TPMDC

Joe Lieberman Not The Man He Used To Be On Medicare Buy-In

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!


Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Meet Joe Lieberman, Medicare buy-in advocate. It's the winter of 2000, and Lieberman is pressing flesh and kissing babies in Bangor, Maine as the presidential election approaches. After holding a town hall meeting with voters at Bangor's opera house on Main Street, Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, sits down with the local paper to discuss the upcoming election and his ticket's plan to improve the nation's health care system by allowing some younger Americans to "buy in" to the government run program. As his running mate, Al Gore, has been doing on the trail for weeks, Lieberman talks up the value of a buy-in, eloquently arguing that it's a great compromise way to get incremental health care reform past members of Congress wary of a robust health care reform bill.

You know the members he's talking about. The ones that say any government-run health insurance plan, including a Medicare expansion, will bankrupt the country and hurt private insurance companies. The ones that, as of this weekend, count Joe Lieberman as one of their strongest allies.

Joe Lieberman, meet Joe Lieberman.

From the 2000 interview in the Bangor Daily News:

In an interview after the town meeting, Lieberman said that
health care changes can only come incrementally, which is why the
Democratic ticket hasn't proposed an overhaul of the system.

"The kinds of proposals that Al Gore and I are making are the
result of what we learned over the last eight years, and they're
designed to be acceptable to both parties in Congress," he said.

"It may not be a neat one size does it all," Lieberman said.

He said during the interview that the fastest growing group of
uninsured are those 55 to 65. For that reason, the ticket proposes
an expansion of Medicare to allow those and older to buy into the
public program. There would still be a buy-in price but it would be
less than buying private insurance, he said.

It's not clear exactly when the Lieberman of 2000 turned into the Lieberman of Dec. 14, 2009, but it looks like it wasn't too long ago. In a Sept. 8, 2009 interview with the Connecticut Post, Lieberman outlined his opposition to a public option but suggested a way coverage could be expanded without one:


Reform should also include malpractice reform and health exchanges, which would offer different plans for varying costs and coverage for individuals or small businesses, he said.

Lieberman added that he supports mandating that no one can be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions and that everyone be required to have health insurance.

As to how 47 million uninsured will afford coverage, Lieberman said only 12 million don't have insurance because they cannot afford it.

By allowing citizens who are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid to buy in for a rate below the private market, the government can extend coverage to more of those who are currently uninsured, he said.

To arrive at his position, Lieberman said he reached out to "every conceivable group" in the state, including residents, providers, doctors and hospitals.

Greg Sargent clipped the ConnPost video of Lieberman's Medicare insurance buy-in endorsement from September:

Comments (52) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (4)

December 14, 2009 11:50 AM   

Thank you TPM for this reporting. Where the hell is the rest of the media for calling out Joe?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:33 PM    in reply to ben_nelsons_hair

Re : "Where the hell is the rest of the media for calling out Joe?"

They are busy collecting big-$$$ from Pharma and Insurance corporations for advertising. I can't even watch commercial TV anymore because all the pharma ads drive me up a wall.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 1:11 PM    in reply to BrianInMKE

Call your doctor to see if Cialis is right for you!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:17 PM    in reply to benintn

Just watch out for that four hour erection.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:05 PM   

We let Joe know that the scoring of the bill would've come out making the Medicare thing look good so he had to do a "peremptive strike" or he could've got boxed in on this thing. Joe is trying to do the right thing for America. It is a hard thing to explain, but Medicare was passed by LBJ and he was a liberal, so it is bad. However, senior citizens like Medicare and they are good and most of them vote for conservatives so Medicare is good in a way. This sounds like a conundum, conumdrum...whatever, but since senior citizens will die in a few years the problem will go away anyway. The main thing is to keep free enterprise working.

Now, I know some of you want to know why Joe supported this when he was helping AlGore. It's because you have to present a united front. But I am sure he would've worked behind the scenes to keep it from happening (Ha ha! he would've had to have won and that would NEVER have happened. I kicked AlGore's butt!).

God bless America!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:24 PM    in reply to The Decider

I'll give you your due when you are correct, and you have LIEberman figured to a T Decider! Now as for actually winning the 2000 election....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:05 PM   

I think it's fair to say that a lot of things about Joe Lieberman changed this decade. By the end of the next decade he and McCain will be sitting on a porch yelling at kids to turn down their techno disco ruckus or whatnots it is!

It's the crotchetizing of Joe Lieberman.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:59 PM    in reply to destor23

You kids get offa my lawn...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:08 PM   

Unfortunatly it doesn't matter if Lieberman gets exposed as a hypocrite.

