I've been saying for a while that Joe Lieberman posed the greatest threat to health care reform. Unlike the rest of the party, he has no political interest in the passage of reform or a successful Obama presidency, and he seems to view the prospect of sticking it to the liberals who supported his Democratic opponent in 2006 as a goal potentially worth sacrificing the lives of tens of thousands of Americans to fulfill. (Of course, the irony is that Lieberman is actually vindicating his 2006 critics and undermining his own defense from that time, which revolved around him being a progressive Democrat on domestic policy issues.)
Still, I feel that liberals are somewhat overreacting to Lieberman's turn against health care reform. It's true that Lieberman refused to take part in negotiations with Reid over the compromise, suggested he could support the bill presuming a positive CBO score, and then decided to stick in the knife. However, I don't think that health care reform is in peril. If Harry Reid decided to submit to Lieberman's demands, the health care bill would basically revert to what the Senate Finance Committee produced. That's still a major piece of legislation. Expectations among liberals have risen since then, so the come-down is understandable. But this isn't the end of reform.
Now, the counter-argument is that Lieberman may well come up with a reason to back away from that bill as well. Given his obvious bad-faith negotiation, that's certainly a danger. But Olympia Snowe is not negotiating in bad faith, and she, unlike Lieberman, actually seems to care about health care reform. So even if you revert to something like the Senate Finance bill and Lieberman tries to stab you in the back, you can still pick up Snowe. (A fact that itself reduces the chance that Lieberman will attempt a second act of sabotage -- why try to knife health care reform if you can't kill it?)
I also think liberals, myself included, might be driving ourselves a little nuts trying to divine Lieberman's motives. He keeps flip-flopping and explaining his shifts by making demonstrably false claims. What's his game? Why does he keep saying these wrong, uninformed things?
I think one answer here is that Lieberman isn't actually all that smart. He speaks, and seems to think, exclusively in terms of generalities and broad statements of principle. But there's little evidence that he's a sharp or clear thinker, and certainly no evidence that he knows or cares about the details of health care reform. At one point during the 2000 recount, the Gore campaign explained to Lieberman why lowering standards for military ballots would be totally unfair and illegal, and Lieberman proceeded to go on television and subvert the campaign's position. Gore loyalists interpreted this as a sellout, but perhaps the more plausible explanation was that Lieberman -- who, after all, badly wanted to be vice-President -- just didn't understand the details of the Gore position well enough to defend it. The guy was taken apart by Dick Cheney in the 2000 veep debate.
I suspect that Lieberman is the beneficiary, or possibly the victim, of a cultural stereotype that Jews are smart and good with numbers. Trust me, it's not true. If Senator Smith from Idaho was angering Democrats by spewing uninformed platitudes, most liberals would deride him as an idiot. With Lieberman, we all suspect it's part of a plan. I think he just has no idea what he's talking about and doesn't care to learn. Lieberman thinks about politics in terms of broad ideological labels. He's the heroic centrist voice pushing legislation to the center. No, Lieberman doesn't have any particular sense of what the Medicare buy-in option would do to the national debt. If the liberals like it, then he figures it's big government and he should oppose it. I think it's basically that simple.
Print
"If the liberals like it, then he figures it's big government and he should oppose it."
Yup. That's what I figure too. In fact, the Medicare buy-in option represents the "public option" on stereoids, and figures to fail utterly in terms of cost containment. No thank you very much.
"If the liberals like it, then he figures it's big government and he should oppose it."
Yup. That's what I figure too. In fact, the Medicare buy-in option represents the "public option" on stereoids, and figures to fail utterly in terms of cost containment. No thank you very much.
