http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 92_pf.html
Medicare cuts could hurt hospitals, expert warns
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post staff writer
Saturday, December 12, 2009
A Senate plan to cut Medicare to pay for an overhaul of the health system would threaten the profitability of roughly one in five hospitals and nursing homes over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the government official responsible for monitoring the popular health program.
In a report Friday, Rick Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, questioned the sustainability of many of the proposed cuts, the major source of funding in a plan to extend insurance to more than 30 million additional Americans.
The proposal to reduce payments to hospitals and other providers, to force them to adopt more efficient practices, could prove particularly problematic for institutions that serve large numbers of Medicare patients, Foster wrote. He warned that many institutions might drop Medicare, "possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries."
Moreover, he wrote, simulations by his office suggest that 20 percent of institutional medical providers would become unprofitable within a decade.
The report echoes concerns Foster raised last month about similar cuts in the House bill, but it offers a more specific warning about the potential magnitude of disruption in the health sector.
The White House disputed the claim that providers would become unprofitable and that savings would not be sustained. "History shows otherwise," spokesman Reid Cherlin said. "Congress has implemented even larger savings in Medicare in the past, and no access problems materialized."
Democrats say doctors and hospitals rarely pull out of the Medicare program, and providers have agreed to the cuts in exchange for the chance to serve millions of new customers with insurance.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the Senate bill's chief architect, focused on other aspects of the report Friday, hailing Foster's conclusion that the Medicare savings, if realized, would extend the financial life of the program by nearly a decade and would reduce premiums and cost-sharing for beneficiaries by an annual average of nearly $700 per couple.
Republicans played up Foster's conclusion that overall health spending in the nation would increase slightly under the bill.
"This chief actuary is the person the administration depends on to give it straightforward, unbiased analysis of the impact the legislation would have," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "This is the official referee talking."
Democrats agree to drop government run insurance option
Moderator: Super Moderators
racehorse wrote: Any legislation of this importance and magnitude that is completely without any GOP support and has considerable opposition from within the Democratic party itself is unprecedented and would appear to be severely flawed despite any other factors. Perhaps, the bill that is eventually brought forth for a final vote will be different and can achieve an acceptable level of genuine bi-partisan support as has always occurred in the past involving truly historic, consequential, and changing major public policy decisions but this is not how it looks now.
Race, I was only commenting on the article. My assessment of the current difficulties of bi-partisan efforts remains, however. This level of partisan obstructionism of legislation in general, not just regarding this bill, is also historical. I am not imagining this. It exists, unfortunately.
Anchors Aweigh!http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?d ... 0003266204
Dec. 13, 2009 – 2:29 p.m.
Senators Back Away From Health Compromise
By Keith Koffler, CQ-Roll Call
Two key members of the group of 10 moderates and liberals who negotiated a “compromise” health care bill that jettisoned the public insurance option in favor of a new Medicare buy-in plan appeared Sunday to be walking away from the proposal.
Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), must-have votes for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that they have problems with the Medicare buy-in, which would allow people as young as 55 to participate in the program.
Lieberman said he would have “trouble” voting for the provision and suggested that it cannot get 60 votes. “Opposition to it has been growing as the week went on,” he said.
Nelson, who already said he will not vote for the overall health care bill because of abortion language within it, said the Medicare buy-in could lead to “a single-payer plan” that he opposes “even more directly than the public option.”
Nelson said he agreed to the “deal” not because he necessarily supported the language, but in order to keep the legislative ball rolling. “I withheld my decision on that until we see the numbers and see how it all works,” he said. “I want to be a friend of the process.”
Lieberman stated that the agreement was in fact never a “deal,” but instead something “interesting enough to send to the Congressional Budget Office.”He called on Democratic leaders to remove the buy-in provision and add more cost-cutting measures. “There’s a good basic bill here” but “we’ve got to stop adding to the bill,” Lieberman said. “I think the only way to get this done before Christmas is to bring in some Republicans.”
No Republicans currently back the legislation.
Nelson also appeared to call for a bipartisan bill. “Every piece of landmark legislation has had bipartisan support,” he said. And Nelson asserted that efforts to fix the abortion language so that it would be suitable to him are “a tall order for people.”
But Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who also appeared on “Face the Nation,” expressed optimism about the bill’s prospects, saying that when Senators are forced to look at the legislation in its totality they will drop parochial concerns.
“I think we have tremendous momentum,” he said.
Dec. 13, 2009 – 2:29 p.m.
Senators Back Away From Health Compromise
By Keith Koffler, CQ-Roll Call
Two key members of the group of 10 moderates and liberals who negotiated a “compromise” health care bill that jettisoned the public insurance option in favor of a new Medicare buy-in plan appeared Sunday to be walking away from the proposal.
Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), must-have votes for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that they have problems with the Medicare buy-in, which would allow people as young as 55 to participate in the program.
Lieberman said he would have “trouble” voting for the provision and suggested that it cannot get 60 votes. “Opposition to it has been growing as the week went on,” he said.
Nelson, who already said he will not vote for the overall health care bill because of abortion language within it, said the Medicare buy-in could lead to “a single-payer plan” that he opposes “even more directly than the public option.”
Nelson said he agreed to the “deal” not because he necessarily supported the language, but in order to keep the legislative ball rolling. “I withheld my decision on that until we see the numbers and see how it all works,” he said. “I want to be a friend of the process.”
Lieberman stated that the agreement was in fact never a “deal,” but instead something “interesting enough to send to the Congressional Budget Office.”He called on Democratic leaders to remove the buy-in provision and add more cost-cutting measures. “There’s a good basic bill here” but “we’ve got to stop adding to the bill,” Lieberman said. “I think the only way to get this done before Christmas is to bring in some Republicans.”
No Republicans currently back the legislation.
Nelson also appeared to call for a bipartisan bill. “Every piece of landmark legislation has had bipartisan support,” he said. And Nelson asserted that efforts to fix the abortion language so that it would be suitable to him are “a tall order for people.”
But Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who also appeared on “Face the Nation,” expressed optimism about the bill’s prospects, saying that when Senators are forced to look at the legislation in its totality they will drop parochial concerns.
“I think we have tremendous momentum,” he said.
racehorse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/healt ... nted=print
December 14, 2009
Lieberman Rules Out Voting for Health Bill
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — In a surprise setback for Democratic leaders, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, said on Sunday that he would vote against the health care legislation in its current form.
The bill’s supporters had said earlier that they thought they had secured Mr. Lieberman’s agreement to go along with a compromise they worked out to overcome an impasse within the Democratic Party.
