoeMentum 2006
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
October 28, 2009 3:15 PM
Worm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 28, 2009 3:15 PM
So did Obama, and now it's not a vital part of legislation. Lieberman says the PO could wait 4 or so years. I don't see how Lieberman's position is that different from Obama's position of it isn't that important.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
October 28, 2009 3:20 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Not the sharpest pencil in the box
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 28, 2009 3:27 PM in reply to johnmccsf
"The public option is only a means to [an] end--and we should be open to other ideas...For example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. Those are all constructive ideas worth exploring."
-Obama
in four years isn't that far froma trigger, yo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 28, 2009 3:38 PM in reply to Indie Pro
The Prez has consistenly said he won't sign a bill that does not ensure choice, competition and control costs.
Tell me how that is anywhere near what Lieberman is saying?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 28, 2009 3:42 PM in reply to Dorn76
would Obama sign a bill without a public option?
would Obama sign a bill with a PO on a trigger?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 28, 2009 4:08 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Good questions. Dunno. It's really a question of whether we can get real reform without a PO. I haven't been convinced we can.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 3:22 PM in reply to Indie Pro
The difference is that Obama supports creating a public option now. Lieberman does not.
The difference is that Obama opposes filibustering a bill with a public option. Lieberman does not.
The obsessive, all-consuming hatred of Obama has gone way beyond the point of self-parody.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 28, 2009 3:28 PM in reply to Stroszek
I don't hate Obama. But I understand that it is important to you to demonzie anyone who isn't lockstep with the Admin. Carry on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
October 28, 2009 3:30 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I don't worship Obama. But I understand that it is important to you to demonize anyone who says anything positive about the Admin. Carry on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 28, 2009 3:31 PM in reply to Xantar
I did say you were worshipping anyone. He's the one who said I hated Obama. But come on. Pile on! I can take it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 28, 2009 3:43 PM in reply to Indie Pro
typo, that should read, "I didn't"
you know, because you're butting in, and I didn't say that to that other guy either
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
October 28, 2009 4:45 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Somehow I knew you would miss the subtleties of satire.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 3:31 PM in reply to Indie Pro
You equate Obama with Lieberman and then whine to others about demonization?
Hilarious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 28, 2009 3:33 PM in reply to Stroszek
Whine. you are hilarious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 3:16 PM
In fairness, this just describes something like a health insurance exchange, not a federal insurance program.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KcM
October 28, 2009 4:07 PM in reply to Stroszek
The term "national insurance pool" sounds like an exchange, yes. But the second paragraph makes all kinds of promises -- covered kids, portability, a drug benefit -- that don't fall into the exchange model.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 28, 2009 4:12 PM in reply to Stroszek
Exactly. I can't believe I'm defending Liebersmuck on this one, but the exchange congress members choose from is just a huge list of private insurance options and doesn't include any PO like those currently under consideration. Some older members get Medicare, of course, a single-payer plan that is the real solution to our problems, but that is another story.
I know this issue is very complicated and there is a ton of misinformation out there, particularly coming from the rightwing know-nothing side, but also, unfortunately from the progressive side as well, on occasion.
Take Ed Schulz, I love his progressive politics and fighting attitude, but I can't count how many times he has gotten insurance reform and the PO mixed up. He has repeatedly said the PO is the only way to get rid of the pre-existing condition problem even though every bill currently under consideration would force insurers to do that, with or without the PO. He has also confused this issue over the exchange Congress has and the PO as has been done here.
Finally, I don't think Indie Pro is a demonizer, just a skeptic, and usually with good reason, I might add. In MHO, Obama has often seemed to be undercutting the progressives on HCR, or, at the least, not helping them out.
Hopefully, it's as Schumer said a few days ago, the WH is just afraid the votes are not there and that by siding with the progressives on HCR the whole effort might be endangered. But I, for one, would like to see the WH be willing to go a little more out on the limb to get really good HCR instead of settling for just some insurance reforms and not a game-changing PO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Model271
October 28, 2009 4:08 PM
"Back then, Joe Lieberman was presenting the public option as a sensible, centrist plan for the country. But now he's promising to filibuster a Democratic proposal to establish one. So what changed?"
Forget the specifics, this one doesn't have his name on it, so he doesn't want to see it happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
October 28, 2009 5:12 PM in reply to Model271
Do you suppose, if they renamed the bill The Joseph I. Lieberman Really Really Awesome Health Care Reform Bill That Is Awesome Because Joseph I. Lieberman Thought It Up All By Himself Bill, he would be more willing to stick with his caucus?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 28, 2009 5:24 PM
Glad to see TPM admitted their mistake on this one, something the rightwing media never does. (Of course, the RWM often isn't so much mistaken as it is deliberately distorting and lying.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
October 28, 2009 6:02 PM
Josh needs to call a staff metting for more quality, less quantity posting by the staff. these flubs (and a gradual but noticeable increase in them over the year) are eroding TPMs credibility for this long time reader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EthanAllen
October 28, 2009 11:47 PM
Lieberman is an archtypical poster-boy of political whoring and hypocrisy. His constituents are the Conn. based insurance companies and the military industrial complex.
TPM was correct in its original explanation of Lieberman's phony pandering; the distinction between the current term of political sophistry, "public option", and what he was proposing - insincerely it now seems - is one without much substantive difference. Much like those who are currently pandering to the insurance lobby, he was merely trying to maintain the insurance industry's strangle hold on the nation's health policy, while proposing superficial "reforms" designed to dupe the public.
If one were to compare this charlatan's actual voting record with that of Vermont's Bernie Sanders, especially on the issue of health care reform, maybe even TPM would rise above the level of a marginal political soap opera.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephanie Hunter
October 29, 2009 11:54 AM
What's changed is his political gumption! Our future and the future of our children are on the line here. Why can't we understand and pass a system that will work. They've found a way to do it in Ohio. http://cli.gs/z3AtaY
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?