TPMDC
Checkmate: How Joe Lieberman Turned The Public Option Fight On Its Head
From left to right Top: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Bottom: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA),
Center: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
Share
Send to a friend!
After Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) threw down the gauntlet on the public option, political observers and liberal critics had no shortage of theories. Lieberman was rebelling against the liberal base. Lieberman harbors animosity about 2006. Lieberman is an egotist and wants the spotlight. Any or all of these theories might be true, but they obscured the more important, strategic rationale for his decision: With a 60 member caucus, and little to no Republican support, every Democrat has a pocket veto of the health care bill. Lieberman's explicit threat to use his veto was, in effect, checkmate on the public option in the Senate, and created breathing room for other public option skeptics to create the bloc that is now negotiating away the public option entirely.
"I think we all came to a similar conclusion. He came to the timing of his announcement, I think, pretty much on his own," conservative Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) told me of Lieberman's threat.
So you all sort of knew where each other stood?
"Yes of course. We continued to talk about it. Each of us had a problem, to one degree or another, with the public option."
I asked, "Did you see it as helpful to your own negotiating on the public option?"
"I don't think it hurt," Nelson said.
Lieberman's move could be used as a case study on the importance of leverage in political negotiations.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), another public option opponent, said Lieberman had always opposed the public option, and that his announcement prefigured the current behind-close-doors hand wringing over the provision.
"This has been going on for a long time, and so our caucus is in the process of negotiating with ourselves, because we need all 60 of us to get this done...we knew this day would come and it has come," she told me and another reporter last week.
For his part, Lieberman himself says he wasn't specifically trying to turn the public option momentum on its head, and help his centrist colleagues. But hey! All the better.
"I didn't actually think of it that way, if it had that effect, I'm not unhappy about it," Lieberman told me. "But I mean the progression here is that I felt from the beginning...the public option, government-created, run insurance company was not a good idea."
"As we came closer to the vote on cloture on the motion to proceed, and Senator Reid called me and he said, 'can you vote for it, I'm gonna put a public option in it,' and I said, 'you know I'm against the public option. But I want to start the debate and I want to be for health care reform.'"
And then there were some, my colleagues, who said, "well why don't you negotiate with Harry, see if you can get it out now," so I said, "I don't think he wants to negotiate." I talked to him again, it was pretty clear that he didn't, so I just thought it was very important to make that clear, to explain why I wanted to--I would vote to open debate on the bill--because I want to support health care reform, but that if there was a public option in it, the only recourse I have...is to vote against cloture.
Now, according to Nelson the opt-out public option isn't even part of the ongoing discussions between progressive and conservative Democrats, who either need Lieberman, or Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), or both on board for reform to pass. Still in the fold are the trigger compromise (which has Snowe's support, but not Lieberman's) and a new proposal to allow consumers to buy non-profit insurance with premiums negotiated by the federal government.
Conservative Democrats would like this latter plan--which isn't a public option--to replace the measure in the bill, though Snowe told reporters yesterday that the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, and that it's likely not a replacement for a trigger. On Saturday, she met with Obama to discuss triggers and other elements of the reform proposal. She described Obama's position on the triggers as "supportive."
Senators say they hope to reach a more concrete compromise early this week, perhaps as early as today.
Comments (179) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
mc mark
December 7, 2009 10:04 AM
And the Dem caucus let this weasel keep his chairmanships why?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
December 7, 2009 10:15 AM in reply to mc mark
Yes it's frustrating. And apparently Obama himself intervened and asked Harry Reid not to "punish" Traitor Joe. I'm hoping, come January 2011 that Lieberman is stripped of his chairmanship(s). And, it would be just in time for his 2012 re-election campaign also! Nice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
December 7, 2009 10:30 AM in reply to CityGuy
I can't believe what you two are suggesting?
Where do you think HCR would be right now if Joe had been stripped of his chairmanships?
Not even mentioning the very real possibility Dems would only have 59 cacausing with them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
December 7, 2009 10:43 AM in reply to arias
It's almost like these people haven't considered the effect of their suggestions, and just want to lash out stupidly to see what happens.
Frankly, I'm surprised it's come as far as it has. If the proponents of this law want it to pass, they should bring a few more pitchforks and torches to D.C. over the holidays. (Don't bother with money, though - if you had what it took to outbid the insurers, we wouldn't be here.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Catsy
December 7, 2009 11:25 AM in reply to Former Federal Employee
Some of us have considered our suggestions quite thoroughly, thanks for asking.
Where would we be right now had we stripped Lieberman of his leadership positions for refusing to support procedural votes on the party's most important legislative initiative? Nobody can know for sure, but I'll tell you what I find most likely: we would be exactly where we are now anyway.
The only reason the 60-vote threshold is significant in any way is because that is the number (assuming 100 Senators) required in order to advance key procedural votes, such as a cloture motion. You argument is flawed in that it assumes we have that 60-vote majority right now merely because Lieberman caucuses with the Democratic Party. We don't, and Lieberman's actions and their outcome clearly demonstrate that we don't.
If Lieberman is unwilling to support the party on procedural votes, then it is absurd to count him as one of 60, regardless of with whom he caucuses. The meaningful number is not the number of Senators who caucus with you--the meaningful number is the number of Senators who will support the party's legislative agenda on procedural votes like cloture motions, regardless of whether or not they support the final bill and intend to vote against it.
That is the only metric by which 60 is a meaningful number here, and by that metric we have at most 55 Senators who can be counted towards that magic number 60 that we need.
What this whole debacle has clearly settled once and for all is that after you pass the 50 Senators needed to win a majority (and all the benefits that come with that), having more Democrats is far less important than having better Democrats, because simply expanding our caucus in the Senate is utterly meaningless if we do not have 60 of them who are willing to support procedural votes on legislation they intend to vote against.
We lose nothing by punishing Lieberman by stripping him of his committee assignments. The worst he could do is caucus with the Republicans, and that will gain nothing for either them or him. Having 59 Senators in the caucus is on a practical level no different than having 60, because Lieberman already intends to oppose the party's most important legislative items, both in a final vote and on the vote for cloture. Exactly what are we losing if we punish Lieberman for betraying the party?
Nothing.
Nothing whatsoever.
What we have lost by not doing so--and by not threatening similar action, including full party support for a primary opponent, against any Democratic Senator who refuses to support procedural votes--is credibility and leverage. Right now every Democrat has the ability to hold the entire bill hostage, and right now every Democrat on the wrong side of this issue is doing so. And why shouldn't they? We've made it abundantly clear that there is no penalty for doing so, no risk of repercussions for betraying the party's core agenda. By not punishing Lieberman we have given a green light for he and others to go as far as they want without fear of consequences. We have broadcast an invitation for conservative Democrats to abuse the threat of a filibuster exactly the way Republicans have been in order to drag the party's agenda to the right, and it should surprise no one that more and more this year they are doing exactly that.
So yes, some of us have thought this through quite thoroughly, and have come to a reasoned conclusion that as long as we have the number of Democrats in the caucus needed to maintain a majority, we can do without any more if they're not going to support procedural votes like cloture. Having the votes to pass legislation is worthless without the ability to even bring it up for a vote.
Support primary opponents for every Democratic Senator who will not support procedural votes. Defeating them and demonstrating that there are consequences for not doing so is the only way we will elect better Democrats that will get our agenda passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mftalbot
December 7, 2009 11:43 AM in reply to Catsy
Bingo. Not a word there I disagree with.
It is time to threaten to deprive Joe Lieberman of everything he loves: power. I'd like to see the leadership of the Senate go to him and say: "Joe, look: you've had your fun. We all had a nice laugh and you've made whatever point you wanted to. Now, you need to stand down or you'll lose all of your committee assignments. And, we'll blame the failure of health care on you. Personally. Publicly. Oh, and wave good bye to that senate seat in 3 years."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
December 7, 2009 11:52 AM in reply to mftalbot
Seconded!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 7, 2009 1:52 PM in reply to mftalbot
The real problem is not how to punish Lieberman. The problem is to pass health care reform, and the barrier is the 60 vote cloture together with the arcane "operating" rules that make the Senate an incompetent governing body. Those rules are designed to give every Senator a veto power on whatever more competent men in government need to get done.
