How many Democrats instantly flashed back to President Obama's expansive attitude toward Sen. Joseph Lieberman after the 2008 elections, where Lieberman threatened to leave the party after Harry Reid tried to strip him of his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship? Publicly, the White House said that reconciliation was the order of the day. Privately, they sent word that Lieberman would be a reliable vote on the big issues of the day, like, um, health care. As Lieberman pal Chris Dodd put it at the time, Lieberman "is willing to be a member of your family," so why not let him in?
Now, Sen. Lieberman says he'll join a GOP filibuster of any health care
bill that contains a public option in any form. (Sen. Evan Bayh might
have just gotten the cover needed to either join Lieberman or split from him.)
I've told Sen. Reid, that I'm strongly inclined, I haven't totally decided but I'm strongly inclined to vote to proceed to the health care debate even though I don't support the bill he's bringing together, because it's important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage.Now -- the final bill, post-conference, is going to look a bit different from the reconciled Senate bill. Lieberman is giving himself the power to influence the final bill. I doubt that the Senate leadership is going to press him too hard right now, preferring to see if he can be accommodated in the final debate.
Well, at least the Democrats have leverage against Lieberman - if he votes against cloture, they can (and should) strip him of his seniority and chairmanship.
Yeah, but they won't!
Any clear eyed political analyst should have seen this one coming. Too bad we don't have any clear eyed political anaylysts anymore. While progressives and the press were prematurely congratulating Harry Reid for throwing Olympia Snowe (and by extension the President under the bus) no one noticed Joe Lieberman jumping into the driver's seat. Let's review basic math, Liberals...you do NOT have 60 Democratic Senators. You have 58 Democratic Senators, a registered socialist and an independent otherwise known as "Joe I will f*ck Democrats the way they tried to f*ck me." The President knew Harry Reid didn't have Lieberman's vote thus the pointed statement to him, "I hope you know what you're doing." Clearly Reid doesn't! I would imagine Olympia Snowe is waiting to Harry Reid to crawl to her office and put the crown back on her head.
So the height of political sophistication would be for progressives to reconcile themselves to having their major reform priority killed by Olympia Snow instead of by Joe Lieberman? Why? Neither need stand for reelection until 2012, unfortunately. So it's six of one, half dozen of the other.
Lieberman's brave decision isn't about politics. This is about common sense and the survival of our national economy. Anyone who thinks this bill won't add "one more dime" to the deficit is smoking something.
This bill "promises" $400 billion in Medicare cuts while the Senate is simultaneously trying to back out of $247 billion in other promised Medicare cuts.
No government entitlement, especially in health care, can *ever* hold costs down. It's just a blank check. We've had two "public options" - Medicare and Medicaid - for years, and health care costs continue to go through the roof. In spite of the fact that Medicare pays less per procedure, it's expenditure per patient has been increasing as fast as the private sector. Docs and hospitals just learn that they need to order more tests and procedures to survive Medicare's hawkish pricing.
The only thing that will keep costs down is consumers scrutinizing costs for their own care. Until we see a health care bill with true consumer empowerment (e.g. choice of high-deductible plans, mandated cost estimates from hospitals for all procedures, mandated publishing of performance measures for all providers, etc.), all these health care "reform" proposals run threaten to bankrupt our country.
Consumers scrutinizing their own costs would indeed bring overall costs down. But your proposals won't do much. Choice of high-deductible plans? We already have those. And with subsidies in the bill (without the PO) people will be able to buy more of them. Mandated cost estimates? Good luck with that one - trying to figure out how much procedures "cost" is like trying to figure out the components of a collateralized debt obligation. It's all based on arcane formulas that can be tweaked for public consumption. Publishing performance measures? That won't do a thing to bring down costs - especially in rural areas where there just aren't many options.
The best way to bring down health care costs, of course, is to increase wellness and prevention. Stop subsidizing sugar and corn. Use outreach clinics to provide mandatory checkups for children through high school to reduce obesity and Type II diabetes. These checkups are cheap - much cheaper than lifelong care for heart disease or diabetes. Start making phys. ed mandatory for four years in high school - only Illinois requires students to take PE for four years. Include more rigorous health education from an early age on.
Sadly, many obese kids and teens are that way because of their parents. But you can slow the cycle with better health education and fitness. And the result will almost certainly be less health care expenditures down the road.
Are our Members of Congress brain-dead? Or are they just total cowards who constantly choose short-term political gain over the long-term health of our country?
Connecticut, this is your fault. You had a perfectly viable Democratic candidate and tossed him over for Joe's mealy-mouthed assurances that he would be a reliable vote just like before. Ever since then he's been boasting a pouting lip you could land a jet on, from endorsing the Republican candidate for president to threatening to veto health care every time the spotlight goes off him.
Um... Insurance industry and Connecticut? Shouldn't they be mentioned in the same sentence somewhere on this page? Dodd isn't the only senator from Aetna,
What I find interesting in all this is none of the reporters involved actually pressed Senator Lieberman on his premise. Virtually every expert, and the CBO disagree with his assessment. John Chait does the fisking on this.
The public option raises money from premiums not tax payer funds. That is how it is designed. Now it may not work. But it is designed to perform in a certain way. You can not just make up a different mechanism because you are feeling contrary.
TPM pressed him. "I asked him to square his rationale with the experts consensus, but he was undeterred." Reality? Who needs reality?
He also goes into a bizarre circumlocution whereby Medicare and Medicaid both cost more than we are willing to pay BUT he wouldn't change a thing about them.
Congrats CT! Lieberman is such a disgrace.
Thank God for Joe Lieberman! I can't stand him on foreign policy, but he is right on the money on this health care reform non-reform that will increase the deficit.
Remember yesterday?
What a difference a day makes to hope and change for our current crop of faint hearted socialist plotters against freedom. The self-righteous condescension has melted away into the despair of nasty gutter politics and expressions of betrayal against members of one’s own party. Remember the euphoric high minded generosity of giving away other people’s money by the trillions, of enslaving them to a worthy and vital cause?
Socialists needn’t despair, this may not be the hour of their triumph, but they still have the power of incrementalism on their side. They can thank FDR’s team of Frances Perkins, Edwin Witte, Barbara Armstrong, Murray Latimer, and Otto Richter for that. Their abiding stroke of genius was instituting incrementalism via mandatory participation by all in social security.
This single step ensured the ultimate ascendancy of social democracy in America. They had the genius to realize how incrementalism can be used to reach their ends, a gift of patience our current socialists severely lack.
Oh well, too bad, so sad.
As a 72 year-old physician who proudly delivers and receives Medicare services, I strongly believe that Medicare for all Americans is a MORAL issue, not an economic, social or political football to be used to further divide this country on ideological grounds. The prevention of suffering and death are foundations of all honorable religions and philosophies and it is time for America to demonstrate that it continues to be an honorable country devoted to the right to a life without suffering, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all of its citizens.
Members of Congress who place morality second to political maneuvering should be identified and remembered by the honorable electorate.
Respectfully and compassionately submitted,
Ange Lobue, MD, MPH, BSPharm
American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
Academy of Television Arts and Sciences
trinidadca@gmail.com