Senator Lieberman will be criticized for his apparent change of position, but I disagree. Lieberman, as with most politicians (sad to say), is not the brightest bulb. So when Senator Reid offered the Medicare buy-in, which seemed to come as a surprise to most everybody involved, I suspect Lieberman's initial reaction wasn't an informed reaction. After talking to his aides and upon reflection, he only then realized the monumental significance of the buy-in. The fault lies with Reid. The NYT or the WP (I cannot remember which) had a front-page article this weekend in which the "reporter" argued that Reid's proposal was all about Reid and not health care reform, that it was intended to sh ... view full comment
Senator Lieberman will be criticized for his apparent change of position, but I disagree. Lieberman, as with most politicians (sad to say), is not the brightest bulb. So when Senator Reid offered the Medicare buy-in, which seemed to come as a surprise to most everybody involved, I suspect Lieberman's initial reaction wasn't an informed reaction. After talking to his aides and upon reflection, he only then realized the monumental significance of the buy-in. The fault lies with Reid. The NYT or the WP (I cannot remember which) had a front-page article this weekend in which the "reporter" argued that Reid's proposal was all about Reid and not health care reform, that it was intended to shore up his support from the left in his home state in what will be a difficult re-election for him. Whether Reid's proposal was self-serving or merely groping in the dark (more likely in my view), by making it without clear assurances from (among others) Lieberman, Reid has done political damage to his Party, for it created expectations in an important demographic group (those age 55 to 64) that have now been shattered - and Reid, of all people, knows that expectations shattered are not soon forgotten.
Glad to see that Chait at least acknowledges that the bill even without the public option will be a great achievement. I am not sure why Democrats do not realize that a lot of these things that are going down can be instituted at a later time. The public option can be one of the major platforms for Obama's second term, and if Obama wins would be able to push it through reconciliation in the senate (I don't see Republicans retaking the Senate anytime soon)
And Bob is right, this medicare buy in won't bring about cost containment, (save lives, very likely) and would probably worsen costs. From a strictly utilitarian viewpoint taking in more people who are on the downside healthwise will be a bi ... view full comment
Glad to see that Chait at least acknowledges that the bill even without the public option will be a great achievement. I am not sure why Democrats do not realize that a lot of these things that are going down can be instituted at a later time. The public option can be one of the major platforms for Obama's second term, and if Obama wins would be able to push it through reconciliation in the senate (I don't see Republicans retaking the Senate anytime soon)
And Bob is right, this medicare buy in won't bring about cost containment, (save lives, very likely) and would probably worsen costs. From a strictly utilitarian viewpoint taking in more people who are on the downside healthwise will be a big burden, and just be a huge bonus for insurance companies who will do everything they can to push older workers onto medicare.
Back in January, the Democrats (at the behest of the President) allowed Lieberman to keep his committee chairmanship and his seniority. The argument for this was that it would maintain peace in the Democratic conference, and would assure the Dems the 60 votes they needed to block a filibuster. But the quo for that quid had to be that Lieberman would vote with the Dems to block filibusters on matters of interest to the party. Now it would seem that health care reform is _the_ prinicipal matter of interest to the party. Why, oh why, has there been no public discussion of an ultimatum to Lieberman -- either you support the party on every filibuster vote, or your chairmanship and your senior ... view full comment
Back in January, the Democrats (at the behest of the President) allowed Lieberman to keep his committee chairmanship and his seniority. The argument for this was that it would maintain peace in the Democratic conference, and would assure the Dems the 60 votes they needed to block a filibuster. But the quo for that quid had to be that Lieberman would vote with the Dems to block filibusters on matters of interest to the party. Now it would seem that health care reform is _the_ prinicipal matter of interest to the party. Why, oh why, has there been no public discussion of an ultimatum to Lieberman -- either you support the party on every filibuster vote, or your chairmanship and your seniority are history?
Black - outside of tired anti-government cant as an explanation, how would Medicare buy-in raise costs again? I haven't seen the data on that, just wondering. I know its dead, it just sounded like a great idea. People had to BUY it at least. It sure would have helped alot of Americans.
I don't get how anything will contain costs except a public option and rationing. How else are insurance companies exposed to real competition? And I'm perfectly fine with with rationing in whatever form. Remember rationing was a right wing talking point? I wish we Dems would have had the cajones to scream DEATH PANELS back then. Instead, we probably sent Gene Sperling to Good Morning America or somethin ... view full comment
Black - outside of tired anti-government cant as an explanation, how would Medicare buy-in raise costs again? I haven't seen the data on that, just wondering. I know its dead, it just sounded like a great idea. People had to BUY it at least. It sure would have helped alot of Americans.
I don't get how anything will contain costs except a public option and rationing. How else are insurance companies exposed to real competition? And I'm perfectly fine with with rationing in whatever form. Remember rationing was a right wing talking point? I wish we Dems would have had the cajones to scream DEATH PANELS back then. Instead, we probably sent Gene Sperling to Good Morning America or something.
I wish Lieberman would lower himself and bother to make a cogent case for his latest stunt. He never even tries to make sense or explain himself.