But on Sunday, Mr. Lieberman told the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to scrap the idea of expanding Medicare and abandon any new government insurance plan or lose his vote.
On a separate issue, Mr. Reid tried over the weekend to concoct a compromise on abortion that would induce Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, to vote for the bill. Mr. Nelson opposes abortion. Any provision that satisfies him risks alienating supporters of abortion rights.
In interviews on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Nelson said the bill did not have the 60 votes it would need in the Senate.
Senate Democratic leaders, including Mr. Reid and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, said they had been mindful of Mr. Lieberman’s concerns in the last 10 days and were surprised when he assailed major provisions of the bill on television Sunday. He reiterated his objections in a private meeting with Mr. Reid.
A Senate Democratic aide, perplexed by Mr. Lieberman’s stance, said, “It was a total flip-flop, and leaves us in a predicament as to what to do.”
Democrats are desperately trying to round up 60 votes and conclude Senate debate on the health care bill before Christmas.
Mr. Reid could not immediately figure out how to achieve that goal at a meeting he held Sunday with senior Democratic senators and White House officials, including Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, according to Senate Democratic aides.
Marshall H. Wittmann, a spokesman for Mr. Lieberman, said the Connecticut senator “notified Senator Reid on Friday that he had severe misgivings about the Medicare buy-in proposal, so his comments on ‘Face the Nation’ should not have come as a surprise to the leadership.”
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said that passage of the bill was looking less and less inevitable. The Democrats “are in serious trouble on this,” he said, “and the core problem is the American people do not want us to pass it.”
On television Sunday, Mr. Lieberman said: “We’ve got to stop adding to the bill. We’ve got to start subtracting some controversial things. I think the only way to get this done before Christmas is to bring in some Republicans who are open-minded on this, like Olympia Snowe.”
Senator Snowe, of Maine, has tried to find common ground with Democrats, but has rejected Mr. Reid’s proposal to let uninsured people 55 to 64 years old purchase coverage under Medicare.
“You’ve got to take out the Medicare buy-in,” Mr. Lieberman said. “You’ve got to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the Class Act, which was a whole new entitlement program that will, in future years, put us further into deficit.”
Class Act refers to a federal insurance program for long-term care, known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act.
Mr. Lieberman said he would have “a hard time” voting for a bill with the Medicare buy-in.
“It has some of the same infirmities that the public option did,” he said. “It will add taxpayer costs. It will add to the deficit. It’s unnecessary. The basic bill, which has a lot of good things in it, provides a generous new system of subsidies for people between ages 55 and 65, and choice and competition.”
Mr. Nelson said he wanted to know the cost of the Medicare buy-in. “I am concerned that it’s the forerunner of single payer, the ultimate single-payer plan, maybe even more directly than the public option,” he said.
Mr. Lieberman said: “The bill itself does a lot to bring 30 million people into the system. We don’t need to keep adding onto the back of this horse, or we’re going to break the horse’s back and get nothing done.”
Even if Senate Democratic leaders were prepared to meet Mr. Lieberman’s demands, they would still need to resolve intraparty disputes over insurance coverage for abortion.
Aides to Mr. Reid met Saturday with advocates of abortion rights to explore ideas for a compromise.
Details were sketchy. Under one idea, some health plans receiving federal subsidies could offer optional coverage for abortion, but they could not use federal money to pay for the procedure. They would have to use money taken from premiums paid by subscribers and would have to keep it separate from federal money.
Critics of abortion say such requirements for the segregation of funds are an accounting gimmick.
In hopes of placating opponents of abortion, Mr. Reid is also considering an increase in the federal tax credit for adoption of children and a new program to provide services to pregnant high school and college students.
Both ideas were proposed by Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who opposes abortion but generally supports the overall bill.
“Many teens and women who face an unplanned pregnancy do so with little or no support,” Mr. Casey said.
December 14, 2009
Lieberman Rules Out Voting for Health Bill
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — In a surprise setback for Democratic leaders, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, said on Sunday that he would vote against the health care legislation in its current form.
The bill’s supporters had said earlier that they thought they had secured Mr. Lieberman’s agreement to go along with a compromise they worked out to overcome an impasse within the Democratic Party.
But on Sunday, Mr. Lieberman told the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to scrap the idea of expanding Medicare and abandon any new government insurance plan or lose his vote.
On a separate issue, Mr. Reid tried over the weekend to concoct a compromise on abortion that would induce Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, to vote for the bill. Mr. Nelson opposes abortion. Any provision that satisfies him risks alienating supporters of abortion rights.
In interviews on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Nelson said the bill did not have the 60 votes it would need in the Senate.
Senate Democratic leaders, including Mr. Reid and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, said they had been mindful of Mr. Lieberman’s concerns in the last 10 days and were surprised when he assailed major provisions of the bill on television Sunday. He reiterated his objections in a private meeting with Mr. Reid.
A Senate Democratic aide, perplexed by Mr. Lieberman’s stance, said, “It was a total flip-flop, and leaves us in a predicament as to what to do.”
Democrats are desperately trying to round up 60 votes and conclude Senate debate on the health care bill before Christmas.
Mr. Reid could not immediately figure out how to achieve that goal at a meeting he held Sunday with senior Democratic senators and White House officials, including Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, according to Senate Democratic aides.
Marshall H. Wittmann, a spokesman for Mr. Lieberman, said the Connecticut senator “notified Senator Reid on Friday that he had severe misgivings about the Medicare buy-in proposal, so his comments on ‘Face the Nation’ should not have come as a surprise to the leadership.”
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said that passage of the bill was looking less and less inevitable. The Democrats “are in serious trouble on this,” he said, “and the core problem is the American people do not want us to pass it.”
On television Sunday, Mr. Lieberman said: “We’ve got to stop adding to the bill. We’ve got to start subtracting some controversial things. I think the only way to get this done before Christmas is to bring in some Republicans who are open-minded on this, like Olympia Snowe.”
Senator Snowe, of Maine, has tried to find common ground with Democrats, but has rejected Mr. Reid’s proposal to let uninsured people 55 to 64 years old purchase coverage under Medicare.
“You’ve got to take out the Medicare buy-in,” Mr. Lieberman said. “You’ve got to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the Class Act, which was a whole new entitlement program that will, in future years, put us further into deficit.”
Class Act refers to a federal insurance program for long-term care, known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act.
Mr. Lieberman said he would have “a hard time” voting for a bill with the Medicare buy-in.