Reid and the rest of the Senate Democrats, in their quest for the needless holy grail of 60 votes, have made him into a kingmaker. He knows it and obviously loves it.

Reconciliation should have been the preferred legislative track from the get-go. Of course Obama might have wanted to vigorously campaign for the bill and he and Reid might have intervened with Baucus when he elevated the GOP to a position of parity on his committee, but then they would have had to lead.

The Democrats, especially in the Senate, are hopeless.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:39 PM    in reply to tommyo

Please read up on reconciliation. It isn't as easy or simple as you think, and, among other issues, it sunsets in five years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:52 PM    in reply to Jarl van Hoother

The five year sunset doesn't bother me. Once people are used to their public option and/or early buy in to Medicare, no MOC will ever vote no on extending it. Reconciliation is the only option now.

The only way you get progressive Senators to vote for a stripped down HCR bill now is to promise to get the PO, increased Medicaid subsidies, and possibly Medicare expansion through reconciliation. I don't think the House will pass the Senate bill without also passing the PO as a stand alone bill on its way towards reconciliation anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 1:19 PM    in reply to Derek Stodghill

except for the millions of Americans under the age of 55 who will see their Medicare taxes increased while they get nothing for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 1:29 PM    in reply to benintn

That's obviously not true. Why do you see politicians using Medicare scare tactics to drive out older voters (who are usually being scare driven by Democrats until lately)? Because it works as a political tool. Republican cries to privatize Medicare or do away with it altogether have never and will never work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 3:22 PM    in reply to benintn

Ummm, why do you think it's called a "buy-in"? This policy will require people to pay for the coverage they get.

Now, it's possible that there are systemic issues that would shift costs in Medicare in the long run in response to this buy-in policy, which are also very uncertain and depend on lots of other variables.

But that's not your claim: you say that allowing this buy-in will raise Medicare taxes directly, which is simply false.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 1:28 PM    in reply to Derek Stodghill

"public option and/or early buy-in to Medicare?" Hey, if they're using reconciliation, they might as well make it "and". In fact, they should include every single progressive amendment they care to throw in there. The public option should be at Medicare +5% rates (with a fix for rural areas) and prepopulated. Remove annual limits on coverage. Change the price variation based on age from 3:1 to 2:1. Increase actuarial values from junk to high value insurance (from 60, 70,80 and 90% for bronze,silver,gold and platinum to 75, 85 and 95% for a three tiered system). Cap the amount companies can spend on non-medical expenses at 10%, imposing strong penalties on companies that exceed that limit. Institute and enforce a strong, centralized risk adjuster mechanism for plans participating in the exchange, as in Holland, to make sure the public option does not become a dumping ground for the most sick, and that, if it does, it will be compensated for the extra expenses incurred. Disallow companies from offering insurance across state lines, or stipulate that, if they risk pool across state lines, they are still subject to existing regulations in each state for the patients covered there. There are all kinds of ways to make this bill stronger. If they're using reconciliation, they might as well throw in the kitchen sink.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 8:02 PM    in reply to Derek Stodghill

The reconciliation sunset clause should concern you because as currently configured many of the reforms don't take full effect until 2014. That doesn't give people very long to enroll and acclimate to the policies made possible under the reforms. I feel any reforms passed via reconciliation would have to kick in within one to two years to prevent a future Congress from not extending the reforms. And we all know that one of the major drivers for pushing reform start dates out four years is cost. If they tried pushing reform start dates to say two years out, any CBO cost estimates would skyrocket and moderate Dems would balk. I don't see reconciliation as a very feasible alternative.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:20 PM   

I still don't get it--the President's the Decider. I never had these problems, I just did what was right for America.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 1:31 PM    in reply to The Decider

I know. I don't get it either. Actually, I liked your suggestion: just go to the emergency room. Someone will treat you, sooner or later. What's all the ruckus?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:27 PM   

Lieberman doesn't care about what he said in the past - he's pissed off for being primaried and is out on a revenge mission. Folks he campaigned hard for McCain and Palin.

He was primaried by the left and saved by moderates and strategic Republican voters - he takes every opportunity to stick it to progressives. If you make a move on somebody you better take him out, and the left made a move on Lieberscum and he won re-election.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:31 PM   

POS

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:34 PM   

Evan- nitpick of the day: You mean fall of 2000, not winter, right? Unless Maine is in perpetual winter, which wouldn't surprise me. Anything below 50 degrees F is winter to this SoCal native.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:39 PM   

I've always wondered what the unholy mating of a snake, a weasel and a basset hound would produce.... not pretty.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:44 PM   

Hate is not a strong enough word

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:52 PM   

Why doesn't anyone point out that the private market got us where we are today? Recession, unaffordable health care, cats and dogs living together etc. Leaving health care reform to the private sector is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Why are all these Senators allowed to stick up for private industry without being called on it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:53 PM   

The immoral lowlife will do anything to "f" over the people that he thinks supported Lamont.