The solution is not to get at Lieberman. Lieberman is a symptom of the fact the Senate is designed to not function and to prevent the government from functioning. It is a body of wealthy individuals which was set up to protect the property of rich men from the mobs of the cities. It is a governmental body designed to protect wealth at the cost of human lives, and the health care debate is exposing that.
If it weren't the unctuous Joe Lieberman blocking stuff, it would be someone else. The Senate is designed to give that kind of person the decision power. It is the continued existence of the Senate that needs to be questioned. All it does is say "No" when more productive men are trying to get government to actually do things.
Which isn't to defend Joe, of course. It's just that the Senate requires that some "Lieberman" exist and act to be the latest face of the thing the Senate is good at - saying "NO."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 7, 2009 3:13 PM in reply to Richardxx
"Unctuous"...I think you've captured the essence of the guy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KingElvis
December 7, 2009 3:41 PM in reply to Richardxx
WOW. That's really spot on. Exactly what I was going to say.
The WHOLE IDEA of the Senate is to be a reactionary branch of the legislature which totally opposes the principle of 'one man one vote.'
This 'debate' on health care is actually about the Senate and why it needs to be abolished.
England has more or less stripped the upper house of all power. It's time we do that in the US.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 7, 2009 7:31 PM in reply to KingElvis
You've got that right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaymay
December 7, 2009 12:06 PM in reply to Catsy
Thirded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NewsNag
December 7, 2009 11:27 AM in reply to Former Federal Employee
60 meeting with the Dem caucus isn't helping. 59 wouldn't be worse. It's surprising you two can't see that elementary fact.
Truth is, Joe L. campaigned strenuously FOR the public option when running for reelection and during the 2006 Prez primaries. Lieberman lied to the electorate and is a hypocritical quasi-"pro"-life sanctimonious ass, who approves of the mass murder that is war with its killing of civilians, which is an inevitable perpetual result.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
December 7, 2009 12:37 PM in reply to NewsNag
I don't think Joe lied in 2006.
In 2006 Joe supported the public option because he saw that as a road to poiwer and riches.
Today, if Joe supported the public option he would be just one of 60 senators to do so. But if he singlehandedly blocks the public. . . . I'm thinking there are more than a couple insurance companies who will be happy to bring him on as a "consultant".
Joe is and always has been concerned with just one thing. . . Joe.
The
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
December 7, 2009 11:17 AM in reply to arias
uh... exactly where it is now.
you pose the question as if the dems have actually gained something from the arrangement. the point about the chairmanship is that the dems have gotten nothing in exchange for it and would be no worse off if they had not allowed lieberman to keep it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 7, 2009 11:57 AM in reply to arias
The very fact that Lieberman was not stripped of his chairmanship is probably the reason Reid is not using reconciliation now. If Lieberman had been stripped, it would have been known from the very beginning that Reid only had 59 votes and reconciliation would have become a much, much more likely scenario.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
December 7, 2009 10:20 AM in reply to mc mark
"He's with us on everything but the war!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sandi
December 7, 2009 10:30 AM in reply to mc mark
Even more, Clinton & Obama campaigned for him, against the nominated Democratic candidate!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 7, 2009 10:33 AM in reply to sandi
Not true. Obama and Clinton campaigned for him in the primary and weakly for Lamont later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 7, 2009 6:14 PM in reply to AJM
Thanks. This "Obama campaigned for Lieberman" bullshit simply will not die.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
December 7, 2009 10:19 AM
When was the last time Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln or Landrieu
had this much publicity or felt this boost to their egos?
Power players at last.
Nelson came from the insurance industry, he's representing them and not his constituents.
Lieberman is paying the Dems back for their deserting him in the last election.
Lincoln and Landrieu are scared shitless of the undereducaed, underinformed dingbats in their red states who are brainwashed by the right wing noise machines like FOX.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 7, 2009 12:09 PM in reply to JohnW1141
Nelson not representing his constituents? So the state of Nebraska, the same state which voted for Mike Johanns and voted against Obama by 20%, wants this reform bill? Yeah, I don't think so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Spiffarino
December 7, 2009 10:19 AM
If Reid lets Holy Joe keep his chairmanship, he will have to pay with his Senate seat. I'm not a rich person, but I'll contribute every penny I can to see him go down to defeat in the primary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 7, 2009 10:32 AM in reply to Spiffarino
Reid doesn't control whether Lieberman keeps his committee chairs. Contrary to popular opinion on the left, his office does not carry dictatorial power. Whether Lieberman keeps his committee chair is up to the caucus as a whole. If stops being vote no. 60, either because we lose a few seats or (hear me Allah!) pick a few up next election, I'm guessing they'll be strong sentiment to kick his sorry ass out of the caucus entirely.
On the other hand, if we lose so many seats that he becomes vote no. 50, well, the line to kiss his wrinkled AIPAC ass will start at the bottom of the Capitol steps and he'll be demanding a big wet smack from every Democrat in down.
Reason no 1,152 why all the "progressives" threatening to stay home because they didn't get their pony are being complete idiots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBJs Brain
December 7, 2009 10:38 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Word.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 7, 2009 1:56 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Thank you, NCSteve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 7, 2009 5:13 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Thirded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
alachman
December 7, 2009 10:28 AM
this video says it all.
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/diary/11523/lieberman-supported-public-option-in-2004
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunnysteve
December 7, 2009 10:28 AM
Without single payer or a truly robust public option, we the public would do better if liberals traded for negotiated rates and repeal of anti-trust law exemption for health care insurers. Get what we can, but break up the monopoly.
For example, BCBS in North Carolina operates as a "non-profit". It dominates the market, recently advised its policy holders to lobby against the health care bill, and announced a huge rate increase at the same time. The CEO of this company that cannot lose money and has no effective competition is paid $4,000,000.00 per year.
This corporate nobility now infests most of our economic superstructure and purchases our public officials as cavalierly as it hires janitorial workers. They are like maggots or flesh eating bacteria. Even more dangerous than their greed and dishonesty is their incompetence. We only have to look at the collapse of the world financial markets to see a clear illustration of this problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
debbiedoesnothing
December 7, 2009 10:39 AM in reply to sunnysteve
Re: Your last paragraph.
I've never seen it put so well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Metzengerstein
December 7, 2009 11:12 AM in reply to sunnysteve
Fair enough, except that your comparison may be unfair to the maggots -- they arguably have some ecological value. It would be harder to make a case, at least from a human point of view, about the flesh-eating bacteria, but I'll bet they do less actual damage and kill fewer people than the corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 7, 2009 2:34 PM in reply to sunnysteve
Quite right!
The real solution to health care is to put everyone into a single insurance pool, and charge everyone an equal share of the cost of healthcare. No rating anyone up for being unhealthy, older, female, whatever. No rating anyone down for good health.
The minute you allow an insurance company to cherry pick the healthy young athletes and eliminate all the elders and people with preexisting conditions, then the costs for the sick get shifted to the sick. That eliminates the whole idea of insurance.
The reason why American health care costs get out of control is that everyone is afraid of being thrown into the pool of uninsured or underinsured. But they can protect themselves by paying protection to overpaid insurance executives who sell them a promise of coverage - and hide the practice of recission because they are lying.
The only solution that will work is to make health care a universal right, require everyone to belong to the pool of insured, and make everyone pay their share of this year's total health care costs whether they use any of it this year or not.
That's because everyone is equally likely to have to use health care at some point in life. We just don't know in advance when or how much it will cost. The Law of Large Numbers - that is, insurance - answers the question of what will be done and how much it will cost. It is in large part because we can predict these things for the group that modern medicine has been able to extend life as much as it has.
Private insurance companies are parasites that depend on our fear we will not be cared for. They are just legal versions of the neighborhood tough who walks into a small business, looks around, and says "Nice place. Be a shame if anything happened to it. Pay me for protection." As Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson are proving, the insurance companies are legal "protection" only because they have paid off the legislators to pass the laws that make them legal.
