TPMDC
Lieberman Open To Medicare Buy-In, So Long As Public Option Scrapped
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
Share
Send to a friend!
With Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) unlikely to support a trade off that would replace a public option with a measure allowing certain people to buy into the Medicare program, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is a must have vote. He just gave his Democratic colleagues some breathing room.
Lieberman said he's open to both the Medicare buy-in idea, and a separate proposal to extend the private system that insures federal employees to individuals and small businesses.
On the Medicare buy-in--which has significant appeal among liberals--Lieberman was open, but non-committal. "I'll take a look at it," Lieberman said. "I think the good news is, however, that the current bill will, for the first time, provide people 55 and over who are not yet eligible for Medicare with subsidies to go on to the exchanges and buy, so they can buy for a lot less than it costs them in the marketplace now."
"I'm open to looking at it," Lieberman told reporters. "But I want to make sure that we're not...adding a big additional burden to the Medicare program."
However, Lieberman seemed much less open to yet another potential public option trade-off, to extend Medicaid to everybody under 150 percent of the poverty line.
If the public option discussions result in an accord, Democrats will need Lieberman's vote. They'll also need an assurance from Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)--and that's very much in doubt at the moment.
Additional reporting by Evan McMorris-Santoro.
Comments (30) | 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.
mcc
December 8, 2009 2:20 PM
As long as the hippies don't get what they want, he's pretty much indifferent
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dnegri
December 8, 2009 2:20 PM
Ping pong continues. Just look at the story hadlines on this site: Snowe opposed to Medicare buy-in; Lieberman could support it; Carper says Showe has been very helpful in public option negotiations; Nelson will oppose if it doesn't have his abortion amendment....ping pong ping pong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
December 8, 2009 2:28 PM in reply to dnegri
I agree - they are playing tag; Snowe says okay, Nelson and Lieberman say no - Lieberman says maybe, Collins say no - Nelson stamps his feet, Snowe claps her little hands.
Watch - if they get to 59 with the Medicare buy-in, Lieberman will suddenly find a reason to say no again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
December 8, 2009 5:17 PM in reply to Powkat
Everybody wants their moment of feeling big and important - but when the dust settles, it becomes abundantly clear just how small some people are. You go Joe! No, Joe, it's time for you to go!!NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 8, 2009 2:21 PM
Good he may be on board. Bad, I don't like that "subsidy" word. It is merely a euphamism for taxpayer handouts (corporate welfare) for the criminal insurance industry. That is why he is on board because of "subsidies."
Why don't they paint the insurance industry as "welfare queens" driving around in caddies on the taxpayer's dime. I just don't get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
December 8, 2009 2:28 PM
@Brian:
I think you mean expanding MEDICAID to everyone under 150% above the poverty line...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Bagman
December 8, 2009 2:30 PM
Michael, it doesn't much matter how they frame the public debate here. The public is already behind health care reform, including a strong public option. The problem is that the Liebermans and Nelsons and Snowes don't care about good policy or giving the public what it wants.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NYCBlaine
December 8, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to The Bagman
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124496/Americans-Leaning-Against-Healthcare-Legislation.aspx
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 8, 2009 5:57 PM in reply to NYCBlaine
A sizable chunk of the opposition to this legislation are people who want more radical reform. It doesn't cut cleanly along partisan lines.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NYCBlaine
December 8, 2009 6:40 PM in reply to Stroszek
Conversely, there's also a sizable chunk of people who support health reform but do not support a "public option."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
December 8, 2009 2:32 PM
LIEberman can like any plan that keeps people buying insurance from private companies, I guess. I'm actually surprised that he's thinking positively about letting people under 65 buy into Medicare. Wouldn't that let a lot of 55 to 65 year-olds out of the private market?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 8, 2009 3:26 PM in reply to Cal Gal
If I were an insurer facing guaranteed issue and no rescission, I'd love to be spared all those high risk patients. 55+ is when people really start having medical problems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 8, 2009 5:54 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
And sticking it to insurers is more important than delivering lower premiums to people across the spectrum? This is a perfect example of what's gone horribly wrong in this debate. Ideology has taken priority over reaching achievable goals that actually help people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
December 8, 2009 2:36 PM
And every day they play this game, 123(on average) people die.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
December 8, 2009 2:40 PM
I think they are MORE likely to get Snowe's vote then Nelson's.
