The Hill reported November 1 that Senator Joe Lieberman, Independent from Connecticut, is poised to help kill Democrat proposals for healthcare reform. Appearing on Face the Nation on CBS, Lieberman said, "Nothing' is better than getting that. We ought to follow the doctors' oath and say, 'First, let's do no harm.'"
Echoing some polls I've seen about the issues Americans are most concerned about, Lieberman said the economy and job creation are more important right now than healthcare. He also said that a government-run insurance plan would cause harm to the economy as premiums rose, taxes were increased, or the national debt was increased.
The Hill says, "Supporters lashed out at Lieberman's announcement last week, saying he was catering to the insurance companies headquartered in his state. One liberal Democrat, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), tied it to the campaign contributions Lieberman has received from the industry. Lieberman has gotten $2.6 million from the health sector during his time in the Senate, according to Opensecrets.com, ranking him 15th highest in Congress."
Kind of sounds like Baucus, doesn't it?
Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/65765-lieberman-doing-nothing-on-healthcare-better-than-public-option
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 35
I think he is, because this is the default position for Congress, to regulate.
This process was a series of concessions to stakeholders, which only works for issues with communication, and transportation.
The fact remains that big insurance by refusing care to patients and reimbursement to doctors over typos has ticked everyone off. They have a monopoly over the whole process and a well financed lobby team (including Liebermans wife) and representatives on both sides of the isle.
A friend of mine recently laid off just he and his spouse is paying $2,500.00 dollars a month for his COBRA. Health insurance costs more than his mortgage. Anyone taking up the insurance industry's cause doesn't know what they are talking about.
If you think the insurance companies are going to voluntarily lower their cost while having a monopoly over the process – you are being disingenuous …Over 60% of all US bankruptcies are attributable to medical problems. Most victims are middle class, well educated and have health insurance - (The American Journal of Medicine)
The insurance companies and their representatives in Congress would love to perpetuate a business model that is crippling our overall economy – a bunch of great Americans aren’t they?
90% of the wealth concentrated in 1% of the population is no way to run a country but a heck of a way to establish a royalty ruling class. Yacht sales can not sustain 350 million people. I'm for the public option, competition and a level playing field or break up the big insurers like we did AT&T.
Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home
Insurance is not required to have health care. When friends of mine have complained about the high price of COBRA, I have asked them if they could afford half as much. When they said yes, I told them to open a savings account and put the money in there specifically for medical needs and nothing else. As long as your family is healthy you can do that until the next job and insurance comes along. Or...you can often find insurance on your own even cheaper than the COBRA if you choose to look.
Paul, we also cannot afford to let 40 million working people pay no income taxes at all.
Exactly. They all suck; both parties. I think it's in the job description: "Must be able to switch positions to suit personal political needs."
What about the CBO reporting that both the House and Senate bills increase costs. Isn't the purpose to reduce costs?
No you really don't. One main example is that you keep saying this is a government takeover, that couldn't be further from the truth. To say this is a government takeover would mean that the government would take over the doctors, hospitals, medicine, etc. These bills trying to fix the current for-profit system that we have, which is a lost cause.
They don't cover everyone and they increase costs.
The only effective system that would do both is single payer. Unfortunately that was never given a shot.
Like I told Marilyn, single payer.
Again you have no clue what you're talking about. Every country with a high ranking healthcare system has some type of national healthcare program for all it's citizens. Those countries' polls show that the vast majority are satisfied with the system. Hell, we have a single payer system for senior citizens called Medicare that is very popular. One person at a townhall meeting actually had a sign that read "Keep your government hands off my Medicare". It's not a perfect system, but it's more effective at keeping cost down,covering everyone, and giving quality care.
"Hell, we have a single payer system for senior citizens called Medicare that is very popular."
Yes, we do. It also loses billions of dollars a year to waste and fraud and currently has nearly $40 trillion in unfunded commitments. Of course it's popular. The people using it aren't the ones paying for it. It's a known fact that if you give something away (in this case using other Americans' tax dollars), people will take advantage of it. That doesn't mean it's good for the nation.
Single payer is not a government takeover of healthcare, every time you say that it's factually incorrect. The doctors run their practices, and the hospital and drugs are still private. The government just runs the insurance side.
Yes, we do. It also loses billions of dollars a year to waste and fraud and currently has nearly $40 trillion in unfunded commitments.
As I said before, it's not a perfect system and it does have funding problems. I think we should concentrate on fixing those problem and expanding medicare to all citizens.
Of course it's popular. The people using it aren't the ones paying for it. It's a known fact that if you give something away (in this case using other Americans' tax dollars), people will take advantage of it. That doesn't mean it's good for the nation.