Much of the excess expense of health care it the profits skimmed off to pay Wall Street and to overpay executives for figuring out innovative ways to demand vigorish. There is no competitive market for health insurance because everyone who can afford to buy it is afraid of getting sick and because the insurance parasites carefully structure monopolies, secret price setting, and hidden fees on top of often simply not paying what they promised.
How much longer do Americans put up with being charged for protection?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 8, 2009 8:36 AM in reply to Richardxx
If the market isn't setting prices for health care, who is? And, in doing so, do they also decide on how much doctors should earn? How much money should be spent in pharmaceutical research? What the value of medical and pharma patents should be and how they should be used/restricted? The problem with your approach, it seems to me, is that it looks at health care services as a big barrel of indistinguishable peanuts as to which you simply need to negotiate the lowest price possible. It really isn't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
December 7, 2009 5:24 PM in reply to sunnysteve
but you must consider this little nugget.
now that lieberman is threatening to fillibuster because of the public option, we are hearing more about the expansion of medicare, which is single payer, which we all agree is the best option but near impossible to get.
frankly, if medicare is expanded to allow people under 65 to buy in, even from just age 50..as part of this particular bill....and the bill passes...that means it can be further expanded later on.
this could be the path to single payer, people!
dont forget that if george bush had not been such a royal fuck up, we wouldnt be talking about health care reform today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 7, 2009 10:28 AM
Blame Lieberman? No, I'll blame the leadership of the Democratic party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
December 7, 2009 3:01 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Lieberman's not responsible for his own actions?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JennOfArk
December 7, 2009 10:30 AM
I can take some comfort in this fact, though: idiot that she is, it never occured to Blanche Lincoln that she was merely drawing more attention to herself from the teabaggers by being the last one to agree to vote to open the debate. Had she taken a stand early on that she would vote to open debate for whatever the party leadership initially put before the Senate, and work at that point to negotiate on the parts she didn't like, she wouldn't have isolated herself with a target painted on her back. At this point, it probably doesn't matter how she votes on cloture or the final bill - she won't win her next election. Serves her right.
As for the "trigger", while of course it's stupid to wait for more evidence of something being broken before attempting a fix for it (rather like "this house is on fire, let's wait until the whole block is on fire and then if the fire looks like it's going to spread to other blocks, we'll start fighting it"), I have a feeling something would be triggered before long, given what we learned about Aetna's plans over the last few days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
714Day
December 7, 2009 11:43 AM in reply to JennOfArk
Aetna, United Health, BCBS, ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 10:32 AM
What I don't understand is why a few progressive Senators, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse or Sherrod Brown, for example, don't threaten to filibuster a bill without the public option.
Make Reid and the conservadems negotiate with them. Sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander and all that.
For someone who professed a preference for a strong public option, since after all, single payer was a political impossibility and the PO was the next best, and necessary, thing, Obama has been less than helpful in all of this. A casual observer might even come to the conclusion that he really never wanted the PO in the first place and was just bloviating to give himself cover to his left wing, which he is ever ready to throw to the lions of the status quo and make them (us) think he was really on their side, when he's not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 7, 2009 10:35 AM in reply to mjshep
hear, hear!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 7, 2009 10:43 AM in reply to mjshep
Because they realize that even without a public option, the bill will save tens of thousands of lives a year and, unlike the conservadems, they're neither narcissistic nor sociopathic enough not to care about that.
Basically, the same issue that caused Bowers to do do a 180 on the issue, in other words.
http://www.openleft.com/diary/16286/changing-the-goalposts-on-healthcare-reform
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
December 7, 2009 10:45 AM in reply to mjshep
Obama set the goals for the legislation and not the "how to". I agree with that. Obama has had his office open to members of both parties to get HCR done. I agree with that. Obama has just given a pep talk to the Democratic caucus. I agree with that.
I detest those of any political stripe who burden all of us with their "my way or nothing" attitude. The American middle class has been getting the "nothing". You may not like the compromises that have to be done, but this is the way our political world should work. And it will work this way under Obama.
Don't like it? Get one of your political favorites to win the Democratic primary and then go for the gold. It doesn't have to be Prez....try a Representative or a Senator. Good luck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 11:22 AM in reply to cube3u
I don't say it's my way or the highway.
Nor do I think this is the way our political would should, or always has, worked. What I do think is that we have been led by a very skillful politician who for his own benefit, has led his supporters on to believe in things he never intended to do or knew were impossible. My bet is on the former.
Oh, and by the way, your cynicism is a perfect example of much of what ails progressive politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
December 7, 2009 10:47 AM in reply to mjshep
Brown & Burris have.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 7, 2009 10:56 AM in reply to VictorLH
yeah, that's very encouraging to me.
I'm glad they haven't succumbed to such thought stopping, and ridiculous appeals to emotion as, "would someone please think about the children."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Whenwillthisnightmareend
December 7, 2009 10:34 AM
It's not up to Harry Reid to punish Joe (who says it won't be so) Lieberman. It's up to the voters to punish him and all the senators who were against affordable health care and who it appears are in the pockets of Health Insurers (who have been steadily and increasingly screwing all of us) and Big Pharma who got its way with the medicare drug plan under G W Bush. I for one will be campaigning to destroy these people, I hope you are motivated too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rmiller
December 7, 2009 10:58 AM in reply to Whenwillthisnightmareend
These people---Blanche Lincoln, Landrau, Lieberman, and Ben Nelson, will become the defacto cause for needless deaths and bankruptcies because of their suppression of the P.O. These creatures live a life so far removed from the problems of the average American that they probably view the deaths of others in the abstract. Lieberman in particular, when presented with the facts, seems befuddled--straining to understand even the basic concepts of real world life. Ben Nelson,is so accustomed to being inside the pocket of the Insurance industry he's forgotten what the Outside World looks like. No person in this country should ever forget what these characters took from them and their families. A few years ago, when O.J. Simpson walked into a diner, people got up and left. These characters should get the same treatment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 7, 2009 11:07 AM in reply to Whenwillthisnightmareend
But Reid CAN punish him: by publicly removing him from his chairmanship and pontificating on all the reasons for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
December 7, 2009 11:21 AM in reply to ilovebacon
not how it works.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 7, 2009 10:35 AM
He deserted the Democrats. He joined a party which supported him for a long time and then disagreed with him on policy and nominated someone else. He seems to feel that the Democratic leadership should have deserted the Democratic Party of Connecticut and gone with him.
In short, he's in no position to complain about desertion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
December 7, 2009 12:04 PM in reply to AJM
In short, he's in no position to complain about desertion.
Which means that's exactly what he'll probably complain about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
December 7, 2009 10:39 AM
Hang this one on the Senator From Aetna- The insurance company decided to drop 600,000 policyholders who were a threat to bigger profits for the shareholders. Even though the company wis profitable, it's not profitable enough for the executives.
Whattya bet the people dropped were over 50 and will have a hard time getting coverage elsewhere.
But Joe doesn't care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SchrodingersCat
December 7, 2009 11:10 AM in reply to jeffgee
Actually, my husband's company is in the middle of the Aetna storm. Technically we're not being dropped: it was basically "we're raising your premiums by 30%" and when my husband's company threatened to go elsewhere, Aetna's response was "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out".
The end result is we're switching insurance providers and will be paying higher rates and copays for less coverage and we as consumers have no say in the matter whatsoever. Everytime a wingnut screams "free-market" I want to kick them in the ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
December 7, 2009 12:47 PM in reply to SchrodingersCat
The problem is, it's not just Aetna's fault. They're hardly blameless, but the underlying problem is the whole system of negotiated rates that results in hospitals charging one insurance company 5 times what it charges another for the same procedure. It actually encourages regional monopolies because they're able to negotiate better rates, and the HCR bill does nothing to fix that.
