You are not connected. Please login or register

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:59 pm

rosco 357


Veteran
my words: i have thought from day one, that the last paragraph in this article sums up what will happen, there were ppl in both house and senate, that would not vote yes unless a public option was in, but when it comes down to either a bill without it or no bill at all, the public option ppl will vote on a bill rather with out it than have no bill, i have always thought this, just wait and see..
* NOVEMBER 24, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: "I'm going to be stubborn on this."

Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a "public option," or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman says he won't vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.

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.
More

So any version of a public option will compel Mr. Lieberman to vote against bringing a bill to a final vote? "Correct," he says.

This is, of course, more than just one senator objecting to one part of health legislation. This is the former Democratic vice presidential nominee, now an independent, Joe Lieberman, still counted on to be the 60th vote Democrats will need to force a final vote on health legislation. In opposing a public option, he is opposing the element some Democratic liberals have come to consider the cornerstone of a health-care bill.

Maybe the Lieberman stance is posturing, or a maneuver to force a watering down of the public option into something he and like-minded Democratic conservatives can swallow. In any case, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tries to solve the Rubik's Cube that is health legislation, Mr. Lieberman just might represent the hardest piece to flip into place.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, shown at a hearing this month, says he opposes a public option because of the fiscal risk.

In spite of that, Mr. Lieberman insists he wants a bill. He voted with Democrats over the weekend on a procedural motion to let debate begin on a version that definitely includes a public option, albeit one states could choose not to join. "I want to get to the health-care debate, and I want to be part of creating, working on and passing health-care reform," he says. "I've been working on it for years, so that's my goal. But I'm not going to vote for anything and everything called health-care reform."

He says he wants the government to help uninsured Americans get coverage, as the bill envisions, and likes the provisions designed to bring down overall health costs. And he favors the consumer protections it would impose on private insurers, including one that bans insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing health conditions.

But none of that trumps his opposition to a public option, Mr. Lieberman says. And he insists his objection isn't based on the oft-expressed conservative fear that a public option would lead to a government takeover of health care. He says he doubts this or any subsequent Congress would allow that.

Rather, his objection is based on fiscal risk: "Once the government creates an insurance company or plan, the government or the taxpayers are liable for any deficit that government plan runs, really without limit," he says. "With our debt heading over $21 trillion within the next 10 years...we've got to start saying no to some things like this."

Mr. Lieberman also notes that the public option wasn't a big feature of past health-overhaul plans or the campaign debate of 2008. So he says he finds it odd that it now has become a central demand -- which it has, he suspects, because some Democrats wanted a full-bore, single-payer, government-run health plan, and were offered a public option as a consolation.
Journal Community

Critics, of course, think Mr. Lieberman is merely protecting insurers from his home state of Connecticut. He, of course, insists otherwise, arguing that regulation and litigation are the traditional and more appropriate ways to keep the private market honest. The real risk he sees, he insists, is government debt.

Yet he still thinks that, somehow, health legislation will get done, probably not by Christmas but early next year. "At the end of the day," he says, "I feel strongly health-care reform will pass the Senate and the Congress."

How? Mr. Lieberman says he has made his position absolutely clear to Mr. Reid. And Mr. Reid, all agree, is a wily tactician. So does he think Mr. Lieberman, and the two or three conservative Democrats who share his inclination, will give in at the end? Or is there some artful compromise that can be seen as including and not including a public option at the same time?

Here's another possibility: Maybe Mr. Reid plans to push as far as he can with a bill including a public option, to show his party he has done all humanly possible, before yanking the public option just before the whole effort goes off a cliff. We've proven that a bill is possible, he might say then, but also that a public option isn't.

2 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:37 am

gypsy


Moderator
Poor Joe,he flips flops so back an forth, he doesn't remember why he objects to a public option,just like he can't decide on being independent,repub or dem
he surely remember the dems getting medicare,going/an it is government run..

just a portion of an article here//////


October 27, 2009
Lieberman rejects public option, won't vote for cloture
Posted: October 27th, 2009 02:09 PM ET



WASHINGTON (CNN) - Sen. Joe Lieberman told reporters Tuesday that he will support Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on a procedural motion in order to start the health care debate - but opposes any kind of public option, including state opt-out and trigger provisions, and will ultimately not vote to approve any health care bill that includes any version of a public option.

The announcement means that even if Reid is able to get a measure introducing a public option that allows states to opt out onto the Senate floor for debate, Lieberman - who caucuses with the Democrats - won't provide a crucial vote needed to get it off the floor and up for a final vote.

"I am strongly inclined, and I have had this conversation with Sen. Reid several times, to vote for the motion to proceed to take up the bill. Why? Because I want to vote for health care reform legislation, so I'd like the debate to begin," said the Connecticut senator. "But I've also made clear to Sen. Reid that if the bill remains as it is now, I will vote against cloture, to finish the bill and pass it affirmatively."

Lieberman said the inclusion of an opt-out provision would not change his position.