And I think Chait is partially wrong about Joe's intelligence. He's not informed, but he's cunning with a ferrel instinct for survival. I think that matters every bit as much in politics, probably more.
If the deficit is really the reaosn Joe objects to the public health and or the lower the age to 55 for midecare recipients let them keep one of these provisions, but let it take effect only after the recession is over and the deficit has come down to a certain level.
This would call the conservative bluff.
If the deficit is really the reaosn Joe objects to the public health and or the lower the age to 55 for midecare recipients let them keep one of these provisions, but let it take effect only after the recession is over and the deficit has come down to a certain level.
This would call the conservative bluff.
wandrey, I think companies will stop offering insurance to older workers, forcing them into early medicare. I don't see rationing happening with the elderly.
wandrey, I think companies will stop offering insurance to older workers, forcing them into early medicare. I don't see rationing happening with the elderly.
Something just hit. Maybe he's evil. Maybe he just likes to cause chaos because it's fun for him.
Something just hit. Maybe he's evil. Maybe he just likes to cause chaos because it's fun for him.
From what I can tell, Senator Lieberman is voting consistent with Connecticut Senators over the last 60 years. They have been conservative and cautious blocking most liberal ideas.
But why does TNR have to accuse everyone who diagrees with them of being stupid?
From what I can tell, Senator Lieberman is voting consistent with Connecticut Senators over the last 60 years. They have been conservative and cautious blocking most liberal ideas.
But why does TNR have to accuse everyone who diagrees with them of being stupid?
How repulsive it has all become. Lieberman is ignorent. He is evil. I gather (but, in candor, have not read) that Ezra Klein has put to pen the notion that Lieberman has cost thousands of lives. If that is correct, I would call that a blood libel, words that don't flow easily from this Jew (however "reformed").
I think that some liberals understand that everything they have ever dreamed of about a health care system, was never going to pass in this Congress, despite huge Democratic majorities, including a far larger liberal caucus than we have seen since the 30s. What has happened? You offer nothing to the opposition party. Nothing on curbing trial lawyer abuse. Precisely the opposite ... view full comment
How repulsive it has all become. Lieberman is ignorent. He is evil. I gather (but, in candor, have not read) that Ezra Klein has put to pen the notion that Lieberman has cost thousands of lives. If that is correct, I would call that a blood libel, words that don't flow easily from this Jew (however "reformed").
I think that some liberals understand that everything they have ever dreamed of about a health care system, was never going to pass in this Congress, despite huge Democratic majorities, including a far larger liberal caucus than we have seen since the 30s. What has happened? You offer nothing to the opposition party. Nothing on curbing trial lawyer abuse. Precisely the opposite out of the House. Nothing on interstate competition in the health insurance industry. Nothing on taxing "Cadillac" benefits extracted by big labor (executives are another story). You must pass something, anything. If it shits, well, we can fix it later. I am reminded of the fabled "clump of trees" in Gettysburg; the monuments there refer to the site as the "high water mark of the confederacy". You have no visible prospect of improving your political prospects looking ahead. This is as good as you can foretell it is going to get. If, indeed, it shits, it will be an anvil around your necks for a generation. So what do we see? The new idea/mishmash of the week that is sent to the CBO for instant scoring. Gotta get 60 votes. Kisses to Snowe; dreck for Lieberman.
This Republican, as always, will drop a turd on my party. We are at least as Stalinist as you. Our base, like yours, wants purity. What repels me on our side of the ledger is the manipulation of "rationing" issues. What differentiates the costs of our system from those of the various universal care systems of Europe is that they are all serious about curbing end-of-life medical excesses. Let this senior citizen be brutally blunt; we can't afford to drop several hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care on the departure of most of our terminally-ill octagenarians. That happens folks! Stop blaming the insurers. Look to the doctors and hospitals. Wake me up when it happens.
Go ahead. Have at me.
CRS9TNR, Sen. Lieberman just three months ago favored expanding Medicare to Americans 50 and over, so calling Joe either conservative and cautious would seem to be off the mark. What he appears to be at this point in American history is entirely unprincipled, flipping and flopping on positions like a fish thrown onto a steaming highway in July. He's neither conservative nor cautious, though clearly bitter and entirely dishonest.
