Any student of politics or any journalist who covers politics knows that members of Congress look out for their constituents, or else they may not be around after the next election. It’s really that simple. Of course, anyone can qualify as a constituent: the little old lady struggling on her Social Security check; retailers on Main Street coping with a business downturn; or the big boys—the influential bankers, manufacturers, hospital administrators, and, yes, insurance companies, insurance agents, and insurance brokers.
So all the cluck-clucking and consternation surrounding Sen. Joe Lieberman’s health reform positions should come as no surprise. Joe Lieberman comes from Connecticut, and Hartford is America’s insurance capital. It’s home base to Aetna, one of the country’s largest health insurers and a huge lobbying force this year, not to mention some lesser carriers that dabble in the health insurance business.
First, Lieberman drew his line in the sand over the public option. He would not vote for it, saying that a “public option is shorthand for a Medicare-like government plan that would compete with private companies to cover many of the 47 million Americans who don’t get private health insurance through their employers or elsewhere.” Why that’s the same argument that insurers made way back when the debate got started.
Lieberman also said that he worried about the public plan’s impact on doctors, arguing that it could drive down reimbursements to the levels paid by Medicaid—which, he claimed, paid doctors only “seventy percent of their costs.” Lower payments is the argument that the AMA has made in its fight against the public option. Most people may not remember that the AMA did not support the public plan, but that point got lost because of the AMA’s PR blitz that told the world how much it supported reform. Perhaps Lieberman has heard from AMA members in his home territory.
Next, Lieberman objected to Harry Reid’s hastily arranged compromise—a Medicare buy-in for those between ages fifty-five and sixty-four, an option designed to attract the liberals and what’s left of the single-payer crowd. Letting younger people into Medicare could be a baby step toward a Medicare-for-all solution to the country’s health care woes. And that is precisely what the insurance industry and the doctors don’t want. Said the senator from Connnecticut: “It [the buy-in] has some of the same infirmities that the public option did. It will add taxpayer costs. It will add to the deficit. It’s unnecessary. You’ve got to take out the Medicare buy-in.”
Hospitals weren’t too keen on the Medicare buy-in either. Like the docs, they worried that the government would pay unacceptably low rates for taking care of folks in this age group who need hospital care. So, over the weekend, hospitals across the country quickly mobilized to fight the proposal. It’s a fair bet that Lieberman heard from hospitals in his state, too.
In one of his latest pronouncements, Lieberman repeated that the public plan had to go, saying that “you’ve got to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the CLASS Act, which was a whole new entitlement program that will, in future years, put us further into deficit.” As Campaign Desk pointed out, the CLASS Act offers the beginnings of a public program for financing long-term care, and the insurance industry doesn’t like it. People who want to plan for their long-term care needs could voluntarily join a government plan which would let them pay premiums during their working career. Later on, they would be entitled to a daily cash benefit to use for home care services or home improvements to avoid a nursing home stay. Insurers are worried that they could lose the business for private long-term care policies, which have never caught on with the public. They want to keep what market there is.
Those who have followed health reform these many months knew that the outcome was always going to come down to raw politics. The insurance industry knew that and so did the docs and the hospitals. Joe Lieberman turned out to be their best lobbyist. Who would have thunk it?
He's a villain. These aren't just folks at home, these are profiteers of the literal blood of Americans.
No other country allows this to happen to their citizens. Only in America can enough sociopaths get elected so that the health care system remains more expensive AND exacerbates patient suffering for the profit of campaign contributors.
He's a villain as there ever was in American politics. An archetypal backstabber (which is in no way related to his ethnicity and is related in every way to his actions).
PS. All of these conserva-dems who are so worried about deficits, and I mean Conrad, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Bacchus, all of you Republicans like Snowe, Hatch, and McConnel, where were you in 2003 when deficit busting Medicare part D was voted on?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459
I thought so. Villains all.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 09:47 PM
Everything Leiberman does is either about Joe or about pissing off the people that he thinks destroyed his career as a Democrat, the progressive grass roots. It is that simple.
#2 Posted by Steve, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 09:08 AM
Note to Democrats... What happens when you try to throw a three term moderate party member under the bus, and lose? Lieberman, that's what.