"To me, the opt out doesn't change the basic facts. The last thing we want to do now is create another Washington-run health insurance company," he said. "There's enough good things that we're talking about - health care delivery reforms, insurance market reforms, extending coverage to people who don't have it now. I think we're just asking for trouble that the taxpayers don't need. I think the end result of it - I mean we are having enough time sustaining Medicare."

The Democrat-turned-independent said he could not support the creation of a public option because "it still creates a whole new government created entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."

"I can't see a way in which I can vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-and-run insurance company, it's just asking for trouble," he said. He also rejected the idea of a "trigger" option that would allow for the launch of a new public option if the insurance industry failed to meet certain coverage benchmarks. "I feel this way about a national government-run health insurance company whether it's a trigger or not," he said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/27/lieberman-rejects-public-option-wont-vote-for-cloture/

3 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:04 am

rosco 357


Veteran
well he is not alone there are other moderate dems that voted for the bill to go forward, but will not vote in the end for a public option bill, so he is not alone, there are like 3 or 4 or so moderates that have the same feelings he does; there will be a final bill but it will not have a public option, is my opinion, just wait, and see and as he said probably after christmas

4 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:33 am

gypsy


Moderator
Lie--berman what does he really stand for?? with is record// NOTHING

5 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:47 am

SSC


Admin
Lieberman knows as do many others the public option will sink any type of reform , avoiding trillions of dollars of new Obama debt is in the countries best interest. Why would anyone want the government to run our health care when they can't keep both feet going in the same direction now trying to run the country. The people are speaking loud and clear..Obama's approval rating is below 50% and falling. Debt, taxes and lies are his platform , even his foreign trips are far from successful and some down right embarrassing...
You are right Rosco waiting is all we can do, but letters to Senators voicing opposition at least lets them know we the people are against this whole mess.

6 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:53 pm

Guest


Guest
To me,it's a simple numbers game. If I'm right,there are 50 Senators who will vote yes no matter what (Democrats). There are 40 who will vote no,no matter what (Republicans). Of the 10 "swing" votes,I think 5 are saying the bill MUST HAVE a public option. Nonsense. They will vote yes when the chips are down. Count on it. That leaves 5 Senators to be cajoled, pressured, bribed, and/or threatened into voting yes. This activity has NOTHING to do with any "reasonable legislative process". A low point in Congressional history.

7 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:56 am

SSC


Admin
Maybe there is more Louisiana Purchase money..you know we are a greedy bunch..

8 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:22 am

rosco 357


Veteran
SSC wrote:Lieberman knows as do many others the public option will sink any type of reform , avoiding trillions of dollars of new Obama debt is in the countries best interest. Why would anyone want the government to run our health care when they can't keep both feet going in the same direction now trying to run the country. The people are speaking loud and clear..Obama's approval rating is below 50% and falling. Debt, taxes and lies are his platform , even his foreign trips are far from successful and some down right embarrassing...
You are right Rosco waiting is all we can do, but letters to Senators voicing opposition at least lets them know we the people are against this whole mess.

well my senators would be the last to vote for any of this, i have wrote my congressman on things i know he is against long ago, i just get a form letter back, i know how he will vote also, my congressman and senators are supper conservative, as i have said i guess,

9 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:45 pm

Guest


Guest
"well my senators would be the last to vote for any of this.." and the second to vote for SECESSION! (SC's Lindsay Graham would be the first) I have no more knowledge than you do but I am willing to go furthet than just "we will see". I don't think the Dems can make the numbers they need. The American people simply don't want a massive,expensive, government health program. That doesn't mean the libs won't pass one anyway. They could not care less less what the people want. Especially the libs since they are convinced,like Obama and Pelosi, they know what we need in their view and "so shall it be written". But I think the true liberal idealogues in the Dem party themselves will doom the bill. Long suffering and patient in their efforts to make us more like euro-land, they simply will NOT vote for any plan that doesn't include the so-called "public option" (socialized medicine) and they won't be bribed. Knowing this, the Congress will vote party line and that is that. However, I think Pelosi and such as these true believers will not hesitate to use the "nuclear option". Using this Senate rule that may allow them to pass the bill as if it were a simple appropriations act can be done with a simple majority, i.e, 51 votes. Unfortunately for them,that Senate rule limits the types of covered legislation to strictly funding language and most,if not all, any "compromises" would disappear. It would be a truncated,raw piece of legislation simply stating that the government WILL authorize Congress to require government mandated and funded healthcare, period. Here's where I may have only one leg actually on the chair while I screw in this lightbulb: There just might be 51 Senators stupid and/or crazy enough to do that. Now THAT would be FUN! (I fully expect to see Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman, hopefully drunk, tossing molotov cocktails at the White House shouting "NOT ON MY WATCH YOU MOFOS!!! There may even be talk of acts of secession. I certainly hope so, don't you? It's a win-win for an old troublemaker like me)

10 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:53 pm

Guest


Guest
SSC wrote:Maybe there is more Louisiana Purchase money..you know we are a greedy bunch..
Not greedy; needy. It is difficult to fault your Senator for acquiring funds that will directly finance healthcare for the poor in the form of Medicaid money. But as you alluded to,the well is probably dry. The public revulsion at this kind of chicanery (to which we both have referred to in the past on this board) is growing. It's not a matter of Obamacare supporters holding their dainty noses; it's a matter of keeping their lunch down.

11 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:54 am

gypsy


Moderator
My Definition // the Normal people, who are for the people//not repubs~
the republicans have never been for the little people/working people..
they concentrate on doing away with the middle class..
the repubs are for wealth ,oil mongrels, big companies,tax breaks for the wealthy
WE SAW THAT FOR EIGHT YEARS

12 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:58 am

gypsy


Moderator
one other thing// the repubs like!! WAR!!

13 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:52 pm

SSC


Admin
meemoon wrote:
SSC wrote:Maybe there is more Louisiana Purchase money..you know we are a greedy bunch..
Not greedy; needy. It is difficult to fault your Senator for acquiring funds that will directly finance healthcare for the poor in the form of Medicaid money. But as you alluded to,the well is probably dry. The public revulsion at this kind of chicanery (to which we both have referred to in the past on this board) is growing. It's not a matter of Obamacare supporters holding their dainty noses; it's a matter of keeping their lunch down.

Moon the 300 million is not earmarked for health care in Louisiana, it is going for recovery efforts post-Katrina in New Orleans , the total crooked truth is Louisiana had to have a declared disaster within the last 7 years to qualify, the sad part is there are at least a dozen other states that have also had declarations of disaster in the past 7 years but their senator wasn't a hold out vote , Landreau just put the price of her vote at a smooth 300million and pulled it off..
A combination of Louisiana politics and desperate Dems on capitol hill..

14 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:45 pm

Guest


Guest
SSC wrote:
meemoon wrote:
SSC wrote:Maybe there is more Louisiana Purchase money..you know we are a greedy bunch..
Not greedy; needy. It is difficult to fault your Senator for acquiring funds that will directly finance healthcare for the poor in the form of Medicaid money. But as you alluded to,the well is probably dry. The public revulsion at this kind of chicanery (to which we both have referred to in the past on this board) is growing. It's not a matter of Obamacare supporters holding their dainty noses; it's a matter of keeping their lunch down.

Moon the 300 million is not earmarked for health care in Louisiana, it is going for recovery efforts post-Katrina in New Orleans , the total crooked truth is Louisiana had to have a declared disaster within the last 7 years to qualify, the sad part is there are at least a dozen other states that have also had declarations of disaster in the past 7 years but their senator wasn't a hold out vote , Landreau just put the price of her vote at a smooth 300million and pulled it off..
A combination of Louisiana politics and desperate Dems on capitol hill..
I stand corrected. The Dems' actions in this remain disgraceful.

15 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:23 am

SSC


Admin
You are totally correct, the Dems are going to an all time low in their quest to fuck over the people on Medicare and Medicade, and just about anyone else in the country..Our resident Dem. is in for an earth shattering surprise , hopefully not a catastropic one but the way they are tacking on taxes and chopping of services no one may be getting health care in this life time...Anyone with health issues had better think long and hard on ways to protect themselves..

16 Re: Lieberman Digs In on Public Option on Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:55 am

Guest


Guest
SSC wrote:You are totally correct, the Dems are going to an all time low in their quest to fuck over the people on Medicare and Medicade, and just about anyone else in the country..Our resident Dem. is in for an earth shattering surprise , hopefully not a catastropic one but the way they are tacking on taxes and chopping of services no one may be getting health care in this life time...Anyone with health issues had better think long and hard on ways to protect themselves..
And another irony. It was Wilson, a Democrat who led us into WW I. Franklin,a Democrat, who led us,a year ahead of time with his "Lend Lease" plans, into WW II. Truman, a Democrat, who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and accomplished the largest single civilian death toll ever. Truman again, still a Democrat,who led us into the Korean war. Kennedy,a Democrat, who threatened Russia with nuclear war and inserted troops into Vietnam. Johnson,a Democrat, who escalated Vietnam into a major war and saw 55,000 troop deaths. And Clinton, a Democrat, who pushed the insertion of troops and Nato planes into Bosnia.(They are still there). Yet the Dems blame the Bush duo for our problems in the Mid East,call them "war mongers", and now use the shortage of funds (they caused) as an excuse to curtail commitments in Afghanistan. This kind of blatant and ugly hypocracy wouldn't even have been tried if they didn't know they had millions of incredibly stupid and ignorant Demo-fools out there who have NO idea of the truth or history. The kind of lying and bullshitting they are doing now takes millions of idiots and they obviously have plenty. Totally oblivious to reality, they wander around in a daze,spouting ridiculous nonsense about "healthcare" and "global warming". The real Democrats who were patriotic Americans are all dead and have been suceeded by mindless zombies.

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum