Sen. Joe Lieberman, the “Point Man”
Ezra Klein has written a blistering rebuke of Sen. Joe Lieberman for the enormous damage — possibly fatal damage — he has done to what was our best chance to get meaningful health care reform in 60 years:
Joe Lieberman’s reckless decision to blow up last week’s compromise has had exactly the impact many of us predicted. Much of the left has flipped into vicious, angry opposition to the bill. Is that because the Medicare buy-in, a good but limited policy, has disappeared from the bill? Ostensibly. But not really. …
[P]rogressives had compromised plenty already. Single payer became a strong public option, a strong public option became a weak public option, a weak public option became Medicare buy-in, and Medicare buy-in became Joe Lieberman’s revenge. Progressive ends are submitting to conservative means, and industry is laughing all the way to the bank. …
[...]
Worse, it all feels divorced from detectable policy principles. Medicare buy-in was a policy Lieberman supported. It was a compromise that had been communicated to him directly. It emerged from meetings that he was invited to attend. He didn’t bother to wait for the Congressional Budget Office’s report, or even to offer a coherent argument against the policy. He had the power, he knew it, and he used it. Now he’s giving happy, triumphant interviews to any camera and reporter he can find. My personal favorite was his comment to the New York Times. “My wife said to me, ‘Why do you always end up being the point person here?’ ” Did Lieberman say this somberly? Did he seem weighed down by the responsibility? No. He was “flashing a broad grin.”
[...]
And Lieberman, let’s remember, is not a lefty blogger. He isn’t a pundit or an op-ed columnist. He is the “point man,” and by choice. He bears a special responsibility. Atop the shoulders of another man, it would make for a heavy load. But not his. His recklessness has endangered the bill, and through it, many, many lives. He may not be ashamed. But he should be.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “Sen. Joe Lieberman, the “Point Man””
Here is a guy that pushes for and votes for sending Billions of our money every year to Israel to have government provided health care and education, but does not want us the Americans to have it. I guess we know where his heart and loyalty really belongs to!
Israel does not get billions of U.S. dollars for Israelis to have government-provided health care and education. They do get billions of U.S. dollars in military aid which they use to continue violating the rights of Palestinians under international law, but that aid is supported by the entire political establishment in Washington — opposing military aid to Israel is politically suicidal.
Having corrected you on this factual point, however, there is a much larger and serious problem with your comment. Bluntly said, it's anti-semitic. The idea that American Jews have “divided” loyalties between the U.S. and Israel is just the latest contemporary incarnation of the canard that has been used against Jews for centuries wherever they have lived. Questioning the patriotism and loyalty of Jews to the governments they live under because Jews are not “really” French or English or German or Russian or whatever is old sport for anti-semites.
As it happens, I am Jewish, and I find your smear to be very offensive. I yield to no one in my contempt for Joe Lieberman's cynical and self-serving political grandstanding, but that has nothing to do with his Jewishness or his position on Israel.
I just want it to be clear that I do not agree with or condone your suggestion that Joe Lieberman is more loyal to another country than to his own because he's Jewish. That is itself contemptible.
I just want it to be clear that I do not agree with or condone your suggestion that Joe Lieberman is more loyal to another country than to his own because he's Jewish. That is itself contemptible.
Well said.
This is not a health care bill this is the Joe Lieberman Bill. This bum sold Americans off to big insurance. They ought do a corruption investigation on him to find ANY little thing we can and throw the book at him.
LOL Kathy and Ezra still on the Anti-Lieberman crusade I see. The Democratic Progressives really don't like the moderate Lieberman.
Ezra is exactly right. Leiberman is a self-centered pain in the ass who enjoys attention more than just about anything else – including the good of the country. That said, this whole business is bigger than any one hypocritical small-minded senator, and so it's time to move on. That of course doesn't mean I won't eventually enjoy seeing the little wanker slapped down when his “usefulness” has worn off.
rather than going forward with a series of smaller bills that actually focus on putting things in place where there is enough agreement to pass.”
Thanks for saying this again. I felt like I was spitting into the wind every time I suggested that on this forum.