Obama and Reid have to know that by now, so if they don't kick him out of the party, it's on them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 12:55 PM   

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Aetna)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 1:22 PM    in reply to hey norm

In the end it's (I-Joe Lieberman)

He doesn't give a rat's ass about the people victimized by our health care system. Joe Lieberman is deeply corrupt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 1:02 PM   

Didn't I hear on the radio the other day that Conrad Burns had a stroke?

Maybe what needs to happen is some "germ warfare" - infect all the obstructionists with something that will make them violently ill for a couple of weeks, and while they're out, vote for cloture.

In Lieberman's case, I vote for an agent causing explosive diarrhea, so he can catapult the shit out of both ends.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 1:13 PM   

Not the man he used to be? He ain't even the rodent he used to be.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:02 PM    in reply to Peter Principle

Exactly so Peter. Does the the Senate's health policy cover the senior schmuck from Connecticut's lip gloss & knee pads when big pharma and big insurance are in town or is that just a cost of doing business?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 1:14 PM   

The only thing Joe Lieberman is consistent on is sticking it to the Democratic Party. That's the only principle Holy Joe follows.

He is intentionally making Senate Dems look like fools. "He's with us on everything but the war," my ass!

He should be stripped of all seniority and his committee now. Stop coddling this turncoat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 1:21 PM   

Holy Joe really treasures his public image. With this latest treachery, we need top Dems like Al Gore, Bill Clinton and others to publicly denounce Joe Lieberman and his ever-shifting excuses for voting against the bill.

Enough with your ruling class comity. People are dying for lack of health care. Families are being thrown into poverty by our corrupt health care system every day.

But all these big-time Dems keep biting their tongue and saying nice things about Holy Joe, which Lieberman counts on.

Stop treating him with kid gloves, he will just stick it to you and the people depending on us to win this fight.

Criticize Lieberman loudly, publicly and often. Hammer him with well-placed criticisms. Get all Pavlovian on his ass.

Really, all you ruling Democrats, how much does a guy need to punk you before you stand up for yourselves and hit back?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 1:51 PM   

quick question:

do you need 60 senate vote to pass a bill after conference. In other words, couldn't we drop the public option or medicare buy-in and reintroduce it in conference? Can they filibuster even after conference?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

LJG

user-pic

December 14, 2009 1:57 PM   

Here in South Carolina people have been wondering why it took Mark Sanford's wife so long to serve him with divorce papers. But she finally did. I feel the same way about the Senate Democrats and Lieberman. They should stop pretending they have sixty votes and tell Joe to take a hike. Lieberman belongs on the other side of the isle, sitting between his buddies, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. He certainly does not deserve a committee chairmanship. I'd rather have an enemy than a "friend" who resents me and is always pulling the rug out from under me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 1:59 PM   

I just read at Politico that the WH is pushing Reid to drop Medicare, public option and negotiate with Lieberman. WOW! If this bill passes without a medicare buy-in, or public option, and no additional strong tradeoffs, Obama's approval rating will plummet to 40% or under, and 2010 will surely be a repeat of 1994. Even if the dem's capitulate to Lieberman on these issues, he will find some new grounds to object on. Don't forget that the list he gave on Sunday was just a "starter." The incompetence of the White House and the democratic majority is simply amazing. How do you burn so much political capital and accomplish so little in such a short period of time? Progressives may as well hibernate for 25 years until the demographic shifts finally ensure that the hate-spewing right wing xenophobes are relegated to the status of permanent minority.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:04 PM    in reply to sanssouci0

that's coming out of Reid's office to make him look good. Trust me, I know who "the official" Politico is talking about is...it's Reid's Chief of Staff.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:01 PM   

Lieberman pretends to be a religious Jew, but it's just a front for his compulsive immorality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:21 PM    in reply to Rich in NJ

He's an orthodox asshole.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:04 PM   

Lieberman is like a man that lives on an estate with a fully stocked pantry telling a homeless guy that it is in best interest to start improving his lot by living in a cardboard box and subsisting on a few slices of bread for a few years before he deserves an apartment some takeout. Incremental fake reform is going to kill a lot of people while they wait for meaningful reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:04 PM   