Everyone blames the insurance companies because they're the most obvious culprits, but the fact is that pretty much everything about the health care system, from the bottom to the top, is screwed up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 7, 2009 10:46 AM
He's blocking the will of 55 Democratic senators by blocking a floor vote - I think there is a really good chance that he loses his chairmanship in 2010. Dems will lose 3-4 seats max, unless things really go to shit over the next year and those Senators lost would be Lieberman supporters - Lincoln, Dodd, Specter, Reid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hidden Oak
December 7, 2009 10:49 AM
How do we (the electorate) exercise our "public option" and make them all purchase private insurance? (if they could get it, of course. Some of these a-holes are older than baseball).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 10:49 AM
"Reason no 1,152 why all the "progressives" threatening to stay home because they didn't get their pony are being complete idiots."
This is a perfect illustration of what ails the Democratic Party. Everyone who disagrees is simply stupid. Well, here's a tip: That doesn't get you votes or support. Bottom line: Whether or not you like it, and whether or not you think it makes sense, the FACT is that if the Dems abandon the public option, they will lose a significant chunk of their support on the Left. That means less money, enthusiasm and votes. You may think it's stupid to insist on results from the party you work for, but that is a minority view.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jarl van Hoother
December 7, 2009 11:09 AM in reply to wbgonne
Insist, yes, by all means "insist on results." But for the love of mary, if the insisting doesn't work, then on election day you must still go to the polls, and you must still pull the lever for the Democrat, whoever he or she may be. Because staying home with a pout, or not participating in GOTV, will ensure Republican victories and if you honestly HONESTLY can't see the difference between the two parties, even with the Democrats at the their most feckless, then you need a gut-check with reality, brother.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 11:15 AM in reply to Jarl van Hoother
You are missing the point. I may very well go and vote for Dems because they aren't as bad as the Republicans. However, I won't have the same enthusiasm and I won't work as hard or donate money. Other people -- a sizable portion, I suspect -- will simply conclude that the Democrats just can not get it done. The people -- independents like me -- will explore third parties or just sit home in disgust. I am dealing with the reality not how it ought to be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 7, 2009 11:57 AM in reply to wbgonne
And you're missing mine. Disagreeing with me, or being disappointed, or whatever ails you doesn't make one stupid. What is stupid, however, is letting your anger keep you from facing the harsh reality presented by the modern Republican Party. Either we are, for the time being, effectively a one-party state with all the lethargy and lack of responsiveness that comes with that, or else we are a two party state in which one of the parties is controlled by people who are, by any meaningful criteria, completely and dangeriously insane.
At most other points in history, letting the other side win and run the wheels into the ditch so your side will get its head out of its ass has been a perfectly viable option. And that's the way it always should be in the world of Should.
Right now, however, when the other party has simply gone completely insane, it is simply irresponsible to do anything that enhances the risk that we'll have Majority Leader DeMint and Speaker Bachmann.
Yeah, I really believe that. Watching the Republicans over the last two or three years truly has taken me to the point where item one on my agenda is purely negative--keep the Republicans out of power until they either collapse or become lucid. At the risk of sounding shrill, yeah, I'm that frightened by them now and I can't understand why anyone would ever flirt with anything that in any way increases the already dangerously high risk that they'll regain power. Any attempt by those on the left who are deeming themselves disenchanted because things aren't going the way they want to try to find a "none of the above" option, like a third party or staying home option, is in my view, no different from actually voting for the crazies.
There are moments in history when bad memes get loose, gain a mass following and threaten civilization. I really do think we're at one of those moments now in this country. Analyzing things in normal political terms during an extraordinary political crisis--and the mass psychosis on the right is just that--is inappropriate and dangerous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 12:15 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Listen, there is at this time no two-party state, nor has there been for some time. When the supreme court eventually overturns Roe v Wade, when health insurance becomes completely non affordable for the upper middle class, when senior benefits are cut to feed the war machine, then and only then might there be a re-emergence of the two-party state. Until then I wouldn't hold my breath. At the end of the cold war the Russians lost and the US thinks it won. Eventually we'll find out how much we lost as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
writergal
December 7, 2009 11:31 AM in reply to Jarl van Hoother
Amen. I've been angry, furious, depressed and vengeful. But if, 9 yrs after "Al Gore is the same as Bush, I'm voting Nader" progressives will forget all lessons of voting....Amen, gut check: Do I want the war/hate/racists in charge because I didn't get all I needed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 7, 2009 11:52 AM in reply to wbgonne
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is still the only game in town for Progressives. I don't see how it helps our interests to see the GOP back in control. PO or no, all the enthusiasm I need for next Fall is the idea of Boehner and McConnell with more power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 7, 2009 12:04 PM in reply to Dorn76
My main disappointment is that we haven't pursued reconciliation. The idea that 55 votes isn't enough just doesn't sit well with me at all.
The gall of these people to block a PO with procedural votes....Sure vote against the final bill, but don't do the work of our opponents. For goodness sakes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
December 7, 2009 3:37 PM in reply to Dorn76
Reconciliation has always been a last resort, because passing certain aspects of healthcare reform would subject them to a "sunset provision." That means that much of any reform passed would expire in about 10 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SickPuppy
December 7, 2009 10:53 AM
May I suggest some edits to the Stylebook for the Senate:
Evan Bayh, D-Wellpoint
Joe Lieberman, I-Cigna, Aetna, UnitedHealthcare (Joe's busy)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 7, 2009 10:57 AM
Sanders and Brown should filibuster anything WITHOUT a public option. I used to think that they should compromise till 60 agree, but no longer. The more you give the slimy lizard Lieberman, the more the slimy lizard wants. His gut is insatiable. Please also kick him from his chairmanship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 10:59 AM in reply to ilovebacon
Agreed. No public option, no bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 7, 2009 11:02 AM in reply to wbgonne
No bill *for now* is what it means. A temporary defeat that leads to a public option in a future bill (and by future I mean a few weeks or months, not decades) would be well worth it. Better than ramming through a dud w/o a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ickyma
December 7, 2009 11:47 AM in reply to ilovebacon
Agreed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
December 7, 2009 3:53 PM in reply to ilovebacon
I don't think that's a wise course of action. It would be better to pass a bill now, even without a public option, than to try to pass an entirely new bill at some point in the future. If a bill is passed now and doesn't happen to include a public option, the public option could always be added as an amendment at a later point in future. Amendments to bills are usually easier to implement.
Furthermore, if progressives are already threatening to stay home on election day and/or vote for third party candidates, Democrats will certainly lose a significant number of seats. That will make it even more difficult to pass healthcare legislation in the future.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
December 7, 2009 5:30 PM in reply to ilovebacon
lol. thats so hilarious.
you think if the health care reform bill gets fillibustered now, they will restart negotiations?
you really think so?
if healthcare reforms doesnt happen now, if it gets fillibustered, then healthcare reform is dead for another 25 years.
simple.
did you see them going back to the table after hcr was defeated during the clinton years? and then there was no recession!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 7, 2009 6:24 PM in reply to ilovebacon
What planet are you on where a new bill w/a public option would come back in weeks, not months or years? If it's this hard to pass a bill with 60 ostensibly Democratic Senators, how hard do you think it will be w/55 or 56? Not to mention what such a high-profile legislative defeat will do to Democratic chances beyond 2010.
Get a bill passed. Now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 7, 2009 11:17 PM in reply to brewmn61
I want a bill passed as well. If no public option then OK. And what do you guys make of all the polls saying more than half of Americans are against ANY health reform? What is going on here!? It sucks. What the hell are people afraid of???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 7, 2009 11:22 AM in reply to wbgonne
I used to feel that way, but I have come to realize that I was wrong.
The public option as presently constituted isn't worth fighting for because it would only be open to a few million people, so it wouldn't have much capacity to contain costs.
A strong health care exchange could accomplish cost containment as well. It should become the sine qua non of HCR.
Think about it. The Republicans think that any HCR that Democrats could pass will hurt them. That's why they have become legislative terrorists.
Why should we play into their hands?
Sometimes pragmatism should rule the day. This is one of those times.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 7, 2009 12:07 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
You said:
Think about it. The Republicans think that any HCR that Democrats could pass will hurt them. That's why they have become legislative terrorists. Why should we play into their hands?