It all depends upon what the CBO score shows.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 8, 2009 2:51 PM
Once Lieberman, Snowe and Nelson get all the insurance industry wants in healthcare reform, then what? Is it a win?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 8, 2009 2:52 PM in reply to Indie Pro
and Baucus, don't forget him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 8, 2009 4:07 PM in reply to Indie Pro
That's exactly what this has come down to. We need Burris, Sanders and Lieberman to kill this, hand Obama a richly deserved smackdown, and address the issue in an adult fashion down the line (after things have gotten much worse - this is kind of like waiting for a fever to spike).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 8, 2009 5:52 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Unfortunately, for your Lieberman is the only possible Dem caucuser who shares your overriding and petty desire to deliver a "smackdown" to Obama. Burris and Sanders are more interested in fixing problems, so they're pretty much guaranteed to support cloture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
December 8, 2009 2:54 PM
Its time for Democrats to scrap Lieberman, Nelson, Dorgan, Landrieu and Lincoln.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
December 8, 2009 3:06 PM
I need some help here: setting aside whether or not we'll have to give up the public option, how good is the system that insures federal employees? Is it a good idea to extend that to individuals and small businesses? Every federal employee I know really likes their insurance, so I'm kind of curious about this possibility.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lovelynina
December 8, 2009 3:10 PM
As this piece patly demonstrates, the health care congressional talk has ceased to be a health care debate and is all about feather-strutting. If the American public were directly polled, they would call for medical insurance reform with a piblic option NOW.
The big problem is the framing of this debate. Frankly we've got the best trained medical and nursing personnel and hospitals in the world, and they're all prepared to take excellent care of us. The problem is and alway has been the two-headed monster of PRICE and COST. As in, what percentage of the proceeds from medical care are we prepared to let the insurance industry skim off the top in their pursuit of doing nothing in our interest or benefit? And which congressmen are totally paid off by them. Got the picutre now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 8, 2009 4:04 PM in reply to Lovelynina
Not just insurance companies. Expensive providers are the other side of the equation. Doctors (due partly to high med school costs) are expensive here. Specialists are especially highly paid (primary care physicians not so well). Drug costs are outrageous. The US effectively subsidizes cheaper drugs for the rest of the world. Overuse (doctors milking the system)...and underuse by people underinsured or uninsured (leading to super expensive last minute interventions). And paperwork/administrative costs, due to multiple negotiators (private insurers, multiple gov't agencies, at both the state and federal level - the cost of disputed claims by private insurers is egregious), is also a huge factor in high costs. There are ways to keep insurers in the game, I think, as in Germany. But it would be just as easy to do without. They add nothing of value to health care. If the government could negotiate on their behalf, people paid the government relative to their income and nationally competing, non-profit (only) insurers selected by individuals were compensated by the gov't. in relation to each customer's risk factors, provided they offer a basic, highly comprehensive health care package to all comers...I guess they could play some role.
We're better off letting Burris, Sanders, Lieberman kill this thing, coming back to it with something adult.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lovelynina
December 8, 2009 4:27 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Well, Tanjaoui, that's my point... no added value by insurance companies. This is the sad lesson we learned when Hillarycare failed miserably. Because... it didn't fail actually.
If memory serves, Hillary and Ira Magaziner devised a health maintenance organization scheme, with a public exchange idea eerily similar to Obama's, and the savings enjoyed by "managed competition," i.e. HMO's bargaining (with an iron fist) with MDs for care, were to be shared by the American public.
Only the plan failed politically.
The insurance co's lined up against it. And guess what? The insurers, in the few years ahead, adopted almost EVERY aspect of the plan, i.e. HMOs, drug exchanges, negotiations with providers for prices (with the carrot of exclusivity and the stick of exclusion from "panels") with the singular exception that it was the insurers, and not the public, who were to gain financially from the savings, and payments to providers were, as they are today, considered on the books to be "medical losses." To paraphrase Shakespeare, "first kill all the insurance companies."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NYCBlaine
December 8, 2009 4:58 PM in reply to Lovelynina
Ok, so we kill off the insurers. But then who's going to pay the $500+ charges that some physicians submit for standard check ups. Who's going to pay for that $30,000/month oncology treatment? Certainly not Medicare/Medicaid.
There's so much wrong with the health system in America. To suggest that "killing insurers" is the cure all is so simplistic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NYCBlaine
December 8, 2009 4:09 PM in reply to Lovelynina
The American Hospital Association, whose members you claim are "prepared to take excellent care of us" just send out a member alert titled, "Urge your senators to reject expansion of Medicare and Medicaid as part of public option."
Providers are as much, if not more, of a problem than insurers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lovelynina
December 8, 2009 3:11 PM
Sorry spelling aptly and picture. The debate is just the biggest shell game and I'm kinda blinded by my anger. Sorry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
December 8, 2009 3:26 PM
Lieberman realizes that with the 55-65 segment having access to Medicare, the mandate would give the insurance companies the benefit of a younger pool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
December 8, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
True, and the biggest truth is Greater Profits, that is what Lieberman is all about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
December 8, 2009 5:23 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
However, it would also mean coverage for the age group that has the hardest time finding insurance. If you live to 55, you have pre-existing conditions which make individual policies prohibitively expensive if you can get them, and employers won't touch you because you raise the group premium. Besides, extending medicare down the ages has been advocated by many single-payer advocates.
So before we all go nuts that this plan might be supported by Lieberman, I'll just say that as a single-payer advocate, I would jump at this deal. If we get it, we can work on extending Medicare to younger people and have our single-payer system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?