“It has some of the same infirmities that the public option did,” he said. “It will add taxpayer costs. It will add to the deficit. It’s unnecessary. The basic bill, which has a lot of good things in it, provides a generous new system of subsidies for people between ages 55 and 65, and choice and competition.”
Mr. Nelson said he wanted to know the cost of the Medicare buy-in. “I am concerned that it’s the forerunner of single payer, the ultimate single-payer plan, maybe even more directly than the public option,” he said.
Mr. Lieberman said: “The bill itself does a lot to bring 30 million people into the system. We don’t need to keep adding onto the back of this horse, or we’re going to break the horse’s back and get nothing done.”
Even if Senate Democratic leaders were prepared to meet Mr. Lieberman’s demands, they would still need to resolve intraparty disputes over insurance coverage for abortion.
Aides to Mr. Reid met Saturday with advocates of abortion rights to explore ideas for a compromise.
Details were sketchy. Under one idea, some health plans receiving federal subsidies could offer optional coverage for abortion, but they could not use federal money to pay for the procedure. They would have to use money taken from premiums paid by subscribers and would have to keep it separate from federal money.
Critics of abortion say such requirements for the segregation of funds are an accounting gimmick.
In hopes of placating opponents of abortion, Mr. Reid is also considering an increase in the federal tax credit for adoption of children and a new program to provide services to pregnant high school and college students.
Both ideas were proposed by Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who opposes abortion but generally supports the overall bill.
“Many teens and women who face an unplanned pregnancy do so with little or no support,” Mr. Casey said.
racehorse
Q-Poll: Lieberman’s Opposition to Public Option Not Popular
A new poll by Quinnipiac University is out, and it has less-than-stellar news for Joe Lieberman (not that he cares). Check out these bottom line numbers.
1. On the question, “Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?”, 56% of Connecticut voters say “support” and only 37% “oppose.” Support for the public option is overwhelming among Democrats (76%-14%) and strong among independents (54%-41%). Only Republicans oppose the public option, by a 28%-68% margin.
2. On the question about whether Senator Lieberman’s opposition to the public option makes you “more likely” or “less likely” to vote for him, the results aren’t great for Lieberman, with 33% saying “less likely” and only 23% saying “more likely.” Again, Democrats are far less likely to vote for Lieberman based on his public option stand, while Republicans are much more likely to vote for him. In other words, Lieberman’s doing great with his base on this issue – Republicans. And maybe, in the end, that’s all he cares about.
The bottom line is this: the public option is highly popular in Connecticut, and on balance it’s a political loser for Joe Lieberman to oppose it. But, then again, Lieberman does have his “principles.” (snark) Also, unfortunately, Lieberman’s not up for reelection until 2012
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/1 ... nnecticut/
So who is Lieberman fighting for ?
1. On the question, “Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?”, 56% of Connecticut voters say “support” and only 37% “oppose.” Support for the public option is overwhelming among Democrats (76%-14%) and strong among independents (54%-41%). Only Republicans oppose the public option, by a 28%-68% margin.
2. On the question about whether Senator Lieberman’s opposition to the public option makes you “more likely” or “less likely” to vote for him, the results aren’t great for Lieberman, with 33% saying “less likely” and only 23% saying “more likely.” Again, Democrats are far less likely to vote for Lieberman based on his public option stand, while Republicans are much more likely to vote for him. In other words, Lieberman’s doing great with his base on this issue – Republicans. And maybe, in the end, that’s all he cares about.
The bottom line is this: the public option is highly popular in Connecticut, and on balance it’s a political loser for Joe Lieberman to oppose it. But, then again, Lieberman does have his “principles.” (snark) Also, unfortunately, Lieberman’s not up for reelection until 2012
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/1 ... nnecticut/
So who is Lieberman fighting for ?
Joe Lieberman: Let's not make a deal!
Snip..
To put this in context, Lieberman was invited to participate in the process that led to the Medicare buy-in. His opposition would have killed it before liberals invested in the idea. Instead, he skipped the meetings and is forcing liberals to give up yet another compromise. Each time he does that, he increases the chances of the bill's failure that much more. And if there's a policy rationale here, it's not apparent to me, or to others who've interviewed him.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... ake_a.html
To put this in context, Lieberman was invited to participate in the process that led to the Medicare buy-in. His opposition would have killed it before liberals invested in the idea. Instead, he skipped the meetings and is forcing liberals to give up yet another compromise. Each time he does that, he increases the chances of the bill's failure that much more. And if there's a policy rationale here, it's not apparent to me, or to others who've interviewed him.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... ake_a.html
Last edited by SETIsLady on 12-14-2009 09:22 AM, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30572.html
White House to Harry Reid: Cut deal with Joe Lieberman
By: Carrie Budoff Brown
December 14, 2009 01:36 PM EST
The White House is encouraging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to cut a deal with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which would mean eliminating the proposed Medicare expansion in the health reform bill, according to an official close to the negotiations.
But Reid is described as so frustrated with Lieberman that he is not ready to sacrifice a key element of the health care bill, and first wants to see the Congressional Budget Office cost analysis of the Medicare buy-in. The analysis is expected early this week.
"There is a weariness and a lot of frustration that one person is holding up the will of 59 others," the official said. “There is still too much anger and confusion at one particular senator’s reversal.”
The White House denied that it was pressuring Reid to cut a deal with Lieberman and said there was no difference of opinion about how to move forward on reform.
“The report is inaccurate,” said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer in a statement. “The White House is not pushing Senator Reid in any direction. We are working hand-in-hand with the Senate leadership to work through the various issues and pass health reform as soon as possible.”
Lieberman threw health care reform into doubt Sunday when he told Reid that he would filibuster the bill if it allowed Americans ages 55 to 64 to purchase coverage in Medicare. His comments on CBS’s “Face the Nation” set off a series of private meetings Sunday between the Senate leadership and top White House aides, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who recommended that Reid to cut the deal with Lieberman, the official said.
Reid has called a special Democratic caucus meeting for 5:30 p.m. Monday. And President Barack Obama invited the caucus to a meeting Tuesday at the White House.
If they still hope to pass a bill by Christmas – which is still a top consideration at the moment — Democrats have only limited options:
• Reach an agreement with Lieberman, which would mean stripping out the provisions that have kept progressives on board. This will likely cause problems on the left – maybe even defections – unless the White House steps in to persuade senators such as Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
• Win over Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), but she has also voiced serious reservations about the Medicare expansion, and has resisted pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats to finish the bill by Christmas.
Reconciliation, a procedural maneuver to get around a filibuster, remains on the table, but it’s not a viable option at the moment, the official said. It would push the issue into next year with no guarantee of success.
