BREAKING: Joe Lieberman will probably oppose subsidies as well as the Public Option

Joe Lieberman has been hinting since August that he might not support covering the uninsured during this session of Congress (and instead just wants delivery reform and insurance market reform). First, in August, he said that we should think about putting expanding coverage off:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/23/lieberman-uninsured-recession/

LIEBERMAN: "Morally, everyone of us would like to cover every American with health insurance but that’s where you spend most of the trillion dollars plus, or a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this health care plan will cost. And I’m afraid we’ve got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy is out of recession. There’s no reason we have to do it all now."

Of course, now that we are out of a recession, that excuse doesn't work very well. So he said he would oppose the Baucus bill (the one without any public option) on Don Imus:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/fox-news-lieberman-wouldnt-vote-for-baucus-bill.php

LIEBERMAN: "This puts us in this position where you say, "On the one hand, what we're about to do on adopting health care reform will reduce the cost of health insurance from what it would otherwise be," and on the other hand you say, "Well incidentally, we're gonna raise your taxes or cut your Medicare to the tune of $900 billion or $1 trillion." And people are beginning to think they that maybe they'd do better holding onto what we have now. If you ask me, I'd say we should really focus on what's been called health care delivery reforms."

But even there, there was still hope that he might be on board for subsidies to pay entirely for low-income Americans' healthcare, and partly for middle-income Americans' healthcare. Or at the very least, he might not fillibuster a bill that did that.

But now, he has written an editorial in the Hartford Courant (that is coming out today) that explains his position:

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-commentarylieberman1101.artnov01,0,5275431.story

"I have three priorities for health care reform. First, we should take big steps to get the cost of health care under control by eliminating wasteful spending and improving the system's efficiency...."

"Second, we must enact reforms that compel insurance companies to treat their consumers fairly..."

"And, we must extend health insurance to some of the millions of people who cannot now afford it."

"We need to focus on what is most important in this debate. We can all agree on health care delivery reforms that will make our system much more cost-effective, on health insurance market reforms that will make insurance more affordable and more accessible for millions of Americans, and on reaching out to the millions of Americans who qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid yet are not enrolled.

These are the urgent and essential reforms that I am convinced we — Democrats, independents and Republicans alike — can come together to achieve this year."

---

So that's it. That's what he envisions expanded access to be. Not universal healthcare, not even a big step towards it (subsidies for everyone up to 300% or 400% of the poverty line). All he is apparently willing to support is calling people who qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP up and automatically enrolling them. No help for people who don't qualify for those two programs. In particular, it looks like Joe will not support any meaningful assistance to anyone (where "meaningful" means costing at least one dime). And he has already said that he will fillibuster any bill that he doesn't support (in addition to saying that he will campaign for Republicans in 2010).

I don't know if Lieberman is bluffing. No one can reach into his head. I certainly hope threats of taking away his chairmanship and kicking him out of the caucus will get him to support a motion to end debate on healthcare reform. But I (and I would assume most people here) don't really trust Lieberman. He might not be bluffing.

If he is not bluffing, we basically have two choices.

The first is to get Snowe to vote for it, and hope that brings along Ben Nelson/Blanche Lincoln/etc. That would almost certainly mean we would have a trigger instead of a real public option. And this would rely on Ben Nelson not joining Lieberman in gutting all subsidies.

The other option is to go reconciliation and sidestep Lieberman entirely (along with the next 9 most conservative Democrats). But this might be even worse. Basically everyone conceeds that we can't ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions with reconciliation. The budget rules won't allow it (unless Lieberman and all 59 other Democrats agree to waive the budget rules). That means even with a public option, private insurance companies will still kick everyone off who is sick and force them onto the public option. This would cause public option premiums to skyrocket, and force everyone not sick to leave the public option. The result is a public option who has all of America's sick and no one else. It would not be sustainable without unbelievably high premiums (and this years' budget reconciliation instructions require that it be deficit neutral over the first 5 years and every single year beyond that).

This could be a real disaster.

running to keep their seats in 2012, compared to only 9 Republicans needing to run. It is almost impossible that we will have 60 seats going into 2013 (even assuming Lieberman is gone and a real Democrat takes his place).

when we had the House, Senate and Pres, that we'd be able to make some real change. Perhaps it's in the type of Dem, or maybe Congress is too dysfunctional to actually really give a crap about people. Or, perhaps our hope is totally misplaced and the political realm won't be able to do much anyhow. Or??

in 2011

IIRC he is up for reelection in 2012...

This filthy moron is dead to me.

lol he's not that bad

He might as well take a gun to sick people and shoot them.

Or, at least, on the Democratic party? I can't see any other Democrat getting away with this. He's clearly being protected by some very powerful people. I would just like to know who they are.

Why should the government shell out for private health insurers, which skim some of that money off the top for exorbitant executive pay and shareholder dividends? It doesn't seem like a responsible way to spend tax payers dollars. Id rather see a public insurance entity, open to all, with all such subsidies. The money should stretch further.