The silly liberals who are bitching and moaning now about Joe Lieberman's refusal to put the government in charge of health care should spend their time instead worrying about what Chris Dodd's replacement will do next year.
Thank goodness this communist stupidity is being derailed, at least for the time being.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 10:09 AM
This health care reform bill won't result in any real changes for the health of the American people, so what is the point of even paying attention anymore. Like most other things Congress attempts to do, it's a big noise and rattle shaking over nothing. Without a public option, there is no point to even continuing this silly debate.
#4 Posted by laura k, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 10:36 AM
Naturally when attacks on the Joe "the AIPAC loving rootless cosmopolitan" Lieberman don’t work, they move on to his wife. What was that about the socialism of fools?
#5 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 10:46 AM
@Mike H
Naturally when attacks on the Joe "the AIPAC loving rootless cosmopolitan" Lieberman don’t work, they move on to his wife. What was that about the socialism of fools?
What attacks on his wife? I've seen nothing of them, and there certainly aren't any on this page.
Why don't you focus on the main point of this article, which is the corrupt venality of Joe Lieberman, who has allowed himself to be bought by big-money interests and betrayed the people who voted for him? Ah, you'd rather not focus on that because you have no counterargument?
What was that you said about fools?
#6 Posted by John, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 12:07 PM
In the case of his wife, it's because there is a real contradiction there. Breast cancer survivors are constantly struggling with unreimbursed medical expenses, rescission, and being screened as potential insurance applicants for their pre-existing condition of surviving cancer. A robust public option would likely be the best and only option they have. When Lieberman threatens to tear down all health care reform by joining the republican filibuster, based on what Anthony Weiner said that he doesn't like, Haddasah's Breast Cancer organization should respond to that. If they don't, then those who contribute to that organization are perfectly within their rights to respond to that.
And the fact of the matter is that no one would have to respond to that, no one would have to involve his family, no one would have to be involved with Joe Lieberman had Obama been giving the discipline Lieberman requires.
But he doesn't. Obama campaigned for Lieberman against Ned Lamont who won the primary, Obama failed to discipline by removing his chair and kicking him out of the caucus him after he back stabbed him in 2008, and he's letting him run free now while he breaks the knuckles of progressives so he can get their votes for his corporate sell out bill.
Obama and his people are the problem, not Joe Lieberman. They want to deal, not lead. They negotiate with everyone but the progressives because "the progressives are the responsible ones who will always compromise in the face of greater suffering, so give the Bacchuses, Nelsons, Liebermans, Snowes what they want and so what if the liberals squirm when they pull the lever. What counts is that they pull the lever".
And I don't think they are going to this time. Joe Lieberman is an excuse for the path Obama paved by making deals with the relevant industries and choosing to let their senators and congressmen lead the legislation. They arrested people who wanted single payer, they offered the progressive compromise of a public option as a starting point, they watched it die several times only to be resurrected by activism, they scrapped it, offering to replace it with a medicare buy in, then they let that get taken away.
That road, Obama, was a bridge too far.
Howard Dean has announced that this bill is over. The parts progressives and others can agree on, like the exchanges, can be crafted into its own bill. The stuff that's controversial, like the mandate and the public option, can get voted on during reconciliation, if Obama chooses.
But if Obama chooses to continue to shaft progressives, then they may choose not to pull the levers Obama needs. Why should they?
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 12:34 PM
Gee, a politician who looks after the interests of business constituencies back home. Stop the presses.
John, the usual left-wing munchkins and nasties are demanding the Susan G. Komen breast cancer foundation expel Hadassah Lieberman from its board for being married to a political deviationist from the party line. I keep hearing it is right-wingers who are politically intolerant, yet in the real world, the Left could give lessons on how to do it - in an upper-class, media-friendly way, of course.
#8 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 12:43 PM
Some of us are old enough to remember Joe the Attorney General back in the 1980s. When the insurance companies unleashed a wave of nakedly bogus claims about "out-of-control" litigation in the service of an immersive (and successful) push for "tort reform," Lieberman--who made his name supposedly as a consumer advocate--stood by silently. I don't think it hurt his fundraising when it came time to run against then Republican Sen. Lowell Weicker--from the right.