I say:
Excellent comment. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 12:18 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Yes true, but the reason the option became so lame is that the so-called democratic cowards crapped on it. Don't think that situation will change in any way before the next election cycle. And at that point Rahm will probably advise Obama to sit on it till after 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 7, 2009 1:14 PM in reply to rbe1
No, the problem is that a 60 vote threshold makes it impossible to pass really good legislation. So we have to live with half a loaf.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 7, 2009 12:21 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
So let me get this straight:
A bill that pisses of the left-wing Democratic base (one need only look at this site, Daily Kos, firedoglake and other "progressive" sites to see the level of disgust with the current compromises) and further fires up the Republican base is going to hurt the Republicans during the election?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 7, 2009 1:13 PM in reply to masanf
Yes, because if the bill doesn't pass, the vast middle will rightly come to understand that Democrats can't govern when they are in power.
Is that clear enough?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 1:54 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
And if they pass a lame bill without a public option they will betray the heart of the Democratic agenda. You tell me what's worse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 7, 2009 3:01 PM in reply to wbgonne
This is a big site, so I'm sure you haven't noticed, but I have been excoriated for going off on Dems for caving on a public option.
The practical side of me has won out.
What's worse is being out of power. You sound like some of the people that voted for Nader in 2000 because Gore was viewed as being too centrist. How'd 8 years of Bush/Vader work out?
btw, If the Dems do allow people to buy into Medicare, it would be better than a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 11:01 AM
I really hope the optimists are right and that a bill passes with an acceptable public option. But my instincts tell me that the senate is a completely dysfunctional body of multi-millionaires, very few of whom have any remaining contact or empathy with the broad middle class. I believe that this bill will be torpedoed, and the screwballs on the right will be crowing at Christmas. As I said, I hope I'm wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 7, 2009 11:04 AM in reply to rbe1
It's sad that well over 50 Senators are FOR a strong public option, but it's irrelevant. What kind of democracy is it when you have over 50% and yet it means nothing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 11:10 AM in reply to ilovebacon
I agree with this, too. The Senate rules should be changed. It is is simply too easy for Big Business to purchase a few Senate Dems and neuter the party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 7, 2009 11:13 AM in reply to wbgonne
And the public could be shown the logic of this. Why shouldn't 51% be enough? It's not like Congress doesn't change every two years anyway. If the minority can't stifle the majority for two years, so what? Wait till an even-numbered year rolls around. It's truly bizarre.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
December 7, 2009 11:34 AM in reply to ilovebacon
Right now, the problem is the Senate which has 6 year terms, not 2 like the House. Every election cycle, 1/3 of the Senate comes up for reelection unlike the House which turns over completely. What further complicates the calculus is the fact that at any given point in time in a contentious legislative session, the problem senator may or may not be up for reelection at the next go around which would affect his ability to cause legislative problems that might affect his reelection. It varies case by case. In the case with Lieberman, IIRC, he is up for reelection in the next election. Common sentiment says that he won't get reelected, either as an independent or as a Democrat, so he may be operating under the premise that he has nothing to lose, which makes him as dangerous as can be. The only thing that can stop him is some unseen, behind closed doors kind of threat that will affect even his post Senatorial life. I can't imagine what it could be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 11:52 AM in reply to acf_ma
I can. They throw him off the roof of the senate building.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 7, 2009 11:19 PM in reply to acf_ma
Lieberman thinks there's more love waiting for him in the GOP than among Democrats. Not so (obviously). He may be a useful idiot for them, but he is still an idiot to them. I think he's simply gone senile.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 11:29 AM in reply to wbgonne
I think the public option is a bad idea that doesn't address either of the big problems we have with our health care system: skyrocketing prices and inadequate coverage for Americans. I have a rational basis for my position, and I happen to think that Joe Lieberman's ideas on this are very sound. I haven't been "bought" by big business, I supported Barack Obama, and I believe every American should have access to health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 11:56 AM in reply to david1225
Good, then you should be in favor of single payer: low overhead, one risk pool, universal coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to rbe1
Single-payer seems to make a lot more sense to me, but I'd need to see the details. I am deeply concerned that a single payer would try to "set" health care prices in such a way that they discourage innovation and research. When something other than market forces dictate prices, you run the risk of destroying the competitive dynamic that improves quality of service while also increasing efficiency. Ultimately, I think we need a blue-ribbon panel of independent experts -- not elected officials -- to review our health care system top to bottom and suggest comprehensive reform. Unfortunately, our politicians reflect the most dangerous combination: (1) not being up to the task; and (2) believing they are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 12:21 PM in reply to david1225
Look, you can't discourage innovation and research. The only way you discourage them is to let the religious crazies plan how science spends its money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 12:29 PM in reply to rbe1
Do you think that research and innovation are free?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 12:35 PM in reply to david1225
I don't believe you're thinking about this. Most of the research in medicine is carried out by the university hospitals and the university system at large. If you believe that a board of experts is going to cut back on research because we can't afford it, then you've raised an issue for which I have no ready answer, other than to say that if it gets to that point, the US will be buying all its medical technology from overseas, because the people in other countries are not as stupid as the people on your hypothetical board.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 5:08 PM in reply to rbe1
You are an arrogant prick. I'm not thinking about this? Who do you think funds most research? The government? Sorry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 11:51 AM in reply to ilovebacon
There is a significant problem and this is taht the electorate is split nearly down the middle. Although the demographics of some states could mitigate this fact, I believe that what this really means is that we're unlikely to have anything like a 70-30 split for either party anytime soon. This, coupled with the 60 vote setup, means the senate has ceased to be a functioning unit of the republic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
December 7, 2009 11:15 AM
Time to vote all these lame duck encumbents out of office. Get them all out and get some people in there that'll listen to the public and vote on bills that will HELP the people, not make them broke or die. These assclowns don't care about us as a people, all they care about is lining their pockets and where they will work when people get tired of their lies and vote them out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 7, 2009 11:16 AM
Another thing about Lieberman: he loves attention. You can imagine him as a toad-faced, tantrum-throwing toddler throwing blocks at girls, screaming, doing anything to elicit attention. The problem is that Lieberman actually DOES have power in this case. The question is, how do we remove that power from him? And I'm talking now, not in his next election. Ideas?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 11:17 AM
First of all, Lieberman has distinguished himself as one of the brightest, most independent minds in the Senate. It's ironic that that when a group can't fight him on the merits of his position, they seek refuge in the mob. Do certain Connecticut polls show support for a public option? Apparently. But, polls are no substitute for reasoned analysis, particularly on an issue as complex and difficult as health care reform. Lieberman's position strikes me as measured, smart, and economically prudent. Why can't we have more of that in Washington?
And as for the public option, no one has made a cogent case for how it will help either of the issues that most urgently need addressing: (1) the rapidly escalating price of health care, not insurance premiums; and (2) the need to extend care to all Americans. The evidence is fairly accepted that (1) health insurance profits aren't driving the rapidly increasing costs of health care (in fact, take all of the profits of all of those insurers and they pay for just 5 days of health care in the US); (2) rising premiums for private insurance are reflective of rising health care prices, not vice versa; and (3) the biggest driver for rising private health care costs is Medicare and Medicare not paying out enough to cover the cost of health care for their members (with the result being that prices go up so that private insurance companies foot the bill for what Medicare and Medicaid don't pay).
The public option really is "Alice In Wonderland" politics. It's like creating a public automobile insurance company to control the price of car repairs. Like anything else, however, you get what you pay for, and competition -- not dictating below-cost reimbursements -- is going to have any chance of reducing health care prices.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 7, 2009 11:31 AM in reply to david1225
Hahhahahaha! That's hilarious.
Oh wait, you're serious, aren't you?
Yeah, that vociferous support for the war in Iraq? That's some brilliant shit, there man. That well reasoned keynote address to the Republican convention? More evidence of his genuius. Selling out Gore during the recount by buying into the Republicans' bogus "all overseas ballots that weren't mailed in time came from our Noble Troops" lie? Man, that was incredibly incisive.