CRS9TNR, Sen. Lieberman just three months ago favored expanding Medicare to Americans 50 and over, so calling Joe either conservative and cautious would seem to be off the mark. What he appears to be at this point in American history is entirely unprincipled, flipping and flopping on positions like a fish thrown onto a steaming highway in July. He's neither conservative nor cautious, though clearly bitter and entirely dishonest.
You have several fair points Isernoff. Two things:
Greedy trial lawyers costing us money is ignored because it is an urban myth. There simply is no data supporting the theory that higher premiums are caused by jackpot justice. (Obama supported this notion of caps on awards, because he knows full well how little meaning it really has and how much juice it has with you guys).
Second - don't ask us to like Holy Joe. It's just never going to happen, he's just too dishonest.
(I also agree with you CRS. I think Chait's understandable rage is coming through on this post. Many of us have lost it recently on health care and Joe Lieberman, we're at the breaking point. Forgive us).
We're not so Stalinis ... view full comment
You have several fair points Isernoff. Two things:
Greedy trial lawyers costing us money is ignored because it is an urban myth. There simply is no data supporting the theory that higher premiums are caused by jackpot justice. (Obama supported this notion of caps on awards, because he knows full well how little meaning it really has and how much juice it has with you guys).
Second - don't ask us to like Holy Joe. It's just never going to happen, he's just too dishonest.
(I also agree with you CRS. I think Chait's understandable rage is coming through on this post. Many of us have lost it recently on health care and Joe Lieberman, we're at the breaking point. Forgive us).
We're not so Stalinist Isernoff, I'd say only on this issue. This is what we're all about, why we exist.
I totally agree with you on most of the other things though and good for you on rationing - you guys lead the way on that issue for a long time and now its morphed in to "boob bait for the bubbas" as Senator Moynihan used to refer to such things.
I don't agree with Liebrman's stance on health care reform, but some of the posts here like that of nunziobal attacking Lieberman verge on the antisemitic.
I don't hink he is stupid, I think that he is trying to please his friend McCain at the expense of his prinicples. This makes him weak willed but not evil.
I don't agree with Liebrman's stance on health care reform, but some of the posts here like that of nunziobal attacking Lieberman verge on the antisemitic.
I don't hink he is stupid, I think that he is trying to please his friend McCain at the expense of his prinicples. This makes him weak willed but not evil.
"I suspect that Lieberman is the beneficiary... of a cultural stereotype that Jews are smart and good with numbers. Trust me, its not true."
It has been clear for months that the two Jonathans are not really journalists, but P.R. hacks for the Democrats. But your ad hominem attack on the Senator's intellect, religion, and morals (sacrificing the lives of ten thousands) is an insult to the Senator and the readers of this magazine. You owe the Senator and the readers of this magazine an apology for this pathetic article.
Designing a Medicare for those 55 to 64 buy is a complicated exercise in constructing a risk pool that can provide affordable coverage. Every actuary that is examine this ... view full comment
"I suspect that Lieberman is the beneficiary... of a cultural stereotype that Jews are smart and good with numbers. Trust me, its not true."
It has been clear for months that the two Jonathans are not really journalists, but P.R. hacks for the Democrats. But your ad hominem attack on the Senator's intellect, religion, and morals (sacrificing the lives of ten thousands) is an insult to the Senator and the readers of this magazine. You owe the Senator and the readers of this magazine an apology for this pathetic article.
Designing a Medicare for those 55 to 64 buy is a complicated exercise in constructing a risk pool that can provide affordable coverage. Every actuary that is examine this concludes that the risk pool will be poor because of adverse selection. When CBO looked at a limited buy in for those 62 to 64, they determined that to make it budget neutral, these beneficiaries might have to pay a supplemental premium on top of their part B premium until they were 85 years of age. Additionally, the Medicare benefit has a relatively low actuarial value which requires almost all Medicare beneficiaries to purchase a Medigap policy which can cost thousands of dollars per year.
There are also an entire set of issues concerning substitution meaning that employers would attempt to drop their current pre retiree coverage. And obviously the AMA and the hospitals have major problems with the payment rates.
Health care reform is extremely complicated. and contentious. Even if a bill is signed this year, it is just the beginning of this fight and not the end. Remember the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act was repealed before the benefit ever began, and the repeal occurred when Democrats controlled Congress. The Welfare entitlement was repealed by President Clinton. We are in for a multi year fight. Now is not the time to wallow in the gutter.
Black - thank you!