This is what happens when you have weak leadership. Obama is still unwilling to lead and say exactly what he wants, and that's why you have this endless back and forth that goes exactly nowhere. That's why you have weasels like LIEberman running the show instead. That's also why you still have the banks and Wall Street running the economy and military industrial complex running our foreign policy. This is the "go along to get along" president and he always takes the path of least resistance. And in this case, it means waiting around to find out whatever Congress decides - or never gets around to deciding - to do.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:16 PM    in reply to rstephen

Politically, just based on the comments here for example (and Josh's 'mocking' comment), it seems difficult to still just do nothing about the despicable snake.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:25 PM   

WH advising Reid to cut a deal with Liberman:

The White House is encouraging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to cut a deal with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which would mean eliminating the proposed Medicare expansion in the health reform bill, according to an official close to the negotiations.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30572.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:36 PM    in reply to izzatxeaux

What a laugh! Don't they get it - even now? LIEberman wants to KILL health care reform. That is his goal. To act as if killing medicare expansion would satisfy him is so completely naive. He'll just find something else that has to be cut. There's never been any logic to his opposition.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:26 PM   

It is time for the long knives to come out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 2:39 PM   

It is things like this that bring me to dark thoughts of bludgeons and bullwhips and a dark room with Sen. Lieberman shackled. I'm not a violent person, but this bitter, hypocritical, obstructionist, disingenuous, insurance company sycophant really brings it out in me. I'm not the only one, am I?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 3:57 PM   

I just don't get this. Why is he allowed to keep his chair? It basically looks like everyone there will just sit and welcome him back to the fold when it suits LIEberman's needs. He is only doing what he is doing to fit some sort of agenda. There isn't enough backbone in the senate to fill a snail. It just goes to show that we the people have been had on a GRAND scale. I wonder if they sit when there isn't any cameras around and laugh it up saying, "look at the sheep, doing exactly what we want them to!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 6:12 PM    in reply to hologram5

Why is he allowed to continue breathing?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 14, 2009 4:04 PM   

Lieberman doesn't care about what goes on in the senate anymore; he sees the handwriting on the wall---he won't be re-elected. So, he's lining up his next gig, sucking on the same teat his wife sucks on, the insurance company teat. Dimes to donuts he announces his retirement before he comes up for re-election (ala Trent Lott) and takes a big, fat job with one of the Connnecticut-based insurance companies that have been paying his freight.

I'm not for stripping him of his committee chairmanship; I'm for prosecuting him criminally for taking bribes from the insurance industry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 10:37 AM   

Sen. Lieberman has also had a distinct change of heart regarding filibusters.
These quotes come from the Congressional Record - when he was decidedly anti-filibuster.

Joe Lieberman ON Senate - January 05, 1995
Paragraph II of Rule XXV

"The majority ought to have the opportunity to try to pass its program or be held accountable for it. And this filibuster frustrates that opportunity."
Congressional Record.

"It is pretty obvious we have come to a point in the history of this Chamber where the filibuster, the ability of one Member to stand up and stop the body from functioning effectively and to block the will of the majority, is a contributor to gridlock and to our inability to produce and, therefore, to public frustration which is in the air and we are attempting as best we can to respond to them."

Senate - January 04, 1995
"The gentleman from the Congressional Research Service used a powerful analogy here. He said to me, `Senator, you have to think of the Senate as if it were composed of 100 nations, each Senator representing a nation, and each nation has an atomic bomb and can blow up the place any time it wants. And that bomb is a filibuster.'"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 11:16 AM   

Lieberman still being in office speaks loudest about the voters in Connecticut. Keeping this corrupt politician in office is their fault and now we have them to thank for a meaningless "health care reform" bill. Spit in their eye.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 11:40 AM   

Goodbye Joe, YOU got to go, me-oh-my-oh...

Call this POS and let him know why:

(860) 549-8463 Voice
(800) 225-5605 In CT
(202) 224-4041 DC
email@lieberman.senate.gov

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 12, 2010 4:30 PM   

The reconciliation sunset clause should concern you because as currently configured many of the reforms don't take full effect until 2014. That doesn't give people very long to enroll and acclimate to the policies made possible under the reforms. I feel any reforms passed via reconciliation would have to kick in within one to two years to prevent a future Congress from not extending the reforms. And we all know that one of the major drivers for pushing reform start dates out four years is cost. If they tried pushing reform start dates to say two years out, any CBO cost estimates would skyrocket and moderate Dems would balk. I don't see reconciliation as a very feasible alternative.

m65 kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

TPM PollTracker

TPM Poll Averages

ObamaBarack Obama
Job Approval
45.7%Approve 49.5%Disapprove -3.8Spread
CongressCongressional
Generic Ballot
42.0%DEM 47.7%GOP +5.7SpreadR