I really wanted to stick to healthcare, but you really seem bitter that we have a program that makes sure our senior citizens get healthcare. I personally don't mind taking a little out of my check in taxes to care for senior citizens or the poor. I think the Libertarian Party will always remain small because you guys don't seem to care about people. Everyone in this country is for freedom and liberty, but I refuse not care about people. I refuse to not care about a system that allows people to die because of lack of healthcare, or allow people to go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills, or punishes people for getting sick. If the government (which represents the people) has to step in and make fix this system than so be it.
Please don't take this comment to mean that I think I'm better than you, this is just my opinion.
I can't believe you can say that with a straight face (or maybe you're not). The doctors in effect become employees of the government because what they are paid is controlled by the government. Drug prices are going to be "negotiated" by the government. Government doesn't negotiate, it mandates. That's why all the language in the bill is words like "require," "mandate," etc. If the government is mandating who is paid what, and what will be paid for products produced (in this case the drugs), the company is not private. Hospitals will rely on the government run insurance for payment for the services they provide, and the drugs they administer. That takes away the private part of their business. He who controls the money controls all.
"As I said before, it's not a perfect system and it does have funding problems. I think we should concentrate on fixing those problem and expanding medicare to all citizens."
Funding problems is a bit of an understatement, don't you think? Nearly $40 TRILLION in unfunded commitments. How do you fix that? You have to reduce costs. How do you reduce costs? You have to cut services or payments or both because there's only so much you can get from taxes on the rich (the definition of which, by the way, keeps dropping as an annual salary). And have you noticed that none of the proposed bills address the problems with Medicare? I wonder why that is?
"I really wanted to stick to healthcare, but you really seem bitter that we have a program that makes sure our senior citizens get healthcare."
Not at all. I'm all for helping out our senior citizens. But not through an inefficient system that is poorly administered and wastes billions of tax dollars each year, and which commits itself to funding requirements that it cannot meet. That's the issue.
"I personally don't mind taking a little out of my check in taxes to care for senior citizens or the poor."
Good for you. Neither do I. But that's an individual choice and not one that should be mandated by government.
"...you guys don't seem to care about people."
Exactly the opposite is true. We care about people being able to make their own choices with regard to their health, their lifestyles and their money. Personal freedom and responsibility are critical to Libertarianism.
Perhaps. But the citizens of those countries have lost personal freedom as a result, and that is the point I have been driving home. To me, the personal liberty is of paramount importance.
"...why are you on the side of private insurance companies?"
I'm not, per say. I'm on the side of less government intrusion in the everyday lives of Americans. That applies to all industries, not just the insurance industry. I oppose "sugar taxes," like recently imposed in New York. Government should tell me that sugar is bad for me (like they do in the required labeling) and then let me decide whether to ingest it or not -- I don't want government telling me what I can and cannot eat / drink.
The same applies to the tobacco industry--educate me, then let me decide. And the auto industry--advise me about seatbelt use and airbags, and then let me decide if I want those options in my car. Radio--I have the freedom to change the channel or turn the damned thing off if I don't like what I'm hearing--I don't need government to require "balanced" time.
Get my point? It's about government control of individual lives. A careful reading of the constitution and the accompanying documents penned by the "founding fathers" clearly shows that the intent was for a limited federal government with most powers reserved to the states. If Americans want to change that and make a more powerful and more intrusive federal government, then I will support that if it is done within the mechanisms provided in the constitution. But that's not what we do. Healthcare should be a state issue (just like auto insurance is) unless we want to amend the constitution to grant the federal government the power to control it.
I'm trying to have a discussion about this healthcare system and all you can seem to talk about is liberty and the Constitution. Where were you when Bush passed Patriot Act and doing warrentless wiretaps. Where were the tea parties when Bush was spending and the government was growing? Where were you when Bush was subverting the Constitution.
"Where were you when Bush passed Patriot Act and doing warrentless wiretaps."
I believe both to be necessary in a time of war. Apparently President Obama feels the same way as he has continued both.
As ACW said, other countries where they have single payer have lost their freedoms. Not only that, but in England and Canada, more and more people are buying insurance because what they get from the government limits their care and their choices and often makes them wait for months.
Those same countries, and many others with nationalized medicine, are looking at how to introduce more free market care back into their systems. What they have is not sustainable, even though their taxes are higher.
With us having 40 million people who don't pay taxes, and from all of the reports we've seen, we know we cannot afford what is being proposed before it ever happens. How nuts is that??
Which one of us will go out of business?
"...the nonprofit will only be taking people who can't get regular insurance...."
If that's the case, the competition argument goes out the window. If the customer base can't get regular insurance anyway, then the public option is not competing with regular insurance but instead providing insurance for those without. If that base can't get regular insurance, where's the choice? They have none--except the public option. No matter how you slice it, it's not competition.