Each year, ten's of thousands of people suffer and/or die in the United States prematurely, due to their lack of access to health care. The House of Representatives recently passed a reform bill that (1) disallows insurers from screening applicants for preexisting conditions, or charging higher rates for health insurance to select high risk groups;(2) prevents insurers from dumping insureds once they become ill; (3)mandates that everyone purchase health insurance and provides tax payer funded subsidies to poor people for this purpose - a real "win win win" for poor people who get health care, insurance companies who get millions of new customers, and the public at large who get healthier more productive fellow citizens; and (4) creates a public insurance option that will not be tax payer subsidized - except for the subsidies for the poor, which can go to all of the health plans.
The Senate is debating health care reform right now. Joe Lieberman insists that there be no public insurance option. He threatened to join a Republican led filibuster - senators must continue to debate a bill unless 60 of them agree to end debate and vote on the bill - if a public option is in the final senate legislation.
Okay, Joe's a senator from Connecticut, the insurance capital of the world. And he's bitter at the Democrats for a variety of reasons - despite the fact that they let him keep the chairmanship of the Committee on Homeland Security - despite his campaigning for John McCain in the general election. But threatening to join an opposition led filibuster on your caucus' signature domestic issue? That's too much.
Hold the phone - some crafty senator or staffer comes up with a compromise alternative - expand the eligibility to buy into medicare to age 55. No new government run insurance program - which was Lieberman's big problem with the House's bill. Not only that, it is an idea that Lieberman himself endorsed just three months ago. Wait . . . turns out he's endorsed the idea for years!
I guess that solves the problem.
Eh . . . no, not really. Lieberman has says he will filibuster that compromise as well. He is joining the opposition to fight a proposal he's championed for years!
What kind person holds up major legislation that will save thousands of lives out of narcissistic spite? It has, after all, been definitively established that Lieberman is not holding things up out of principle - the compromise is the one he has championed in the past. That means he's either acting out of greed, or spite, or the need to draw attention to himself.
Throw his ass out of the caucus. He's evil and we don't need him.
Joe H.
Update: Ta-nehisi Coates put the point perfectly. Liberman is has utterly dishonored himself.
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
2 comments:
It's all politics. The same hyper liberals that back Pelosi and Reid (Moveon.org, etc.) tried to get rid of him by backing another candidate in the Democratic primary for his seat, that's why he is now an Independent. The caucus only let him keep his Chairmanship because they wouldn't have a filibuster proof majority without him. It's alot like Survivor where fragile alliances are formed in order to advance certain agendas, agendas that are usually in the best interest of a congressman's constituency. Why do you think a Conservative like me would vote for someone like Inouye or Abercrombie, because I actually like their political stances, or because I know that they will continue to use their seniority to funnel money to support Hawaii's economy by funding the huge Military presence there (something that is probably not in line with the Dailykos's, Moveon's, and Code Pink's).
Our political system will never be pure, but we could help to maintain some of the freshness by imposing term limits on Congressmen. This will help to prevent entrenchments of power, and will force people to rethink the candidates that they vote for, both because there will be new names on the ballots, and because there will be no need to maintain the seniority upperhand over other states.
"It's all politics" is a cynical answer Justin. I thought you were purer than that.
I'm not criticizing politics - I'm criticizing Lieberman. Today he said he changed his support for the medicare buy in proposal, which he has long advocated, because of "Liberal enthusiasm" for the proposal. His feelings are hurt so he isusing his Senate seat for revenge, all the while ignoring the will of the people of Conneticut who elected him.
He also seems indifferent to the thousands of people who will suffer and die needlessly if his ploy causes the reform effort to fail.
That seems evil to me. And since we don't truly have a 60 vote majority, I day throw him out.
Term limits? I don't know. There is something to be said for institutional expertise.
Best wishes.
Joe
Post a Comment