Democrats are frustrated because they believe Lieberman keeps moving the goal posts. He supported the Medicare buy in the 2000 presidential campaign, and in September reiterated support for the plan in an interview with the Connecticut Post.
Lieberman has denied giving his approval of the Medicare buy-in during the negotiations last week among a group of 10 moderate and liberal senators.
"Contrary to the claims of anonymous aides, Senator Lieberman told Reid on Friday that he had problems with the Medicare provision," Lieberman spokesman Marshall Wittman said in a statement.
"This position was also told to negotiators earlier in the week. Consequently, Senator Lieberman's position came as no surprise to the Democratic leadership. Any contrary charge by aides who cowardly seek to hide under the cloak of anonymity is false and self-serving," he added.
Wittman issued the statement in response to reports that Lieberman, according to anonymous Senate Democratic aides, had initially indicated support for a proposal allowing uninsured individuals as young as 55 to purchase Medicare coverage.
White House to Harry Reid: Cut deal with Joe Lieberman
By: Carrie Budoff Brown
December 14, 2009 01:36 PM EST
The White House is encouraging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to cut a deal with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which would mean eliminating the proposed Medicare expansion in the health reform bill, according to an official close to the negotiations.
But Reid is described as so frustrated with Lieberman that he is not ready to sacrifice a key element of the health care bill, and first wants to see the Congressional Budget Office cost analysis of the Medicare buy-in. The analysis is expected early this week.
"There is a weariness and a lot of frustration that one person is holding up the will of 59 others," the official said. “There is still too much anger and confusion at one particular senator’s reversal.”
The White House denied that it was pressuring Reid to cut a deal with Lieberman and said there was no difference of opinion about how to move forward on reform.
“The report is inaccurate,” said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer in a statement. “The White House is not pushing Senator Reid in any direction. We are working hand-in-hand with the Senate leadership to work through the various issues and pass health reform as soon as possible.”
Lieberman threw health care reform into doubt Sunday when he told Reid that he would filibuster the bill if it allowed Americans ages 55 to 64 to purchase coverage in Medicare. His comments on CBS’s “Face the Nation” set off a series of private meetings Sunday between the Senate leadership and top White House aides, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who recommended that Reid to cut the deal with Lieberman, the official said.
Reid has called a special Democratic caucus meeting for 5:30 p.m. Monday. And President Barack Obama invited the caucus to a meeting Tuesday at the White House.
If they still hope to pass a bill by Christmas – which is still a top consideration at the moment — Democrats have only limited options:
• Reach an agreement with Lieberman, which would mean stripping out the provisions that have kept progressives on board. This will likely cause problems on the left – maybe even defections – unless the White House steps in to persuade senators such as Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
• Win over Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), but she has also voiced serious reservations about the Medicare expansion, and has resisted pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats to finish the bill by Christmas.
Reconciliation, a procedural maneuver to get around a filibuster, remains on the table, but it’s not a viable option at the moment, the official said. It would push the issue into next year with no guarantee of success.
Democrats are frustrated because they believe Lieberman keeps moving the goal posts. He supported the Medicare buy in the 2000 presidential campaign, and in September reiterated support for the plan in an interview with the Connecticut Post.
Lieberman has denied giving his approval of the Medicare buy-in during the negotiations last week among a group of 10 moderate and liberal senators.
"Contrary to the claims of anonymous aides, Senator Lieberman told Reid on Friday that he had problems with the Medicare provision," Lieberman spokesman Marshall Wittman said in a statement.
"This position was also told to negotiators earlier in the week. Consequently, Senator Lieberman's position came as no surprise to the Democratic leadership. Any contrary charge by aides who cowardly seek to hide under the cloak of anonymity is false and self-serving," he added.
Wittman issued the statement in response to reports that Lieberman, according to anonymous Senate Democratic aides, had initially indicated support for a proposal allowing uninsured individuals as young as 55 to purchase Medicare coverage.
racehorse
Lieberman is never going to go along with anything and this has nothing to do with healthcare, this is about something else IMO. He is just saying no to say no. He said this weekend that he didn't even read this legislation but would not vote for it. But 3 months ago and in 2006, he was perfectly fine with a medicare buy in.
VIDEO: Watch Lieberman Endorse Medicare Buy-In Three Months Ago
Here’s some video of Joe Lieberman only three months ago appearing to endorse the Medicare buy-in idea — in seeming contradiction of his decision to bail on the Senate deal.
Lieberman discussed the Medicare buy-in a meeting with the Connecticut Post in September, according to an article in the paper at the time, as TPM noted today. But the article only paraphrased Lieberman.
I asked the paper to send over the video, and it’s worth watching, because it gives you Lieberman’s actual quotes — which seem at odds with the Lieberman camp’s claim today that he has real problems with the approach:
Video and more at link.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/healt ... onths-ago/
VIDEO: Watch Lieberman Endorse Medicare Buy-In Three Months Ago
Here’s some video of Joe Lieberman only three months ago appearing to endorse the Medicare buy-in idea — in seeming contradiction of his decision to bail on the Senate deal.
Lieberman discussed the Medicare buy-in a meeting with the Connecticut Post in September, according to an article in the paper at the time, as TPM noted today. But the article only paraphrased Lieberman.
I asked the paper to send over the video, and it’s worth watching, because it gives you Lieberman’s actual quotes — which seem at odds with the Lieberman camp’s claim today that he has real problems with the approach:
Video and more at link.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/healt ... onths-ago/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health ... id=topnews
6:45 PM ET, 12/14/2009
Democrats move toward dropping medicare expansion
By Shailagh Murray
Senate Democrats emerged from a special caucus meeting Monday night determined to pass a health-care bill by Christmas -- but without the Medicare buy-in plan that liberals had sought as an alternative to a government insurance option.
The Medicare buy-in was never warmly embraced by moderate Democrats, but independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman(Conn), whose vote is needed to break a GOP filibuster, appears to have dealt the proposal a mortal blow when he informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) on Sunday that he wouldn't support the buy-in plan in any form.
In the Monday evening meeting, Reid urged Democrats to accept political reality and move the $848 billion bill across the finish line without the proposal.
"It appeared that would be necessary," Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), a moderate, said in response to a question about whether the Medicare expansion would be dropped as he left the caucus.
"To use an old cliche, the general consensus was we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good," Bayh said.