Why would you feel anything the liberal bloggers and posters here or elsewhere say is a rebuke to your ideas when the majority of this nation is throwing buckets of cold water on their philosophy in greater volume every passing day?
Liberals set themselves up for disappointment….instead of establishing momentum with a series of incremental victories, they go for a full rewrite of the Constitution and then get to spend the next year getting beaten back and have to salve their wounds by thinking their posts here (or their articles in the Washington Post) actually change the course of events. They are a sad lot.
I agree, but I also have a lot of anger towards the GOP, they also could do more incremental work. Instead they just piss and moan. Both parties are guilty, but the grandiose plans of the Dems exacerbate the problem much more.
Joe Lieberman is in it for the kick backs he is receiving from the insurance companies. He's accepted more money from them than any Senator in history. It's time for term limits and public funded elections to take the lobbyists out of Washington. I'm tired of see their votes go to the highest bidder.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, Daniel Clementine. Daniel Clementine said: Sen. Joe Lieberman, the “Point Man”: The Moderate Voice Here is a guy that pushes for and votes for sending Bil.. http://tinyurl.com/ycz596v [...]
Brian, Nate Silver of 538 says you are the biggest liar in the history of this website
“Is Lieberman's stance intended to placate the special interests in his state? Perhaps this is part of it — there are a lot of insurance companies in Connecticut — but Lieberman is generally not one of the more sold-out Senators, ranking 75th out of the 100-member chamber in the percentage of his fundraising that comes from corporate PACs.”
Thank you, DaGoat. I appreciate your saying that.
“Put in a bill that allows Americans to choose to buy insurance across State lines, it will pass.”
Today, states regulate health insurance. For example, if you want to sell health insurance in the individual market in New Jersey, you have to offer one or more standard plans, and you have to provide a rate shedule to the state, which publishes the rate information on its web site, allowing consumers to easily compare costs.
What you are suggesting, if I understand you correctly, is that Congress should pass a law in order to stop New Jersey from doing this. New Jersey's insurance regulations derive their force from the fact that it is currently illegal to sell insurance in New Jersey unless you comply with state regulations. If companies are allowed to sell insurance regardless of whether they follow the regulations, then the regulations become meaningless.
Perhaps there is a case to be made to get states out of the business of regulating health insurance and setting up a single federal regulator instead. But eliminating state regulation of health insurance companies without creating an alternative regulator is an idea that liberals will, and should, fight.
Hey, Congress can do it and they usually don't worry about implementation. The trend of some in the insurance business is for a national regulator. The state's generally have fought this as their insurance departments are a revenue source. So, just as Landrieu got 300 mil. and Nelson and others got more bucks for their state Medicaid programs, in a similar way, the states could be, ahem, convinced that a national insurance regulator would be in the best interest of the country (Battle Hymn of The Republic in the background).. This would take a little time and effort, but it would be worth it.
The “regulation” that most states do consists of little more than restricting competition and insurance mandates. Look up McCarran-Ferguson if you want to see the Insurance companies' and the AMA's “holy grail”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran-Ferguson_Act
http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html
NY State has always had one of the best insurance departments. It could be a model for a national regulator, and just pay off the other states.
Wow, the fringe's tantrums are actually still going on. Up to sixty years, now (and counting higher, no doubt)? And it will soon be a century or more before we can ever have the chance at “reform” again?
[snicker]
Oh, what overreach by the lefty Dems has wrought.
[Incrementalism]
“I felt like I was spitting into the wind every time I suggested that on this forum.”
It was just having your and my and others' rehashing of obvious truths bounce off closed, agitated minds.
It won't be long before the demented post-mortems for “reform” and for any Dem losses late next year will outdo hack Krugman's possible claims that the “lesson” is that the lib Dems didn't reach and try to go far enough, fast enough(!).
Joe Lieberman should be punished for his obstructionism. And there is a way to do it, along with other irresponsible politicians, like Ben Nelson. Starting in 2010 vote out every incumbent in the Congress (those who have “served” 4 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate). It wouldn't impact Lieberman until 2012. But it would make it clear to the politicians that We The People are in control. They don't listen now, and they won't listen in the future, unless we act now. We need the People's Term Limits: http://termlim.com