Oh, and then there are the seven, count 'em, seven different reasons he's offered up for why he's against the public option, not a damn one of which makes a lick of sense. Per Steve Benan:
Honestly, this is so much like something Lieberman would write about himself, I'm wondering if you're him. Just on the off chance it is, I cannot pass up this golden opportunity to personally say "Fuck you, Joe!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 11:39 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Can no one here debate the merits of the public option? Going to the polls to solve our current health care crisis is patently absurd. Forty percent of Americans can't name a fossil fuel. Do you honestly expect them to understand the moving target of a public option and its implications?
So let's get to the nitty gritty, if you will:
(1) How does creating additional competition for insurance companies lower health care prices? It might lower the cost of insurance premiums -- a big maybe -- but if you added up all the profits of ever health care insurer in the United States, it would cover just 5 days of health care in this country. In other words, the focus on insurance competition is a very small tail wagging a very large dog.
(2) How does getting the government into the insurance business counteract the biggest driver of health care prices, i.e., Medicare and Medicaid not paying out enough to cover the costs of health care for their members? Health care prices are being driven up as private insurers are being forced to foot the bill for government programs that not only don't pay out enough to cover health care costs, but fail to do so because they are teetering on the edge of insolvency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 12:01 PM in reply to david1225
You just don't get it, do you?
But if you add up all the profits, executive compensation, sales and promotional costs and layers of bureaucracy needed to deny care and deal with excessive and burdensome paperwork, and subtract from that the cost of running a public system like medicare, you would get around 18 to 20% of our heath care expenditures, enough to cover two to two and one-half months of health care.
It's not just about the so-called "profit," a number insurance accountants juggle to make seem as small as possible, it's about a universe of costs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 12:06 PM in reply to mjshep
That's not what I've seen in all of my research, so it would be helpful if you could show me back up for that percentage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 12:17 PM in reply to david1225
I don't know what kind of research you've been doing. Maybe it's on the AHIP site.
There is a big fight to get insurers to get to the point where 85% of their premiums go to actual care, imputing a 15% overhead. The current average is, I believe below 80%. With medicare, around 96% of monies spent go to providing care.
Use teh google if you don't believe me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 12:09 PM in reply to mjshep
It would also be helpful for you to explain why Medicare and Medicaid, which do not have any of that overhead, cannot cover the actual cost of the health care for which they pay? As I've been told by numerous, credible people, our health care system would collapse if private insurers didn't make up for losses suffered by serving folks on Medicare and Medicaid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cycledoc
December 7, 2009 12:28 PM in reply to david1225
There has been no incentive for anyone in health care to be cost/value conscious. We encourage expensive very modestly effective interventions by the nature of our payment system, the profit incentives provided the medical industrial complex and the cost plus mentality that pervades the system. It's hard to imagine that country with median salaries decreasing to about $50,000/year thinks that paying 10,000-30,000/month for new unproven medications (medication alone) is sustainable. It's too much even if they work!
We need to revise patents, encourage cost consciousness and value in health care. A public option is just the start to trying to contain costs. Ultimately patent reform will have to be part of the package. www.medicynic.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 12:30 PM in reply to david1225
This all depends on what you mean by "actual costs."
Is an MRI which costs at least $900 in the US vs, around $130 everywhere else part of these actual costs? Why is that? Is the average salary for an anesthesiologist which is $645,000 per year part of these costs?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
December 7, 2009 11:42 AM in reply to david1225
I guess you can make up anything and publish it here, but that doesn't make it any truer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
December 7, 2009 11:43 AM in reply to runfastandwin
Hey I like that word truer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 11:45 AM in reply to david1225
You post suggests one of two things:
1) you haven't really been paying attention to the health care debate, a subject on which you demonstrate abysmal ignorance, and/or
2) You are a shill, a Lieberman staffer, or this is snark.
I fyou are so brilliant, and so well informed please answer me this riddle:
The US is the only developed nation with an exclusively (except for seniors and the military) for-profit health care delivery system. Health care costs in the US average from 30% greater to nearly double those in the other countries. Health care outcomes are no better, in in many ways worse, than in these other countries. No other country has as many uninsured as we do. In no other country do so many, if any, people go bankrupt from health care expenses, even if they are insured. Most procedures, from office visits to MRI's manage to cost in the US multiples of what they cost in other countries.
Obviously, the government run sector of health care and even its lower reimbursement schedules, is not the problem.
So what is the problem?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 11:49 AM in reply to mjshep
Apart from insulting me, you haven't offered a single fact. I'm not an expert on these matters, and I sincerely doubt, based on your posts, that you are one. But, I do have close friends who are doctors, serve on hospital boards, and are on both sides of these issues. If you would like an honest, open debate (it doesn't appear that way, but who knows?), I'm all for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 12:08 PM in reply to david1225
Actually, I offered a whole paragraph of facts, and invited you to explain them in a way that supports you premises (i.e. that a public option would not be helpful because existing public delivery systems like medicare are actually part of the problem).
You haven't. Do not blame me for your inability to do so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 12:12 PM in reply to mjshep
No, boorishly and gratuitously insulted me, and then invited me to write an essay comparing and contrasting health care systems here and in Europe. Get real.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 12:29 PM in reply to david1225
You know I've lived in a European country which requires, by law, 100% coverage. There is a public-private (publicly regulated) insurance system, and guess what: I wouldn't trade what I have had in Europe for anything the US has to offer. So if you need a testimonial from old Europe, you can use mine. Health care in the United States is a god-damned joke, and there are very very few Europeans who don't think so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to rbe1
My father lived in Europe (Italy), I lived in Europe (Italy), and my son lived in Europe (Ireland), all as citizens, and we would not trade what we have in America for those systems. Our stories are anecdotal, as well, but your attempt to derail the debate as an "expert" for having lived in Europe (probably as a student) is pretty sad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 12:38 PM in reply to david1225
Sorry if I hurt your tender feelings. Truly.
However, saying I haven't offered a single fact insults me. As does your gratuitous "get real." Perhaps an effort in "comparing and contrasting health care systems here and in Europe" would do you a world of good, and further your education is this subject.
Also, you still haven't answered my question.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to mjshep
You're obviously a jerk. It would be great if you actually treated people with respect, but you seem incapable of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 2:18 PM in reply to david1225
So calling someone a "jerk" is treating them with respect?
I am so tempted to call you a jerk, as well, but I will refrain.
And you still haven't answered my question. Perhaps if you respected me, you would address my points in the effort to have a genuine conversation, something you do not appear to actually want, despite your protestations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 5:11 PM in reply to mjshep
You just don't get it. You insult someone and then (1) are surprised they won't engage in discourse with you; and (2) are completely shocked when they call you on your nastiness. Wow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 12:39 PM in reply to david1225
mjshep didn't insult anyone. Maybe you just can't comprehend what was written.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 2:24 PM in reply to rbe1
Thank you.
You may be correct in the assessment of david 1225's level of comprehension. On the other hand, there is such a thing as willful ignorance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 12:00 PM in reply to david1225
Are you one of his illegitimate children ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 12:14 PM in reply to rbe1
Here's one of the 40 percent of Americans who can't identify a fossil fuel. Thanks, rbe1, your contributions are wonderful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 7, 2009 11:17 AM
Translation: They represent special interests and don't give a shit about the American people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 11:19 AM
If the PO fails, Lieberman MUST be stripped of his chairmanship and expelled from the caucus. Lieberman actively campaigned against the Dem presidential candidate, who graciously welcomed him into the caucus anyway, only to have Lieberman spit in the face of the party. This is health care reform we're talking about: the signature Democratic issue for decades. If Lieberman torpedoes HCR but is still considered a Democrat, what is the point of having a Democratic party at all?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 11:21 AM
By the way, I highly recommend this article as a sobering assessment of the current infatuation of many with the public option. Their hearts may be in the right place -- at least some -- but the facts point the other way:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 7, 2009 12:16 PM in reply to david1225
That is an excellent article, but really what it proposes is a system that is 180 degrees from ours, and one that you don;t seem to be advocating anyway.
