Lieberman Signals Opposition to the Public Option

by: David Sirota

Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 11:25


A reader sent me a copy of an email response he just received from Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) office reiterating Lieberman's previous opposition to the public option:

A broad coalition is needed when addressing an issue as large, and as important for our nation's citizens, as health care reform.  While, in general, I would prefer not to see a public plan option because of cost concerns and the possibility that it could potentially prevent the formation of the coalition that will be necessary to pass reform, I am very open to all options that have been laid on the table.

So while Lieberman isn't saying he will vote against a public option, he is saying he basically opposes it.

David Sirota :: Lieberman Signals Opposition to the Public Option

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Lieberman Signals Opposition to the Public Option | 25 comments
it's pretty wishy-washy opposition (4.00 / 2)
Almost like he expects it to pass.  


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
He's a pretty wishy-washy kinda guy (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
But this doesn't sound like a "no" on cloture... (0.00 / 0)
..and that's what counts now! I'm sure it would be futile to try to convinve Joementum that he should join the momentum of the progressives. But at least this doesn't read as if he builds up a case for a filibuster, and so that's acceptable for the Dems.

The missing four votes can be found elsewhere, I guess.

The Senator from the Insurance Industry (4.00 / 2)
Before Lieberman was reviled for his stance on Iraq, his stance on McCain, etc. he was reviled for his ties to the insurance industry.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
Ok, but there's no need to hammer him with this now. (0.00 / 0)
A "no" on cloture will be good enough. Don't provoke his inherent stubbornness by starting a catfight now! Just leave him alone.
[ Parent ]
Lieberman wants Dodd defeated (0.00 / 0)
Seriously, this is the talk of the political media. He gets more power as Senior Senator, and powers his 2012 reelection campaign (Liberal Dems can't win in Connecticut anymore! We need moderates like me!)

He's been fighting to kill health care reform (4.00 / 2)
he represents the insurance industry (4.00 / 1)
hartford is the insurance capital of the country, no?
but even so, i don't expect anything less from lieberman than a partial to total sellout followed by a politically expedient vote.
Hmm. You mean, he could play nice now, but... (0.00 / 0)
...still snipe the Dem bill with his cloture vote? I try to see the best in every person, but, ok, you never can be sure with that mean ole Joeker...

Somehow, this would be so Lieberman. Sure will be best not to rely on 60 votes against the filibuster if this joe-called "liberal" is one of them!

[ Parent ]
no, i think he will make a political calculation in his own best interests (0.00 / 0)
so basically, i don't really mean anything :)  I guess, i hope they don't put themselves in the position of having to depend on him to be the 60th vote, but maybe he'll go along with it with enough carrots (and hopefully some sticks).  His rhetoric in the quote above is far less abrasive than what I'm used to, which, again, probably says more about the public mood and his reading of politics than it does about his opinions (yes, this is true for all politicians, but i have find him particularly egregious).
[ Parent ]
I don't care (4.00 / 1)
if he takes a dump on the bill in the open senate, I find it hard to see how that statement sets up a vote against cloture.  
Good idea: "VOLUNTARY public option" (0.00 / 0)
There was a Daily Kos post somewhere this morning discussing the idea of leaving it to states to decide between coops and public option.

Leaving that aside, I want to concentrate on what was used as the name:  the VOLUNTARY public option.

I may be wrong but I thought that was the verbiage used early in the primaries when introduced by John Edwards (or at least that's where I heard it).

Why don't we start emphasizing this -- it's a VOLUNTARY public insurance option.

VOLUNTARY.

Voluntary.

VO-LUN-TAREEEE.

Maybe this would help.

Haven't the states already screwed up healthcare enough? (0.00 / 0)
I mean, are you willing to let the folks in the red states sitting in the cold? Because if you give those rethugs some leeway, they'll sure exploit it to prevent co-ops from working at all. Don't forget the Iowa example brought up in QuickHits! They had the co-op option, but it was so weak, and the opposition from the insurance business so strong, that the endeavor died after two years. I mean, really, you wanna risk that?

Not to speak of, such a compromises seems to have become totally unnecessary now. Progressive regained the momentum! Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes!!!

[ Parent ]
Did you even read what I wrote? (0.00 / 0)
I specifically referred to the subject of the Daily Kos post BUT THEN MADE A DIFFERENT POINT.

I went on to talk about THE WORD "VOLUNTARY".

Can you please at least read the comment you respond to?

[ Parent ]
Sry, but I didn't see "leaving that aside" as disapproval (0.00 / 0)
So, I understood this is as meaning you support this, but didn't want to focus on this in your comment. Maybe my mistake, but imho this was a bit misleading.
[ Parent ]
But the public option is voluntary. (4.00 / 1)
No one outside of the teabaggers ever said otherwise. I guess I'm just not sure who this talking point is supposed to be aimed at.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
states already have a voluntary public option (0.00 / 0)
this would just make it a collection states together (like powerball lottery) rather than individual states.  i wonder if they could even do a voluntary public option on a regional basis already anyway.

i guess this would provide the money and impetus and show that it can work, and is a tried and true strategy, but i'd rather they experimented with single payer healthcare at the state level than with just a public option.

[ Parent ]
God, damnit! Read the god-damned comment! (0.00 / 0)
I simply referenced the original post.  I DID NOT PROMOTE THE STATE BASED OPTION -- JUST THE WORD "VOLUNTARY".

Jesus fucking christ.

[ Parent ]
um, overreaction? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
he sounds soft enough that he'd at least vote for cloture (4.00 / 1)
And honestly, Lieberman has set the bar so low that I'd probably thank him for that if he did.
Fucking Lieberman (0.00 / 0)
That's all I have to say, actually.
Never ever! (4.00 / 1)
This would be my worst nightmare: To wake up in the morning, and first thing I see beside me is that Jo'!
:D
[ Parent ]
I'm So Glad He's With Us On Everything But The War (4.00 / 1)
It's most unfortunate that everything is the war.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
Dumbass (4.00 / 3)
I would prefer not to see a public plan option because of cost concerns

The public option is a cost control measure. Idiot. Even if you don't accept that the public plan will put downward pressure on insurance prices, it's intended to be self-sustaining (at least, in the forms currently being discussed). Removing it would not reduce the long-run cost of the plan.

Gee it's almost like he doesn't actually care about the actual policy and is just interested in the politics.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

I was ready to make the exact same point (0.00 / 0)
cost controls? what the in the world is this freakin' idiot talking about?
[ Parent ]
Lieberman Signals Opposition to the Public Option | 25 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox