Joe Lieberman and the Opt-Out Revolution
posted by: Cynthia Samuels 35 days ago
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium
Progressives rejoiced when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced this week that the final Senate health care bill would include a public option. The announcement was a major victory for left-wing Democrats.
Better yet, it would be a public option without a trigger. Earlier proposals called for a triggered public option which would only take effect if private insurers failed to bring down costs on their own. Under the opt-out compromise, the public option would come on line automatically (albeit not until 2013), but states would later have the option of quitting.
The jubilation was short-lived. Alex Koppelman of Salon explains:
Progressives didn’t even get 24 hours to celebrate the victory they won in getting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to include a version of the public option in his health care reform bill. The celebration was cut off Tuesday afternoon with the news that Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., will vote with Senate Republicans to filibuster the legislation.
The Democrats have 60 Senate votes. If they all vote for cloture, a procedural motion to stop debate, the Republicans can’t filibuster the bill. The Senators who vote for cloture can still vote against the bill. Reid’s strategy for passing the bill was to get all Democrats to vote for cloture and let them vote their conscience on the actual bill. Even without Lieberman, Democrats have the votes to pass the bill by majority vote if they can avoid a filibuster.
Health care is the most important domestic policy initiative of the Obama administration. Would Joe Lieberman really torpedo reform? The Senate leadership thinks Reid is bluffing, according to Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly.
I understand the argument. Lieberman loves attention and power. By threatening to join the Republican filibuster, he gets both—Democrats have to scramble to make him happy, since there’s no margin for error in putting together 60 votes. Lieberman gets to feel very important for the next several weeks by making this threat less than 24 hours after Harry Reid stated his intentions, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he wants to be known forever as The Senator Who Killed Health Care Reform.
I find it very easy to believe, however, that Lieberman is capable of doing just that. He left himself some wiggle room, but not when it comes to the public option—he’s against it, no matter what, even with all of the compromises thrown in.
In other words, if this is all a ploy for leverage, why would Lieberman open by swearing that he won’t support a bill with a public option? You’d think he’d just say he was keeping his options open and force Reid to make him a counter-offer. Reid has already decided that the public option is politically non-negotiable. He’s afraid that the base won’t come out for the 2012 elections if they don’t get what they want. Benen speculates that Lieberman wants to be the Senator Who Killed Health Care because he wants to drum up massive Republican support for his 2012 reelection bid. On this theory, Lieberman is joining Rep. Joe “You Lie!” Wilson (R-SC) and Balloon Dad in the quest to make bank on ridiculous publicity stunts.
Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) says that she will side with the Republicans to filibuster the bill “if she has to,” as Evan McMorris-Santoro reports for TPM. Snowe was the only Republican to vote for the Finance Committee’s health care bill.
Reid must walk a fine line. The administration really can’t afford to alienate organized labor before the 2012 elections. Newly elected AFL-CIO President Ricahrd Trumka continues to push for his three core demands for health care reform: a public option, a mechanism to make employers pay their fair share, and no taxes on health care benefits. Last week, AFSCME President Gerald McEntee said that his union would oppose legislation that taxed benefits, but Trumka hasn’t gone that far, as David Moberg reports at Working In These Times.
Finally, in other health-related news, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the division of the Labor Department that oversees workplace safety, has issued a sweeping new report condemning Nevada’s state-level OSHA program. As I report for Working in These Times, the investigators found that NOSHA inspectors were being pressured by their superiors to write up employers on lesser charges, even when their repeat offenses killed workers.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by membersof The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Read more: filibuster, lieberman, harry reid, joe lieberman, health policy, public option, senator lieberman
comments
I actually voted for this guy once. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Never again.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
What a slug.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Sorry John H, didn't notice your comment until now. Insurance is currently regulated at the State level. I don't see any reason that it should be federalized. As to people flocking to blue states, maybe, but not if the jobs are in the red states. How many have flocked to Massachusetts since they implemented a government sponsored insurance plan? On a totally off-topic side note, I like Massachusetts. But if I move there, it will not be related to the state's health care plan.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
C'mon Paul,
Let the states handle health care??
All of those who don't have health care, who live in Red states would be flocking to Blue States, because the Repigs would still be allowing the Insurance Companies to screw all of their residents, and most of their citizens would be too stupid to change their voting habits !
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
John H., I wear my waders for the heavy quantity of fertilizer produced by both parties. No offense taken, and I hope you won't take any from my observation that, if you are a dedicated member of either the Republican or Democrat parties then it is highly probable that you buy more fertilizer than I do!
Not a big Limbaugh listener, agree with his economic philosophy overall, but his vehement anti-choice position is at odds with his limited gov't beliefs. To believe that the Gov't should control the inside of citizens is the ultimate in Gov't control, in my opinion. On the other hand, the Democrats only believe in limited gov't when it comes to abortion. If either party would be consistent on limiting the role of the Federal Gov't, then I might join a party.
My issue with the health care bills is not driven by Limbaugh or the Republican party, but on my thoughts on the outcome of the legislation. I don't think costs will be lower or that it will improve health care. It sounds good, but the implementation is flawed. I already mentioned the unfunded liabilities of Medicare. At some point, we will have to pay for all of these Federal services. I'd rather see these issues addressed at local or state levels where the money is closer to those that pay the bills.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I like Lieberman. He would make a fine Republican
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Paul,
You are too easily BS'd by the greatest liars in the Universe---Limbaugh & his gang of Repugs & Ditto-heads.
The only thing the Repugs were interested in for health care reform was to cut taxes for the wealthy a few more $ Trillion, allowing crossing state lines to buy health insurance, known as "The race to the bottom", and taking away the means for Americans to hold Quacks accountable for disgusting medical screw-ups. All of TORT amounts to a total of about 1% of health care cost. Republicans do not want anything good for working people. They are, always were & will be the party of the rich & for the rich. They want a two class country---The wealthy & those people they own! So you can continue to be happy paying $17,000 for health care---I'll fight to get fair treatment for working class people through the only means available----The Democratic Party!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
The associated press reported today that the Pelosi House bill will cover approximately 2% of citizens by 2019 with the first enrollments under the new plan beginning in 2013. The premiums are anticipated to be much higher than private plans due to the high percentage of people choosing the Gov't option having health issues. This, and additional information in the article, is from the Congressional Budget Office as reported by the AP.
As an independent, comments regarding the Democratic Party bending over backwards to work with the Republican Party are as amusing as when Republicans claimed something similar except that there is less of a case to be made for the new President and this congress. It's easy to say, but are there any examples of the current congress or President Obama reaching out to include Republicans in a bipartisan way? Did Reid and Pelosi really attempt to include the minority party in any meaningful discussion or were they in fact excluded from Day 1 as the new administration assumed a filibuster proof majority that never actually materialized. Lieberman, given how his party handled him after his loss of 2000 on the Gore ticket, should never have been assumed to be a party loyalist. Particularly not after his own party ran a different candidate to unseat him. Arlen Specter, if memory serves, is also one of the 60. A better strategy would have been to include members of both parties in the planning of legislation at the front end.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Everyone spread the word
Google Bootstraps Fisher Ron Paul 2012
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Everyone spread the word
Google Bootstraps Fisher Ron Paul 2012
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1288637