It is easy to be confused by Lieberman's seemingly shifting pronouncements on vital policy matters (he was FOR the Medicare buy-in before he was against it). But dolly back a bit and see: Lieberman's fealty to power is almost perfect.
If progressives put together a ground game beyond that deployed on Lamont's behalf, they could beat him. I would prefer it be done the old fashioned way, however, beginning with a deep and serious look at the good Senator's personal finances. Such an investigation sent Gov. Roland to Club Fed; I doubt Joe's any more pure.
Then too, there is almost certainly more to be learned and publicized about Lieberman's relationship to the millenialist "Christian" sects for which he has occasionally served as pitchman.
#9 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 01:18 PM
When the left has people arrested for political goals, like the Bush Administration had Don Siegleman, then call me Mark.
This is firedoglake, a fringe blog that is being further marginalized, and I believe injustly, as a result of their attempts to put any pressure at all on corporate dems. They're a blog, a grassroots, and they have limited power to do anything but send action letters and petitions.
It is the DLC dems which have marginalized the progressive Left, and would let the right run the show if they were less interested in slapping Obama down.
You should be real happy Obama is running things. He has really helped your side out while screwing the progressive left.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 01:30 PM
Siegelman's conviction was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in March. It had critisms of legal procedure, but found zero evidence that the ex-Gov. had been framed. Siegelman was a conservative Democrat who was convicted of financial shenanigans with a corporate chief of an HMO; an odd choice among Democrats for a vendetta. It's like O.J., who was one of the last African-Americans that white cops would frame, since he had such a friendly and apolitical public image. It doesn't scan. Probably Siegelman's lawyers knew that his only remaining strategy was to get push-button liberals, including producers at places like '60 Minutes', on the trail of Karl Rove and such. (They came through right on schedule, like Pavlov's dogs.) However, criticism of the trial procedures, as is often the case, did not mean that Siegelman didn't deserve jail time by Lewis Libby standards.
Lewis Libby? Sounds familiar. Oh yes - that's the guy who went to jail after a liberal witch hunt - the usual kabuki dance of a special prosecutor bringing in indictments to justify an otherwise meaningless job appointment. Fitzgerald was appointed to find out who 'leaked' the news that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA; the actual leaker was never prosecuted. The whole point was to tar Vice President Cheney, so Fitzgerald instead spent three years interrogating and jailing people until he could build a case against the aide closest to Cheney - based on conflicting memories, not documents - that perjury had been committed. Lame. When Kenneth Starr did that sort of bait-and-switch thing, liberals had no trouble complaining about out-of-control prosecutors.
As far as Obama helping the GOP make an electoral comeback, where's the news there? Every Democratic president since FDR has suffered a quick backlash at the polls after he and his zealous followers haveover-interpreted his victory at the polls as a mandate to make the U.S. more like Sweden or something. Clinton (1994), Carter (1978 & 1980), Johnson (1966 & 1968), Truman (1950 & 1952).
#11 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 02:57 PM
Sorry Mark, but I don't buy it. The Bush Administration had its justice department geared towards prosecuting democrats over republicans during a time when republican corruption was rampant.
Scott Horton, respected author and lawyer as well as friend and collegue of Mukasey, has done the valuable reporting on the Siegleman case which many people in the legal profession have looked over and found strange.
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004513
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002487
My point stands, What the blog is doing is trying to put what minuscule pressure it can on Lieberman since no one else, particularly Obama, is doing it.
And, as a result, the blog is being ostracized by the established "left" which is trying to get the hobbled, mandate without cost control, bill limping to the vote. The "left", in this case, is intolerant of liberals.
Meanwhile the right, during it's time in power, abused the justice department to attack political enemies.
pt2 in a bit
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 03:31 PM
And, as far as the Valerie Plame rumors went, that was political retaliation and it was not Armitage alone who leaked the information.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames/116511
--------------------------------------------------------
Wilson maintained that the administration had used a phoney claim to lead the country to war. His article ignited a firestorm. That meant that the State Department had good reason (political reason, that is) to distance itself from Wilson, a former State Department official. Armitage may well have referred to Wilson's wife and her CIA connection to make the point that State officials--already suspected by the White House of not being team players--had nothing to do with Wilson and his trip.
Whether he had purposefully mentioned this information to Novak or had slipped up, Armitage got the ball rolling--and abetted a White House campaign under way to undermine Wilson. At the time, top White House aides--including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby--were trying to do in Wilson. And they saw his wife's position at the CIA as a piece of ammunition. As John Dickerson wrote in Slate, senior White House aides that week were encouraging him to investigate who had sent Joe Wilson on his trip. They did not tell him they believed Wilson's wife had been involved. But they clearly were trying to push him toward that information.
Shortly after Novak spoke with Armitage, he told Rove that he had heard that Valerie Wilson had been behind her husband's trip to Niger, and Rove said that he knew that, too. So a leak from Armitage (a war skeptic not bent on revenge against Wilson) was confirmed by Rove (a Bush defender trying to take down Wilson). And days later--before the Novak column came out--Rove told Time magazine's Matt Cooper that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee and involved in his trip.
--------------------------------------------------------
Finally,
As far as Obama helping the GOP make an electoral comeback, where's the news there? Every Democratic president since FDR has suffered a quick backlash at the polls after he and his zealous followers haveover-interpreted his victory at the polls as a mandate to make the U.S. more like Sweden or something.
That's not what I said, and you know it. Obama has played the game like a conservative and, just like you guys did Clinton, you are still turning hi into a socialist in your minds.
Why do you think the left had a Nader movement in 2000? It wasn't because Clinton was doing to much for progressives, and when you consider the big sloppy kiss he gave to the financial industry by signing derivative deregulation and the repeal of Glass Steagal, you wouldn't think of those moves as part of his mandate to make the US more like Sweden, unless by that you mean the period of bankruptcy Sweden went through when its banking system collapsed.
America had an FDR moment to get financial regulation back, to get good health care legislation passed, and to get a stimulus that built for the future energy needs of the country while making necessary jobs now.
But Larry Summers hates infrastructure. The stimulus ended up as half tax cuts. Financial regulation was delayed and not keyed to financial bailouts. And health care has been a joke.
This isn't because Obama is following the path of Che Guevara. It's because Obama is following the path of the DLC, republican lite, political class.
He's more your people than ours. We believe in Sweden. It's a great place to learn about health care, financial regulation, and infrastructure. Obama isn't interested in any of that stuff. His team wants the same lobbyist money your team does. Your teams serve the same interests.
So yeah, it because Obama is following a conservative path to reform, that voter turnout going to be depressed. As I said elsewhe
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 03:58 PM
Thimbles wrote: We believe in Sweden. It's a great place to learn about health care, financial regulation, and infrastructure
padikiller gasps!: Dude! You finally got one right!..
Sweden's success is due to (among other factors):
1. Private ownership of industry (good old capitalism).
2. No minimum wage
3. Employers (as well as employees) are permitted to unionize in collective bargaining, creating a fair labor maket.
4. Privatized pensions (the government doesn't steal your money).
5. Protectionist trade, currency and banking policies - Sweden rejected the euro and it national bank keeps a tight lid on the economy
6. Government surplus-the government doesn't spend more than it takes.
7. Local governments adminster health care, not the national government-they regulate and tax at the local level.
8. Ongoing privitazation of state-owned enterprises like the phone company and the stock exchange (killing socialism makes for a better place to live).
We damned sure could learn a lot from Sweden.
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 08:03 PM
This article is disappointing and fails to meet CJR's standards for the press. The opening premise, that politicians 'look out for their constituents' is unproven and unanalyzed. Which constituents? On what basis? Compared to what other values? The writer might have looked into what polling data in Connecticut says about Senator Lieberman's constituents preferences. How can the writer be sure that Sen. Lieberman is 'looking out for his constituents." In a national policy issue is it appropriate for legislators to treat the issue as local. If Sen. Lieberman succeeds in changing or derailing HCR that affects the country. Shouldn't he be taking that into account? Even if he doesn't, shouldn't the writer?
The writer likes to affect a cynical attitide - 'raw politics' what did you expect, etc. but never mentions corruption, much less analyzes its potential role and its national implications - even while admitting that Lieberman is doing the bidding of insurance companies.
The writer assumes without evidence that LIeberman is also acting on behalf of hospital owners. There is no discussion of what may be in the best interest of the citizens of Connecticut or the country.
