The Arrogant, Asinine and Appalling Joe Lieberman
Posted on November 23rd, 2009 in Uncategorized | 13 Comments »
“I’m going to be stubborn on this,” Lieberman says about his insistence that the health care reform legislation not have a public option.
Probe for a catch or caveat in that opposition, and none is visible. Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as the current bill provides? “The answer is no,” he says in an interview from his Senate office. “I feel very strongly about this.” How about a trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a provision saying it won’t be used unless private insurance plans aren’t spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.
Here’s another way to write that, articulated by Andy Borowitz (Harvard grad) on the Huffington Post:
Lieberman Exploring New Ways to be a Dick.
For Sen. Lieberman, whose reputation for assholic behavior is legendary, striving to be an even bigger douche than usual represents a formidable challenge, Senate insiders say.
Well said, Mr. Borowitz.
In a more serious vein, AlterNet explores Lieberman’s shifting rationale for opposing the public health option. In a post entitled, Lieberman’s Latest B.S. Excuse for Opposing a Public Health Option, the Washington Monthly’s Steven Benen writes,
That Joe Lieberman would rather kill health care reform than let some consumer choose between competing public and private plans isn’t exactly new. I continue to find it fascinating, though, to see his evolving explanations….
Of course, there’s only one explanation: Joe Lieberman got his feelings hurt when he lost the Democratic nomination for Senate from Connecticut a few years back. And now he’s making tens of millions of people without insurance pay the price.
13 Responses
11/23/2009 11:20 pm
Lieberman is horrible. Yes, hurt feelings, but lots more, all connected to his pathetic (and justified) insecurity and puffed up sense of his jostatus.
Why doesn’t the wife get brought into this more?
“Hadassah has also worked for the lobbying company, APCO Associates, that had many pharmaceutical and healthcare corporations among its clients, as well as four major drug companies such as Pfizer. In March 2005, Hadassah was hired by Hill & Knowlton as “senior counselor” in the firm’s “health care and pharmaceuticals practice.” Hadassah’s close relationship with pharmaceutical and healthcare corporations while her husband introduced legislation benefiting these exact companies has raised questions about improprieties and conflict of interest.” Wiki
Lieberman is married to a healthcare industry lobbyist, and nothing he has come out with on healthcare reform would cause any domestic Spannung,
Why do the Dems leave him chairing his Homeland Security Committee, and not just toss him out?
11/24/2009 12:18 am
“And now he’s making tens of millions of people without insurance pay the price.”
Or maybe he’s saving tens of millions of Americans from having to pay the price.
11/24/2009 6:47 am
Pretty hard to say that that’s the case, puh-lease, when the CBO says the health care bill will save the government $150 billion and, let’s face it, if you don’t have health insurance, some is better than none.
Also, if you look at that third look, by Steven Benen, you’ll see that Lieberman doesn’t really have a good reason for opposing the public option. Certainly looking out for the downtrodden isn’t it.
11/24/2009 8:35 am
Richard,
Do you honestly believe any of the health care bills being contemplated will be deficit reducing?
11/24/2009 9:10 am
Well, the CBO, which is a pretty respected and non-partisan place, says so….
11/24/2009 10:32 am
If you want me to go into all the areas where the CBO understates the costs of the various bills, I will. I just want to know if YOU believe that any of the health care bills out there will reduce the deficit.
11/24/2009 10:39 am
Yeah, I didn’t answer the question because I have no informed opinion on the matter. I haven’t read any of the bills or detailed analyses of their costs. So, unlike most similarly uninformed Americans, I think that my opinion on this matter is irrelevant.
11/24/2009 10:40 am
That said, I’m not sure I believe that cost neutrality is the most important part of this issue anyway. For me, at least. If we have to spend some money to get people insured, well, maybe that’s something worth spending money on.
11/24/2009 10:42 am
And finally, puh-lease, while you may have a principled opinion on the matter, do you really think that Lieberman does? Or is he just a pathetic craven opportunist in desperate need of media attention?
11/24/2009 12:04 pm
with a wife who works for the insurance industry.
11/24/2009 1:51 pm
Richard,
Given your political views, I’m not surprised that you don’t find the costs the most important part of the issue. And I’d respect the Dems if they were honest about what these plans would realistically end up costing the taxpayers. Of course, the Dems know that if the true costs of the various health care plans weren’t hidden, the plans would be dead in the water, so they massage the numbers to make it look like the plans are costless. Not that anyone really believes it, including you, but that’s the way things are done in DC.
As for your favorite Senator, far be it for me to defend Joe Lieberman, but in this instance I think that his intentions are pure. Just like most politicians. Pure bullshit.
11/24/2009 3:25 pm
The CBO does the best it can, but it does static political scoring, rather than imagining that political will might be generated for followthrough to enhance rather than weaken government savings on major legislation.
As a result, it actually UNDERestimates how much reform will save, and has a track record of doing so.
“The CBO’s track record in predicting the effects of health legislation is abysmal,” observes Bruce Vladeck, the man who ran Medicare while serving as administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration from 1993 to 2997. “Over the last two decades, the CBO has routinely overestimated the costs of expanded government health care benefits,” Vladeck adds, “and underestimated the savings from program changes designed to reduce expenditures.”
Writing on Roll Call, Vladeck added: “These mistakes arise neither from a hidden partisan agenda nor a shortage of competence or commitment. The CBO’s reputation for scrupulousness, thoroughness, and nonpartisanship is well-deserved. But the very processes in which it is asked to engage, and the ways in which its results are used, make serious misjudgments almost inevitable.”
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/09/why-cbo-cannot-calculate-the-savings-that-will-come-with-healthcare-reform-part-1.html
This bill WILL save money, in dozens of mutually reinforcing ways. And we are talking about TONS of money.
See also today’s required reading (per Rahm Emanuel):
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/a_milestone_in_the_health_care_journey.php
You should keep in mind that there is a grand bargain being struck here, between those who believe many more people need to be covered and those who believe health care costs too much. From the perspective of insurers, the two solutions complement each other quite nicely, if you know something about actuary science.
Puh-lease, I haven’t seen anything from you that makes me think you’re actually informed on this issue, as opposed to just rooting for a Democratic failure.
Standing Eagle
11/24/2009 10:19 pm
SE,
It’s pretty funny that you are quoting a guy who ran Medicare about how much lower the costs of a government program will be than originally projected.
And when it comes to proposed government entitlement programs, you can pretty much count on me rooting for them to fail, whether the proponents are Dems or Repubs.