Well, maybe...unless its designed to fail and more expensive than a private company

You know we aren't going to get a "public insurance entity, open to all, with such subsidies." Why this keeps coming up in a discussion of the healthcare bill we might actually get is really beyond me.

The question is whether we subsidize people's insurance bills. So real people can get healthcare. You would say no, because a portion (certainly not the majority) of the money will go to insurance industry profits? Because that doesn't seem like a "responsible way to spend tax payers dollars"? This really sounds like a typical Republican don't-get-sick-die-quickly-fiscal-responsibility argument, not a Democratic argument.

But throwing money irresponsibly at unethical and inefficient corporations, who scoop 30% off the top an add another 10% on the delivery end, may be a "solution" that will lead to a whole lot of problems in its own right. Even if you can ensure health care for everyone, what will be the economic result of this non-cost-controlling approach when America can barely compete as it is? What will be the social repercussions of saddling the country with the responsibility to pay such costs, which could surely soar as they did in Massachusetts (which has a similar model and 12% higher premiums than the rest of the country)? Will college savings dissolve into mandated health care premiums, destroying anything left of social mobility? Will manufacturing jobs disappearances increase, only to appear in other nations with cheap labor or those with comprehensive AND affordable health care?

Obama sold this reform with the premise that a public insurance company would "compete against private insurers" and "keep them honest". He filled up the bandwagon with such dicing rhetoric. Now we know that isn't going to be the case, yet people won't jump off the bandwagon. Your continual rallying cry may be that any actions that promote 96% coverage are "worth it"--the Ends always justifies the Means. But, you need to realize that it just may not be sometimes, and no one has a crystal ball. It would be the perfect mechanism under the right conditions to convert the rest of the middle class to slaving drones with health care, who work for only but a chance to see the doctor.

This is shaping up to not only be an "uniquely American" health care experiment, but also a social experiment in its own right. Honestly, *if* the "price" to be paid to eliminate medical bankruptcies and the lack of access is social mobility and economic competitiveness (things Democrats are historically very concerned about), then just maybe it might not be worth it right now. Just maybe. I'm not saying one thing is more important than another here, but its worth taking a look at the entire multi-faceted picture.

While having a robust public option would of course be preferable, I think the Massachusetts model (considering its pros and its cons, of which there are many) would be a FAR better system than the one we have now nationwide. And I'm not the only one. I agree with Paul Krugman on this, as well as 85%+ of the population of Massachusetts. Yes, the state now has to go back and consider costs, just like we will have to in the future if the bill in the current form passes. But at least now, Massachusetts cannot fix the cost problem by denying care to people.

This is all becoming hilarious to me. The goalposts are moving fast and health reform is morphing into a macabre caricature of its former self. While being sold as some panacea to solve the rising health care costs, fix the private insurers (with a public option), provide universal coverage, and solve America's health care competitive disadvantage (in labor), its now being sold as a "solution" that will get most people but be sorely lacking in most of the original criteria historically regarded as important.

This is a fucking joke and its time to get off the train. At some point, you gotta admit how silly its becoming. A Republican could, and has, come up with this same reform, but then you wouldn't see Democrats clamoring at the chance of passing any smelly piece of shit.

I ignore the rhetoric completely, and instead form my own opinion (independent of the rhetoric) on whether the bill should be passed or not.

So again, while you post about how there is a large divergence between what was "being sold" and what we get, that is entirely irrelevant to me. You seem to give political rhetoric very high weight. I do not (regardless of the party of the politican that the rhetoric comes from).

As far as my opinion of the bill, I see a bill that will essentially end medical bankruptcies and cover tens of millions of people who can't get care right now.

Cost is not a minor concern -- it is a major concern. In fact, it is so major that doing anything that would significantly decrease costs (strong public option, price controls, trust busting, etc.) is not politically viable right now, and will not be politically viable until there is a major crisis looming in the short term. (By politically viable, I mean able to pass Congress.) The only bill that can pass at this point is a bill that achieves near-universal coverage, while making only minor reforms that will only slightly deal with costs. (I know Obama keeps talking about how this bill will solve our cost problem. Obama is wrong. The cost message is a political message, and I don't care one way or the other that he is making it.)

Whether we pass the near-universal coverage bill or not, we will need to deal with costs in a big way within the next 10 years (regardless of what party is in power). At that point, if we don't have universal coverage, we are not going to be able to get it. Whereas if we do have universal coverage, it will be untouchable politically. If we get universal coverage now, we will have to solve our cost problem in a way other than leaving tens of millions of Americans without healthcare (raise taxes on the rich, a public option and/or price controls, etc.)