Why quote Lieberman's public statements and apparently take them at face value without mentioning his contradictory positions on the same issue? Why believe anything Lieberman says?
#15 Posted by Tecumsah, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 08:38 PM
But, Trudy, how do you explain the existence of Chris Dodd, who has, as you know, been a stalwart supporter reform in its most progressive form?
#16 Posted by Nancy Metcalf, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 11:32 PM
PadKiller Letterman's Top Ten Reasons Sweden is so Delicious
*This list comes from our friends at the Heritage Foundation, bequeathers of ever greater politizied wisdom for conservatives to quote blogs everywhere"
1. *drum roll* Chocholate.
2. Private ownership of industry (good old capitalism).
You didn't mention the 50% tax rate and robust welfare state which includes free university. Wonder why?
3. *drum roll* No minimum wage
You didn't mention the 50% tax rate and robust welfare state which includes free university. Wonder why?
4. *drum roll* Employers (as well as employees) are permitted to unionize in collective bargaining, creating a fair labor maket.
Don't forget, there's also the 50% tax rate and robust welfare state which includes free university.
5. *drum roll* Privatized pensions (the government doesn't steal your money).
And how is that working out lately? You put money in a government fund, the government is guaranteed to pay it out so long as it doesn't pass a bunch of stupid tax cuts and default on its debts.
You put money in a mutual fund and suddenly you're at the whim of the market and you can lose your whole pension.
"But isn't letting the market rip you off better than the government paying you off?"
6. *drum roll* Protectionist trade, currency and banking policies - Sweden rejected the euro and it national bank keeps a tight lid on the economy
What are you, some kind of Liberal hippie?
7. *drum roll* Government surplus-the government doesn't spend more than it takes.
What are you, some kind of Liberal hippie who doesn't believe in tax cuts and Laffer curves?
8. *drum roll* Local governments adminster health care, not the national government-they regulate and tax at the local level.
You are a Liberal hippie who believes in Canadian Swedish style health care! *falls over*
9. *drum roll* Ongoing privitazation of state-owned enterprises like the phone company and the stock exchange (killing socialism makes for a better place to live).
But keeping socialism in the health care system and keeping taxes high to pay for government programs makes up for it.
and
10. *drum roll* The Stockholm Solution
You mean America should have temporarily nationalized the failing financial institutions and swept out the crooks responsible for this economic mess and then re privatized the institutions after the fundemental problems had been resolved?
That's
common senseSOCIALISM.Yeah, you do have a lot to learn from Europe, pity you people choose to learn the hard way.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 17 Dec 2009 at 12:24 AM
Thimbles, you wrote an excellent post and many of your points are taken, if not regarded in my eyes as game-changers. Don't have time to respond further, don't agree with much of it, but it was closely-argued and substantive.
#18 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 17 Dec 2009 at 03:31 PM
Just a quick message. So Joe and Nelson and Landrieu and the rest are working with the republicans, against their president, on an issue which could sink the federal budget in a decade. They've thrown out much of the good of the bill and kept the mandate. They, and the republicans they work with, are sane because they are working for the insurance industry that pays them.
Who are the crazy ones that Obama's going to discipline? Who's fault is it going to be when this bill fails?
The Left:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30728.html
Yes, the Howard Dean you Rahm Emmanuel guys threw to the curb, after he helped you win in 2006 and 2008 and has no real involvement in policy since, it's his fault.
Howard Dean, not Joe Lieberman, should grow up.
Doesn't it make you shake your head?
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 17 Dec 2009 at 10:54 PM
Couple of links worth reading:
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2009/12/negotiation-101.html
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2009/12/this-is-what-im-talking-about-msnbc.html
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 17 Dec 2009 at 11:00 PM
The Swedish economy proves that capitalism works.
Private ownership of industry = good thing
Allowing employers to collectively bargain with employees = good thing
Keeping the national government out of the administration of health care = good thing
Not printing money or engaging in deficit spending ( like our Chosen One advocates and enables) = good thing
A government that is properly run according to capitalist principles can afford to front infrastructure, welfare and defense spending like Sweden has.
#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 18 Dec 2009 at 12:02 AM
Jesus Christ.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/16/the-left-blogosphere-melts-down/
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 18 Dec 2009 at 06:12 AM