You seem smart, so I can't objectively understand your embrace of Joe Lieberman. It has to be a personal thing...I am a voter in CT, and frankly, Lieberman has done a 180 or outright lied to us on a number of issues, and at the moment is not even making a stab at representing the will of his constituents.
You dismiss the electorate as idiots and the polls as useless. Only Holy Joe know the right path I guess, huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 2:33 PM in reply to Dorn76
According to david 125 anyone who doesn't agree with him is an idiot, and anyone who challenges his assumptions insults him.
Republicans use these tactics all the time but they would never have worked in a decent high school debate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 5:12 PM in reply to mjshep
You insult people and talk down to them, and they you're "shocked" that folks won't play with you. Again, what a jerk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 11:26 AM
Insurance companies are raising premiums primarily because they are being forced to pay higher prices for health care due to Medicare and Medicaid not covering costs -- hospitals and doctors have to raise prices so that private insurers foot the bill. Right now, Medicare and Medicaid provide coverage for about 50% of Americans. Big question: Why isn't anyone talking about fixing these programs and treating them as a "public option"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 2:41 PM in reply to david1225
Actually, you got something right here.
Medicare for all would be a decent solution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 11:27 AM
"Lieberman has distinguished himself as one of the brightest, most independent minds in the Senate."
I'm speechless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 11:32 AM
Please summon up some speech to address the substantive points I made and also, if you could, read the Atlantic Monthly piece. We can disagree about Joe Lieberman -- and he is a politician, and so the measure of his brains and independence against other Senators isn't the highest of praise -- but I've seen little in your posts other than invective.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 7, 2009 12:21 PM in reply to david1225
It's the interwebs, pal, get off your high horse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 12:26 PM in reply to Dorn76
Ah, so you don't have any answers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 12:41 PM in reply to david1225
answer: troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 12:53 PM in reply to rbe1
I don't think he's a troll. I just think he doesn't like to debate things on the merits. It's a personal preference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 7, 2009 2:22 PM in reply to david1225
If you're talking about me, you're a disengenuous ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to Dorn76
No need to insult david 1225 with that kind of language.
However, you may be correct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 10:18 PM in reply to Dorn76
I was actually defending you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 7, 2009 2:21 PM in reply to david1225
Umm, wrong. Try replying to my comment above before running off on that horse again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
December 7, 2009 11:37 AM
Senator Reid, we are counting on you to force these people to actually filibuster, not just vote on "cloture." If ever there was an issue that asks for a real filibuster, this is it. Make them stand around the clock and read from the phone book, the bible, the want ads, the encyclopedia, 24/7 on CSpan. Make them wear diapers and sleep on cots, the whole nine yards. We'll see who can outlast who.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
December 7, 2009 11:43 AM
Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that if Obama had been a REAL ADVOCATE for a strong public option we would likely be talking about a much better bill right now. Obama never backed up his campaign promises on health care, but simply passed off all responsiblity to Congress. If we get nothing or a truly stinking bill, it will be largely because Obama was unwilling to take a leadership position or the fix was in with corporate health from the get go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 7, 2009 11:46 AM in reply to xargaw
hear, hear!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 7, 2009 11:49 AM in reply to xargaw
Stop beating up on Obama. Do you really think that Lieberman or Landreiu or the damn Republicans would give a damn if Obama came to the floor each day and yelled at everyone to pass a public option? Worked really well when the Clintons tried that approach. You can't bully people and he knows that. It may look valiant, but it's a bad strategy for getting people to work with you. I've had bosses who bully. Needless to say, I quit working for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 7, 2009 1:50 PM in reply to xargaw
Oh yes, the typical generic calls from the Left to "step up", "grow a pair", "get a spine", "draw a line in the sand" or be a "REAL ADVOCATE!" Meanwhile not one single person has come up with a solution to get the 60 votes other than to say they will filibuster. How did that work out? It didn't. Every day new people are saying they will filibuster, while the usual hold outs are saying they will STILL filibuster. Why after all this does anyone still think that Obama, doing something like threatening to veto if the bill doesn't have a PO, will change these people's minds? Negative ads didn't work, threats of a protest didn't work, threats of a primary challenger didn't work, and polls showing that most Americans want it didn't work. What is this power that you think Obama has?
And you know what really pisses me off? When Rahm came out and said that progressive groups should back off the attacks and focus on framing the debate and explaining what exactly the PO is all about, what did you all do? you guys screamed and yelled that the administration was trying to shut you up. Any suggestion that came from the WH was immediately deemed as a slap in the face. So don't demand that they do something when it always met with over the top knee jerk reactions. The Left is really too thin skinned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 7, 2009 2:22 PM in reply to Viva!America!
What is this power that you think Obama has?
the bully pulpit
and the majorty of democrats and indies who say they want a PO behind him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 7, 2009 2:27 PM in reply to Viva!America!
What is this power that you think Obama has?
the bully pulpit
and the majorty of democrats and indies who say they want a PO behind him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lapdogs
December 7, 2009 11:47 AM
Its ALL BEEN about 2006!!
GI Joe campaigning for McCain, going to the RNC Convention, voting every which way against the Democrats etc.
The Democrats "left him" after his primary loss to Ned Lamont and GI JOE has been paying them back ever since. He could not be a "big boy" and graciously accept defeat.
Face it Democrats, you lost Lieberman as a "Real Dem" a long time ago and it's time to fully cut the cord.
Yank all Chairmanships he controls NOW and go the route of Reconciliation with legislation - and then pay Lieberman back big time with cuts to anything he wants.
Send Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu and all other "So-Called" Dems a shot over the bow by using Lieberman as the cannonball.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 7, 2009 11:51 AM in reply to lapdogs
YES! Use Lieb as an example. Tar and feather him for all conservadems to see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
December 7, 2009 11:59 AM
Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu and LIEberman did not run for president in 2008!
So how can these fucks decide the fate of HCR by voting against their party on a procedural vote and stay in the democratic caucus and hold down Committee chairs! This is not the party of the people and the middle class. Time to move on to a progressive party and force the democartic leadership to hear us or see us walk! Obama needs to lead the fight or he'll see defections in the millions in 2010 and 2012!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 7, 2009 12:05 PM in reply to Progressive Party
There must be a public option. If Lieb won't allow a vote, pass a non-public option bill, then use reconciliation to insert it after it passes. It can be done, it should be done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lapdogs
December 7, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to Progressive Party
Couldn't agree more!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
December 7, 2009 12:21 PM
Think about it: No Public Option Dems lose big in 2010. Lieberman moves to the Repubs and what have we gained?
What a bunch of fools the Dems are!!!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
December 7, 2009 1:18 PM in reply to DownriverDem
Why would the Democrats lose big without a public option? Seriously, you guys are so naive. Without a truly robust public option -- one where people could instruct their employer to buy into the public option -- it's pointless to kill health care reform over the lack of a public option. We should get it done -- and then we should campaign for more progressive candidates.
The bill survived the House by three votes. There's hardly an overwhelming mandate for the public option. We need more public option advocates -- many more -- in the government than today and the only way that happens is by electing more progressive candidates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 7, 2009 2:23 PM in reply to Mateo123
Stop, you're making sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 7, 2009 2:41 PM in reply to Mateo123
because some fight for issues over party, or personality:
As President Obama quietly watches Senators undermine health care reform, redirects over $30 billion annually from domestic programs to expand the Afghanistan war, and sounds like the Concord Coalition in prioritizing deficit reduction over job creation, we hear little activist protest. Nor have activists publicly mobilized in response to Obama's caving in to anti-democratic forces in Honduras, his astonishingly low number of judicial and U.S. Attorney appointments, his failure to secure key appointments at the Department of Labor, and other non-progressive actions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randy-shaw/activists-are-giving-obam_b_382020.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jduggan1798
December 7, 2009 12:22 PM
Am I mistaking or can a public option not be included in next years budget as a cost control measure and will this route not get around the 60 vote hurdle?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 1:33 PM in reply to jduggan1798
It has taken the Senate ONE FULL YEAR to get to this point. Nothing else is getting done.What are the chances of the Democrats doing this again next year? Or the year after that? Or 5 years from now. THIS is the opportunity. Right now. They either do it and do it right or they fail. It's that stark.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 7, 2009 11:31 PM in reply to wbgonne
Right! A year of bumbling over HCR has caused their polls to drop--ALL of them. Get a good bill passed and they will skyrocket. Fail and look forward to GOP domination for a decade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 7, 2009 12:26 PM
" Health care outcomes are no better, in in many ways worse, than in these other countries."