6:45 PM ET, 12/14/2009
Democrats move toward dropping medicare expansion
By Shailagh Murray
Senate Democrats emerged from a special caucus meeting Monday night determined to pass a health-care bill by Christmas -- but without the Medicare buy-in plan that liberals had sought as an alternative to a government insurance option.
The Medicare buy-in was never warmly embraced by moderate Democrats, but independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman(Conn), whose vote is needed to break a GOP filibuster, appears to have dealt the proposal a mortal blow when he informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) on Sunday that he wouldn't support the buy-in plan in any form.
In the Monday evening meeting, Reid urged Democrats to accept political reality and move the $848 billion bill across the finish line without the proposal.
"It appeared that would be necessary," Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), a moderate, said in response to a question about whether the Medicare expansion would be dropped as he left the caucus.
"To use an old cliche, the general consensus was we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good," Bayh said.
racehorse
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... J471hlFy4#
Rockefeller, Harkin Say They’ll Give Up Public Option (Update1)
By James Rowley and Laura Litvan
Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Democrats Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin said they would be willing to drop a “public option” government insurance program to win passage of a health-care overhaul.
“I want a bill,” Rockefeller, of West Virginia, told reporters before Senate Democrats met to discuss the legislation this afternoon. “At some point you’ve got to switch from the sentiment, the emotion, the power of the word” to the facts.
The two senators’ statements suggested a deal might be close. Harkin, an Iowa senator and chairman of the Senate health committee, said he also would be willing to drop a proposal to let people as young as 55 buy into the Medicare program for the elderly.
“This bill, without public option, without Medicare buy-in, is a giant step forward toward transforming American health care,” said Harkin. “That’s reality, there is enough good stuff in that bill that we should move ahead with it.”
Without any Republican support, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs all 60 votes controlled by Democrats to get a bill passed. The two senators spoke as one of the holdouts, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, said he believes the chamber is close to a health-care agreement.
‘In Reach’
“I think we’re in reach of a historic accomplishment that will improve health care for millions of Americans,” Lieberman said. Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, opposes both the public option and the Medicare buy-in.
Senate Democrats are holding a private meeting on the plan and are scheduled to meet with President Barack Obama tomorrow.
The Senate bill is designed to cover 31 million uninsured Americans and curb medical expenses. At a cost of $848 billion over 10 years, the measure represents the most sweeping changes to U.S. health care since the 1965 creation of Medicare.
Like a measure passed Nov. 7 by the U.S. House, the Senate plan would require all Americans to get health coverage or pay a penalty. It would expand the Medicaid health program for the poor, set up online insurance-purchasing exchanges and provide subsidies for those who need help buying policies.
Republicans say the legislation might crowd out private insurers, raise taxes and widen the federal budget deficit.
-
Last Updated: December 14, 2009 18:30 EST
Rockefeller, Harkin Say They’ll Give Up Public Option (Update1)
By James Rowley and Laura Litvan
Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Democrats Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin said they would be willing to drop a “public option” government insurance program to win passage of a health-care overhaul.
“I want a bill,” Rockefeller, of West Virginia, told reporters before Senate Democrats met to discuss the legislation this afternoon. “At some point you’ve got to switch from the sentiment, the emotion, the power of the word” to the facts.
The two senators’ statements suggested a deal might be close. Harkin, an Iowa senator and chairman of the Senate health committee, said he also would be willing to drop a proposal to let people as young as 55 buy into the Medicare program for the elderly.
“This bill, without public option, without Medicare buy-in, is a giant step forward toward transforming American health care,” said Harkin. “That’s reality, there is enough good stuff in that bill that we should move ahead with it.”
Without any Republican support, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs all 60 votes controlled by Democrats to get a bill passed. The two senators spoke as one of the holdouts, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, said he believes the chamber is close to a health-care agreement.
‘In Reach’
“I think we’re in reach of a historic accomplishment that will improve health care for millions of Americans,” Lieberman said. Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, opposes both the public option and the Medicare buy-in.
Senate Democrats are holding a private meeting on the plan and are scheduled to meet with President Barack Obama tomorrow.
The Senate bill is designed to cover 31 million uninsured Americans and curb medical expenses. At a cost of $848 billion over 10 years, the measure represents the most sweeping changes to U.S. health care since the 1965 creation of Medicare.
Like a measure passed Nov. 7 by the U.S. House, the Senate plan would require all Americans to get health coverage or pay a penalty. It would expand the Medicaid health program for the poor, set up online insurance-purchasing exchanges and provide subsidies for those who need help buying policies.
Republicans say the legislation might crowd out private insurers, raise taxes and widen the federal budget deficit.
-
Last Updated: December 14, 2009 18:30 EST
racehorse
http://twitter.com/markos/status/6679156993Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate.
Markos
Why Democrats push health care, even if it kills them
Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent
December 15, 2009
To some observers, the Democrats' race to pass national health care seems irrational--even suicidal. Don't party leaders understand how much the public opposes the bills currently on the table? Don't they know that voters are likely to take their revenge at the polls next year? Given that, why do they keep rushing ahead?
Just look at the RealClearPolitics average of polls, which shows that Americans oppose the national health care bills currently on the table by a margin of 53 percent to 38 percent. That's not just one poll that might tilt right or left, it's an average of several polls by several pollsters. And the margin of opposition seems to be growing, not diminishing. And yet Democrats seem determined to defy public opinion. Why?
I put the question to a Democratic strategist who asked to remain anonymous. Yes, Democrats certainly understand that voters don't like the current bills, he told me, and they are fully aware they will probably pay a price next year. But they have found a way to view going ahead anyway as the logical thing to do, at least in their eyes.
You have to look at the issue from three different Democratic perspectives: the House of Representatives, the White House and the Senate.
"In the House, the view of Waxman and Pelosi is that we've waited two generations to get health care passed, and the 20 or 40 members of Congress who are going to lose their seats as a result are transitional players at best," he said. "This is something the party has wanted since Franklin Roosevelt." In this view, losses are just the price of doing something great and historic. (The strategist also noted that it's easy for Waxman and Pelosi to say that, since they come from safely liberal districts.)
"At the White House, the picture is slightly different," he continued. "Their view is, 'We're all in on this, totally committed, and we don't have to run for re-election next year. There will never be a better time to do it than now.'"
"And in the Senate, they look at the most vulnerable Democrats--like Dodd and Reid--and say those vulnerabilities will probably not change whether health care reform passes or fails. So in that view, if they pass reform, Democrats will lose the same number of seats they were going to lose before."