So that is how I view the issue. As far as I'm concerned, dealing with costs in a significant way is not possible at this moment in time (whereas you think that it might be possible, or at the very least thought it was possible at some point between November 4th 2008 and now). Dealing with universal coverage is possible now (I think we both agree on that, though you might not want to enact universal coverage if we are not also dealing with costs). It ends up coming down to my opinion that I would rather see universal coverage now so that when we deal with the cost problem in the future, we won't be able to help solve the cost problem by denying care to 47 million people.

Given our opportunity to do this, whether or not to support the bill is not even a close question for me.

is that the cost "solution" may negate this entire "solution". That being, perhaps cost control cannot co-exist in a subsidized mixed market (mostly private) hybrid model. Putting off cost control may just delay the inevitable reform needed now, and it may even exacerbate the problem by guaranteeing demand and subsidizing it in the meantime (thereby driving costs up higher). This may indeed become a band-aid temporary solution that not only has political fallout, but burdens the middle class, represses social mobility, and costs more manufacturing jobs. And all for a statistic of 96% to hold onto proudly, despite it only telling half of the story.

I'm proud of you for thinking for yourself, but I think you are sorely misguided. Despite this reform really having no impact on my life (thereby rendering perhaps unemotionally involved), I still see a plethora of problems which are not being seriously considered at the moment. If this is the "best" the Democrats can do (something they could of let Republicans pass 40 years ago), it seriously undermines their justification for existence.

Things were very different 40 years ago. For most of the 20th century, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. For much of it, either Democrats or moderate Republicans (by today's standards) were President. This produced an environment where we could have a long movement to eventually enact Medicare and Medicaid, without fear that various steps of the movement would be immediately repealed 2 years later or be sabotaged upon implementation at every turn.

Whereas now, the Republican party has gotten so conservative that its main goal right now is to ensure defeat for the Democratic party. Not only would they repeal our program the second they get the chance, but any conservative in charge of implementing it would probably do his or her best to hurt the program.

Assuming this does not change, it puts us in a position where we have to enact the absolute best program we can right now, and hope that by the time the Republicans retake control of both houses and the Whitehouse, people will like the program so much that it can't be repealed. We can't wait and build up a strong movement over 5 or 10 years (as we could back when Democrats had complete control of Congress for decades).

Right now, we have 60 seats in the Senate. This was almost a fluke, caused by us winning a lot of close races at the right time. The political balance of this country is not 60% liberal to 40% conservative (not even taking into account the Republican benefit from the Senate small-state bias). Because of this, 60 seats are probably not sustainable over multiple election cycles. (For example, in 2012, we have to defend 24 seats, whereas Republicans have to only defend 9. In 2014, we will have to defend 20, whereas Republicans will only have to defend 13.) We are very, very lucky to be able to pass anything. We will probably not have another moment like this (to enact universal coverage) for at least a decade if not two. The choice is not something bad now vs. something better later. It is something now vs. nothing later.

That being said, what we can pass is extraordinarily limited by having to cater to every member of our Senate caucus to pass anything. But I don't think the solution to this is to abandon the justification for the Democratic party's existence. Our country has a mathematical two-party system (enforced by every election being winner take all). Furthermore, our country has a disfunctional Senate where you need a supermajority to pass anything. Those are the two big limitations on passing a good reform bill -- not the Democratic party.

care for their people, Israel also provides them with free college educations.

I don't understand why Israel is the largest recipient of American foreign aide when their people have a higher standard of living then us Americans that support them with our hard earned tax dollars.

So when is Joe Liberman going to come out and demand our tax dollars back from Israel?

I doubt that Lieberman would want to cut American military spending either! He seems to prefer spending on swords rather than ploughshares.

Israel's military needs when the Israelis have a higher standard of living than American's do?

Joe should object given Israelis can afford national health care for themselves they don't really need America's dough (and given that 44,000 American die as result of health insurance here we can no longer afford to give them our tax dollars for their military.)

Lieberman always makes me think of Blair, but on this issue he's worse. Worse than Thatcher, even!

no other clients.

is partly meant to keep some of the focus of the wingnut takeover of the Rethug party.

He also wants attention, and just ups the ante. I hope that somebody will lower the boom on him after the health care vote.

If he gets called out now, he will act like his right to have an opinion has been taken away and play martyr. As it is he just irritates people, and he wants someone to turn it into a huge catfight.

I would let him yak and dig his hole deeper and deeper and make himself pure anathema to the voters in CT.

I hope they take him in a back room afterwards and stomp on him so hard he can clean his shoes with his tongue.

to go to hel....home.

Do all politicians just have it surgically removed or something?

in the first primaries in 2004. Remember when he thought he was the obvious front runner? Then there was the losing the primary and being the sore loser - running as an "Independent" (the tvnews tag used to list him as Lieberman I-Con I still find that amusing). Just as strong as these petty reasons, no probably stronger, is the presence of many insurance co.s in Conn - and how well they finance him. He has demonstrated no integrity so many times, this is no surprise. The surprise will be if action is really taken to repudiate his gop allegiances, and is stripped of his chairmanship.

democracts created joe lieberman.