Black - thank you!
Smart or principled or dumb, I wish they'd find some way to marginalize him. It's fine if he is serving a constituency whose profits are threatened by health care reform, just take off the sheep's clothing.
Smart or principled or dumb, I wish they'd find some way to marginalize him. It's fine if he is serving a constituency whose profits are threatened by health care reform, just take off the sheep's clothing.
Amen to that , eastcane. Speaking as someone with views far more to the left than most, it's not a matter of "Public Option or Bust". In fact, after "moderates" like Snowe, Conrad, Lincoln and Nelson endlessly watered down Jacob Hacker's creation like a two-dollar mixer at a TGI Fridays, it's better that there's nothing called "Public Option" in whatever limps onto Obama's desk to be rubber-stamped. If the legislation is built to fail, as these "moderates" have certainly crafted this bill to in fact do, then let it fail in front of everybody without having anything resembling the true "Public Option" that Hacker had proposed. In another election cycle, popular support for Hacker's vision ... view full comment
Amen to that , eastcane. Speaking as someone with views far more to the left than most, it's not a matter of "Public Option or Bust". In fact, after "moderates" like Snowe, Conrad, Lincoln and Nelson endlessly watered down Jacob Hacker's creation like a two-dollar mixer at a TGI Fridays, it's better that there's nothing called "Public Option" in whatever limps onto Obama's desk to be rubber-stamped. If the legislation is built to fail, as these "moderates" have certainly crafted this bill to in fact do, then let it fail in front of everybody without having anything resembling the true "Public Option" that Hacker had proposed. In another election cycle, popular support for Hacker's vision could be even higher than it is right now.
But politically, there has to be a price paid for Lieberman repeatedly undermining the caucus while often directly contradicting his own previous statements in the process. If he wants to glue himself to a chair in front of FOX NEWS cameras spouting lies, so be it. But if Reid and the Democrats expect any Progressives to donate money, time, and volunteer effort crucial to any and all future election cycles, Lieberman's prized Committee assignments better be yanked in a very public no-nonsense way. The left isn't disgusted strictly because of how Lieberman has conducted himself these past months, but because they warned Democratic leaders for years that he would in fact pull exactly this kind of stunt over and over again if he never feared getting head-slapped for it. It's painfully obvious that they were 100% right. The guy's dead weight Harry. Throw him out for God's sake already.
Thank you Fultimr. Well said.
Thank you Fultimr. Well said.
What nonsense. Do you really believe that if someone doesn't agree with your opinion or your political leanings then they're necessarily stupid? And your bringing the "Jewish stereotype" into this is also ridiculous. He didn't mention his Jewishness in this context. Why must you?
What nonsense. Do you really believe that if someone doesn't agree with your opinion or your political leanings then they're necessarily stupid? And your bringing the "Jewish stereotype" into this is also ridiculous. He didn't mention his Jewishness in this context. Why must you?
At this point it appears to me that Lieberman has reinforced his position as the best friend the Democrats have. As has become usual for him, Joe is acting as a bridge between delusional leftists in the party and political reality.
Almost two out of three Americans are opposed to what the current shape of Democrat health reform looks like. Listening to wise men like Joe is the only way to salvage something that may resemble a first step towards reform. Those who choose to abuse him instead are fools.
At this point it appears to me that Lieberman has reinforced his position as the best friend the Democrats have. As has become usual for him, Joe is acting as a bridge between delusional leftists in the party and political reality.
Almost two out of three Americans are opposed to what the current shape of Democrat health reform looks like. Listening to wise men like Joe is the only way to salvage something that may resemble a first step towards reform. Those who choose to abuse him instead are fools.
So you don't think Lieberman is all that smart...as opposed to which U. S. Senator might you be making that comparison: Barbara Boxer, John McCain, John Kerry? Honest, intelligent people with common sense (which also eliminates Obama, both Bushes, Gore, etc.) and self respect usually do not run successful campaigns. There is not shortage of stupidity, vanity, and lack of common sense in Congress.
So you don't think Lieberman is all that smart...as opposed to which U. S. Senator might you be making that comparison: Barbara Boxer, John McCain, John Kerry? Honest, intelligent people with common sense (which also eliminates Obama, both Bushes, Gore, etc.) and self respect usually do not run successful campaigns. There is not shortage of stupidity, vanity, and lack of common sense in Congress.