All those scenarios have a certain logic (even if the Senate calculation undercounts the number of potentially vulnerable Democrats). But each scenario is premised on passing an unpopular bill that hurts the party. Even if there's a strategic rationale for doing it, why are Democrats dead-set on hurting themselves?
"Because they think they know what's best for the public," the strategist said. "They think the facts are being distorted and the public's being told a story that is not entirely true, and that they are in Congress to be leaders. And they are going to make the decision because Goddammit, it's good for the public."
Of course, going forward has turned out to be harder than many Democrats thought. And now, with various proposals lying wrecked along the road, the true believers are practicing what the strategist calls "principled damage control."
But still, does it make sense? In the end, perhaps the most compelling explanation for Democratic behavior is that they are simply in too deep to do anything else. "Once you've gone this far, what is the cost of failure?" asks the strategist. ["I am in blood / Stepp'd in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er." Macbeth, Act III, scene 4]
At that point--Republicans will love this--he compared congressional Democrats with robbers who have passed the point of no return in deciding to hold up a bank. Whatever they do, they're guilty of something. "They're in the bank, they've got their guns out. They can run outside with no money, or they can stick it out, go through the gunfight, and get away with the money."
That's it. Democrats are all in. They're going through with it. Even if it kills them.
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at [email protected].
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polit ... 64542.html
Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent
December 15, 2009
To some observers, the Democrats' race to pass national health care seems irrational--even suicidal. Don't party leaders understand how much the public opposes the bills currently on the table? Don't they know that voters are likely to take their revenge at the polls next year? Given that, why do they keep rushing ahead?
Just look at the RealClearPolitics average of polls, which shows that Americans oppose the national health care bills currently on the table by a margin of 53 percent to 38 percent. That's not just one poll that might tilt right or left, it's an average of several polls by several pollsters. And the margin of opposition seems to be growing, not diminishing. And yet Democrats seem determined to defy public opinion. Why?
I put the question to a Democratic strategist who asked to remain anonymous. Yes, Democrats certainly understand that voters don't like the current bills, he told me, and they are fully aware they will probably pay a price next year. But they have found a way to view going ahead anyway as the logical thing to do, at least in their eyes.
You have to look at the issue from three different Democratic perspectives: the House of Representatives, the White House and the Senate.
"In the House, the view of Waxman and Pelosi is that we've waited two generations to get health care passed, and the 20 or 40 members of Congress who are going to lose their seats as a result are transitional players at best," he said. "This is something the party has wanted since Franklin Roosevelt." In this view, losses are just the price of doing something great and historic. (The strategist also noted that it's easy for Waxman and Pelosi to say that, since they come from safely liberal districts.)
"At the White House, the picture is slightly different," he continued. "Their view is, 'We're all in on this, totally committed, and we don't have to run for re-election next year. There will never be a better time to do it than now.'"
"And in the Senate, they look at the most vulnerable Democrats--like Dodd and Reid--and say those vulnerabilities will probably not change whether health care reform passes or fails. So in that view, if they pass reform, Democrats will lose the same number of seats they were going to lose before."
All those scenarios have a certain logic (even if the Senate calculation undercounts the number of potentially vulnerable Democrats). But each scenario is premised on passing an unpopular bill that hurts the party. Even if there's a strategic rationale for doing it, why are Democrats dead-set on hurting themselves?
"Because they think they know what's best for the public," the strategist said. "They think the facts are being distorted and the public's being told a story that is not entirely true, and that they are in Congress to be leaders. And they are going to make the decision because Goddammit, it's good for the public."
Of course, going forward has turned out to be harder than many Democrats thought. And now, with various proposals lying wrecked along the road, the true believers are practicing what the strategist calls "principled damage control."
But still, does it make sense? In the end, perhaps the most compelling explanation for Democratic behavior is that they are simply in too deep to do anything else. "Once you've gone this far, what is the cost of failure?" asks the strategist. ["I am in blood / Stepp'd in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er." Macbeth, Act III, scene 4]
At that point--Republicans will love this--he compared congressional Democrats with robbers who have passed the point of no return in deciding to hold up a bank. Whatever they do, they're guilty of something. "They're in the bank, they've got their guns out. They can run outside with no money, or they can stick it out, go through the gunfight, and get away with the money."
That's it. Democrats are all in. They're going through with it. Even if it kills them.
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at [email protected].
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polit ... 64542.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/healt ... nted=print
December 15, 2009
Lieberman Gets Ex-Party to Shift on Health Plan
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON — Just the thought of Joseph I. Lieberman makes some Democrats want to spit nails these days. But Mr. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, is not the least troubled by his status as Capitol Hill’s master infuriator — and on Monday he showed how powerful that role can be at a time when Democrats cannot spare a single vote.
The day before, Mr. Lieberman threatened on national television to join the Republicans in blocking the health care bill, President Obama’s chief domestic initiative. Within hours, he was in a meeting at the Capitol with top White House officials.
And on Monday night, Democratic senators emerged from a tense 90-minute closed-door session and suggested that they were on the verge of bowing to Mr. Lieberman’s main demands: that they scrap a plan to let people buy into Medicare beginning at age 55, and scotch even a fallback version of a new government-run health insurance plan, or public option.
Mr. Lieberman said he believed that the Medicare expansion was off the table, though he did not get any guarantee. “Not an explicit assurance, no,” he said. “But put me down tonight as encouraged at the direction in which these discussions are going.”
Mr. Lieberman could not be happier. He is right where he wants to be — at the center of the political aisle, the center of the Democrats’ efforts to win 60 votes for their sweeping health care legislation. For the moment, he is at the center of everything — and he loves it.
“My wife said to me, ‘Why do you always end up being the point person here?’ ” he said, flashing a broad grin in an interview on Monday.
Just hours after his televised threat to kill the bill, Mr. Lieberman said, he left a meeting with Senate leaders and top White House officials in the office of the majority leader, Harry Reid, more certain than ever that he held all the cards.
“Harry said, ‘We will do what we can do to secure this,’ ” Mr. Lieberman recalled. “He said, ‘I have got some work to do with other members of the caucus.’ But he said, ‘My own feeling is we need you to get to 60 and so I am going to do my best.’ ”
Many Democrats say they have given up trying to divine the motivations of Mr. Lieberman. Some have suggested that he is catering to insurance industry interests back home. Others say he realizes that he cannot win re-election in 2012 without appealing to Republicans and independents, especially because Democrats will be energized with Mr. Obama running that year.
Mr. Lieberman says he favors the essential elements of the health care legislation but fears that expanding government programs would compound the federal debt. Mr. Lieberman, who lost a Democratic primary in 2006, won re-election as an independent and campaigned aggressively against Mr. Obama last year, said he felt “liberated” from party loyalty.