Anyone, anyone who makes that statement concerning the US health care system should not be insulting anyone else by calling them ignorant. Outcomes no better? Why don't you compare cancer mortality rates to various other countries including the UK and then get back to us with your results. The US health care system is just like any other. It has its faults and its strengths. Claiming otherwise makes you a complete hack. Unless of course you think exorbitant taxes, rationing and long waiting lists are strengths, in which case you aren't a hack, you are an idiot
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 7, 2009 12:52 PM in reply to masanf
Bypassing your insulting rhetoric, I can say that having lived in Europe, you're wrong in the following way: the outcome per unit cost is lower by a considerable margin for the US in comparison to a number of European countries (in some cases 30% lower). I believe you are someone who personally knows absolutely nothing about health care in other countries. Have you lived in any ? The reason the cost effectiveness in Europe is high is that everyone is covered, and the profits (hence fees) of the private - and public - insurance corporations are regulated. But getting beyond statistics, I would suggest the strongest bit of evidence, though only anecdotal, is that I've never met a European who would want to trade with you, but again, this is only anecdotal.
By the way, your comments about rationing and waiting lines is bullshit. Sorry, but I live in one of those countries, and apparently you don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 2:00 PM
I think some are missing a very important point, politically-speaking, about what is so devastating about the Democrat abandoning a public option. The Dems who ideologically oppose government involvement in health care (putting aside for a moment the absurdity of such a position when the government already runs Medicare, the VA and Medicaid) are not really Democrats. Whether the government should be involved in health care and other such matters is precisely what separates the Dems from the Repubs. If the Dems cave to Lieberman and his ilk, they are betraying core principles of the Democratic Party. And they are betraying all those who call themselves Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 2:28 PM in reply to wbgonne
What are you talking about? I am a Democrat and I vigorously oppose the public option. Why? It is a crazy idea that doesn't address the two biggest issues: (1) heath care prices; and (2) universal coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 2:35 PM in reply to david1225
Nonsense. The public option is the ONLY way to contain systemic health care costs. That's exactly why the health insurance industry and its bought senators like Lieberman are desperately trying to kill it. The mandate is a separate issue. Real health care reform requires both universal coverage -- so everybody is invested -- and a government option to drain some of the profits, i.e., excessive costs, out of the system. Democrats don't insist ideologically that the government should do nothing the private sector does, regardless of how poorly that works for real people. Democrats don't hate the government and speak disparagingly about it non-stop. Democrats believe government can be -- must be -- part of the solution for the enormous problems we face. Lieberman is no Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acanuck
December 7, 2009 3:00 PM in reply to wbgonne
Actually, there is a better solution than the public option. It's called universal single-payer, i.e. Canadian-style medicare. Nine out of 10 Canadians wouldn't give it up for anything. Oh, and we live longer than Americans. Any idea why that might be?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 3:58 PM in reply to acanuck
Well, I would certainly be happy with Single Payer or Medicare for All but those sensible approaches were deemed verboten by the Democratic leadership long ago. The public option was the retreat position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 7, 2009 3:19 PM in reply to david1225
Let's see if I have this right. You want a health care system that addresses (1) heath care prices and (2) universal coverage. You don't think the public option addresses either.
So because of this you vigorously oppose the irrelevant public option.
The public option is supposed to somehow take advantage of the supposed "magic" of the invisible hand in the market. Granted, this is fantasy and looking for miracles you don't have to work for. Granted it is a distraction from getting lower health care prices and universal coverage.
But why 'vigorously oppose' the magical beliefs of those who have bought the over-the-top free-market propaganda instead of just demanding a system that directly addresses the need for lower prices and universal coverage? If you want something accomplished at lower costs with improved quality the first step is to measure the total costs and quality of inputs and outputs accurately. Then let everyone see the results. Any decent manager knows that.
Instead of opposing the magic of the public option, why not just demand a system in which the total costs of the inputs and the outputs are all accurately measured and aggregated? Combine that with universal coverage and costs will go down because the waste, frauds and excesses will become obvious.
That's why the insurance companies and Wall Street are fighting against universal coverage. They will be exposed as thieves and frauds. But I don't see how fighting vigorously against the public option gets us there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 8, 2009 8:31 AM in reply to Richardxx
Frankly, I'm very open minded about solutions to rising health care prices and universal coverage. And I also think free market principles aren't a perfect fit for health care. I think they have a role, but its limited -- and I don't think it matters much in the insurance market, since insurance costs are driven mainly by the price of health care, not inter-company (or company-public option) competition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
suydam@yahoo.com
December 7, 2009 2:01 PM
I won't stay away from the polls. I'll vote for somebody, maybe me. That will be a better vote than the one I squandered voting for Obama, leaving Iraq, increasing the majority of democrats in the Senate, single payer health care, freedom for gays, and freedom from right wing religious nuts! (to name a few.) And Senators with the balls to drop Joe Liebermann like the sack of shit he is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 7, 2009 2:24 PM in reply to suydam@yahoo.com
I'm sure McCain or a 3rd party candidate would've given you your pony by now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chuffed
December 7, 2009 3:41 PM
You missed the real reason Lieberman is against the public option. It's because many major insurance companies are based in Connecticut and he's in their pocket.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 7, 2009 5:15 PM in reply to chuffed
And you know this how?!
Please, enough of the character assassination and actually debate the guy's positions.
(Joe Biden comes from the hub of the credit card industry. Is he a shill for them?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FineFeatheredFellow
December 8, 2009 2:56 AM
The worst thing about Lieberman is that he does not even try to hide his "shillness". Connecticut voters support a public option 68% to 21%. Overall, the last national poll was 60% in favor of a public option with 86% of Democratic support. That is what is astounding is that these Conservadems are going against 80-90% of the base. They have nothing to risk by voting for it, yet they show themselves to be under the thumb of the insurance lobby. For Mary Landrieu, she better vote for it or she is not getting the disaster relief she won from Reid prior to the cloture vote. It as if they are children who want to test how far they can go before their parents truly punish them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 8, 2009 8:28 AM in reply to FineFeatheredFellow
Do you think most Connecticut voters have any idea what a public option even means? The sad thing about our health care "debate," as with every other major debate we've ever had on important policy issues, is that our parties don't involve the public at all. The create this "us or them" mentality that leads to people engaging in knee-jerk support of this idea or another simply because their party supports it. Making complex issues like these subject to a popularity contest is, frankly, insane. If nothing else, we need folks like Lieberman to slow this train down until we really understand how it conceivably helps our out of control health care spending. And, no, that doesn't mean I supported slavery. (Where are the reasonably folks on both sides of the aisle demanding an apology for that insanity?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mgmonklewis
December 8, 2009 9:12 AM
Is former Lieberman staffer DanGerstein posting all over this thread?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david1225
December 8, 2009 10:59 AM in reply to mgmonklewis
No. I'm just someone who apparently is fighting against a one-sided tide on this thread. I assumed, wrongly, that TPM wasn't one of these crazy partisan web sites that attracted folks who are on but one side of the issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
duanes
December 8, 2009 12:17 PM
arent we all glad this idiot never got to be vice pres.? Lieberman isnt slowing anything down for anyone, hes trying to get something for hisself and ill bet its a promise that after this is over they dont kick him out and take his committee away from him,, he's a useless piece of shit, always has been and never does anything that doesnt benefit himself and the hell with his state,,,, The only reason he has in name only caucused withthe dems is to help the republicans,,, bet this is his last big blast cause the people of his state have come to hate him for what he has done,,,,,,,Thank god hes not the Vice President,,,,,,,,
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?