Perhaps no one confounds Mr. Reid and Senate Democrats more. And back in Connecticut, the anger is often raw.
“If you think you are sick of Joe Lieberman now,” Jim Shea, a columnist in The Hartford Courant, wrote Monday, “just wait until you get sick.” Liberal bloggers have attacked him as “a joke” and worse.
Mr. Lieberman’s threat to block the bill blew up a proposed deal among the Democratic caucus that Mr. Reid had hailed as a breakthrough.
After the meeting on Monday evening, Senate Democratic leaders said they still hoped to pass the bill before Christmas, and Mr. Obama invited the caucus to the White House on Tuesday for more talks.
Democratic leaders said they were caught off guard on Sunday morning by Mr. Lieberman’s threat and accused him of acting in bad faith. His comments sent White House officials, including the chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, scrambling to the Capitol for a meeting to pinpoint where he stood.
Democratic leaders noted that Mr. Lieberman on numerous occasions had voiced support for the Medicare buy-in proposal that he now wants dropped. It was part of a health care proposal that he championed as Al Gore’s running mate in the 2000 presidential race, and three months ago he expressed support for the same concept.
“What I was proposing was that they have an option to buy into Medicare early,” Mr. Lieberman says on a video distributed by Democrats on Monday.
In the interview, he did not dispute that he once supported the idea but said he had not recalled having done so, or the context, until Mr. Reid’s office confronted him about it.
Campaign finance advocates have attacked Mr. Lieberman as “an insurance industry puppet,” suggesting that he wants to protect private health insurers from competition because he has received more than $1 million insurance company campaign contributions since 1998.
During his 2006 re-election campaign, Mr. Lieberman ranked second in the Senate in insurance industry contributions. Connecticut is a hub of the insurance business, with about 22,000 jobs specifically in health insurance, according to an industry trade group.
In the interview, Mr. Lieberman dismissed assertions that he was doing the industry’s bidding. “It’s hogwash and it’s weak,” he said, noting that he had often sided against the companies. He said he favored a proposal, not included in the health care bill, that would end the insurers’ limited exemption from federal antitrust laws.
Mr. Lieberman complained that some people had begun attacking his wife, Hadassah, urging that she be fired from her job at a nonprofit organization that fights breast cancer, because she previously worked in public relations for two pharmaceutical companies.
Mr. Lieberman’s opposition to a bigger government role in health care runs counter to public opinion in his state, according to polls. In a Quinnipiac College survey last month, a majority of voters said they supported a so-called public option.
Douglas Schwartz, director of the Quinnipiac poll, said the profile of Mr. Lieberman’s public support suggested he was shifting into a moderate Republican. Mr. Lieberman insisted that it was his liberal colleagues who were holding the health care bill hostage.
“People have said to me, including some people in the caucus: ‘We know you are for health care reform. You know how important this is to the president. Would you yourself stop this from happening?’ ” he said.
“So I say: ‘There is a wonderful core health care reform bill on the Senate floor. Would my liberal friends in the caucus stop that from happening and prevent the president from getting this major goal that he has set because they want to add more on to that? Why won’t they be reasonable?’ ”
--
Robert Pear and Carl Hulse contributed reporting.
December 15, 2009
Lieberman Gets Ex-Party to Shift on Health Plan
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON — Just the thought of Joseph I. Lieberman makes some Democrats want to spit nails these days. But Mr. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, is not the least troubled by his status as Capitol Hill’s master infuriator — and on Monday he showed how powerful that role can be at a time when Democrats cannot spare a single vote.
The day before, Mr. Lieberman threatened on national television to join the Republicans in blocking the health care bill, President Obama’s chief domestic initiative. Within hours, he was in a meeting at the Capitol with top White House officials.
And on Monday night, Democratic senators emerged from a tense 90-minute closed-door session and suggested that they were on the verge of bowing to Mr. Lieberman’s main demands: that they scrap a plan to let people buy into Medicare beginning at age 55, and scotch even a fallback version of a new government-run health insurance plan, or public option.
Mr. Lieberman said he believed that the Medicare expansion was off the table, though he did not get any guarantee. “Not an explicit assurance, no,” he said. “But put me down tonight as encouraged at the direction in which these discussions are going.”
Mr. Lieberman could not be happier. He is right where he wants to be — at the center of the political aisle, the center of the Democrats’ efforts to win 60 votes for their sweeping health care legislation. For the moment, he is at the center of everything — and he loves it.
“My wife said to me, ‘Why do you always end up being the point person here?’ ” he said, flashing a broad grin in an interview on Monday.
Just hours after his televised threat to kill the bill, Mr. Lieberman said, he left a meeting with Senate leaders and top White House officials in the office of the majority leader, Harry Reid, more certain than ever that he held all the cards.
“Harry said, ‘We will do what we can do to secure this,’ ” Mr. Lieberman recalled. “He said, ‘I have got some work to do with other members of the caucus.’ But he said, ‘My own feeling is we need you to get to 60 and so I am going to do my best.’ ”
Many Democrats say they have given up trying to divine the motivations of Mr. Lieberman. Some have suggested that he is catering to insurance industry interests back home. Others say he realizes that he cannot win re-election in 2012 without appealing to Republicans and independents, especially because Democrats will be energized with Mr. Obama running that year.
Mr. Lieberman says he favors the essential elements of the health care legislation but fears that expanding government programs would compound the federal debt. Mr. Lieberman, who lost a Democratic primary in 2006, won re-election as an independent and campaigned aggressively against Mr. Obama last year, said he felt “liberated” from party loyalty.
Perhaps no one confounds Mr. Reid and Senate Democrats more. And back in Connecticut, the anger is often raw.
“If you think you are sick of Joe Lieberman now,” Jim Shea, a columnist in The Hartford Courant, wrote Monday, “just wait until you get sick.” Liberal bloggers have attacked him as “a joke” and worse.
Mr. Lieberman’s threat to block the bill blew up a proposed deal among the Democratic caucus that Mr. Reid had hailed as a breakthrough.
After the meeting on Monday evening, Senate Democratic leaders said they still hoped to pass the bill before Christmas, and Mr. Obama invited the caucus to the White House on Tuesday for more talks.
Democratic leaders said they were caught off guard on Sunday morning by Mr. Lieberman’s threat and accused him of acting in bad faith. His comments sent White House officials, including the chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, scrambling to the Capitol for a meeting to pinpoint where he stood.
Democratic leaders noted that Mr. Lieberman on numerous occasions had voiced support for the Medicare buy-in proposal that he now wants dropped. It was part of a health care proposal that he championed as Al Gore’s running mate in the 2000 presidential race, and three months ago he expressed support for the same concept.
“What I was proposing was that they have an option to buy into Medicare early,” Mr. Lieberman says on a video distributed by Democrats on Monday.
In the interview, he did not dispute that he once supported the idea but said he had not recalled having done so, or the context, until Mr. Reid’s office confronted him about it.
Campaign finance advocates have attacked Mr. Lieberman as “an insurance industry puppet,” suggesting that he wants to protect private health insurers from competition because he has received more than $1 million insurance company campaign contributions since 1998.
During his 2006 re-election campaign, Mr. Lieberman ranked second in the Senate in insurance industry contributions. Connecticut is a hub of the insurance business, with about 22,000 jobs specifically in health insurance, according to an industry trade group.
In the interview, Mr. Lieberman dismissed assertions that he was doing the industry’s bidding. “It’s hogwash and it’s weak,” he said, noting that he had often sided against the companies. He said he favored a proposal, not included in the health care bill, that would end the insurers’ limited exemption from federal antitrust laws.
Mr. Lieberman complained that some people had begun attacking his wife, Hadassah, urging that she be fired from her job at a nonprofit organization that fights breast cancer, because she previously worked in public relations for two pharmaceutical companies.
Mr. Lieberman’s opposition to a bigger government role in health care runs counter to public opinion in his state, according to polls. In a Quinnipiac College survey last month, a majority of voters said they supported a so-called public option.
Douglas Schwartz, director of the Quinnipiac poll, said the profile of Mr. Lieberman’s public support suggested he was shifting into a moderate Republican. Mr. Lieberman insisted that it was his liberal colleagues who were holding the health care bill hostage.
“People have said to me, including some people in the caucus: ‘We know you are for health care reform. You know how important this is to the president. Would you yourself stop this from happening?’ ” he said.
“So I say: ‘There is a wonderful core health care reform bill on the Senate floor. Would my liberal friends in the caucus stop that from happening and prevent the president from getting this major goal that he has set because they want to add more on to that? Why won’t they be reasonable?’ ”
--
Robert Pear and Carl Hulse contributed reporting.
racehorse
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... CD68479A88
Angry liberals: Why didn't Obama fight?
By: Craig Gordon
December 15, 2009
08:40 PM EST
More than anything else in Barack Obama’s presidency so far, health reform has exposed a get-a-deal-at-any-cost side of Obama that infuriates his party’s progressives.
And as Democrats tried to salvage health reform Tuesday, some liberals could barely hide their sense of betrayal that the White House and congressional Democrats have been willing to cut deals and water down what they consider the ideal vision of reform.
“The Senate version is not worth passing,” former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told POLITICO, referring to plans to strip the latest compromise from the bill, a Medicare buy-in. “I think in this particular iteration, this is the end of the road for reform.”
Dean said there are some good elements in the bill, but lawmakers should pull the plug and revisit the issue in Obama’s second term, unless Democrats are willing to shortcut a GOP filibuster. “No one will think this is health care reform. This is not even insurance reform,” he said.
The White House pushed back hard at liberals’ complaints Tuesday, with Obama talking up what’s in the plan but not saying a word about what’s been left out:
A single-payer plan, a public option, a state “opt-out” of the public option, a trigger and a Medicare buy-in — all ideas pushed by Democrats and blessed by Obama at various times but now gone from the bill.
But it’s not just the liberal base that’s feeling unsettled. Obama has also proved frustrating to moderates, who simply wanted to know where Obama’s core principles on health care stood, all the better to cut a deal to the president’s liking.
Time and again, he rebuffed Democrats’ requests to speak up more forcefully about what he wanted — a strategy that allowed Obama to preserve maximum flexibility to declare victory at the end of the process, no matter what the final bill looked like.
He began that process in earnest Tuesday after a meeting with Senate Democrats, who are resigned to dropping a Medicare buy-in compromise to win the vote of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and get the 60 votes needed to pass a bill.
Obama hinted at the Democratic retreat on the plan — saying not every senator’s favorite ideas can be included in any bill — while staunchly defending what Senate Democrats can accomplish in a bill, including making coverage more affordable for 30 million uninsured Americans, cutting insurance premiums and reducing the budget deficit.
“These aren’t small changes. These are big changes. They represent the most significant reform of our health care system since the passage of Medicare. They will save money. They will save families money. They will save businesses money, and they will save government money. And they’re going to save lives,” Obama said.
In the White House meeting, there were signs of tension within the Democratic Caucus. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a proponent of the public option, challenged Lieberman’s arguments that allowing people ages 55 to 64 to buy in to Medicare would add to the deficit and hurt the program.
“I made a direct appeal to him ... and answered the arguments I’ve heard him make,” Brown said. “We’re not giving up. It’s going to conference.”
But in the end, Brown said he would vote for the bill. “I can’t imagine I wouldn’t. There is just too much at stake,” he said.
Obama’s need to pass a reform bill ahead of the 2010 elections drove the political calculus as the calendar turned to December, when the days grew short and the pressure to sign something, anything, began to take precedence. Otherwise, Democrats risked facing voters next fall with little to show for a full year of twin congressional majorities. It’s what drove White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal with Lieberman.
The final bill isn’t even close to a bill then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama spoke of in 2003, when he said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan,” using the terms that commonly refer to a government-run health insurance system.
But whatever Democrats can pass now — if they can pass anything at all — also will fall short of ideas Obama discussed during the year to create a public health insurance plan to provide competition to private insurance companies and keep them honest.
Yet perhaps what angers liberals the most is that Obama himself never seemed willing to push hard enough for the public option — and, in fact, all but took it off the table in August when he said he could sign a bill that didn’t include it.
Once Obama said he didn’t need a public option, these progressives argue, there was no cost or penalty to be paid by a Lieberman or a Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) or a Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) for taking to the Senate floor and opposing it, too.
Progressives feel betrayed, but are not surprised, by the Senate’s move to drop the Medicare buy-in and the public option. They blame Reid and Obama for not exercising their power to fight for the provisions.
Obama’s failure to demand a public option and Reid’s decision to take reconciliation off the table emboldened moderates who might have thought twice about challenging a popular president or a Democratic majority comfortable with using Senate procedure to pass a bill with 51 votes.
“They were very good at making it look like they wanted a public option in the final bill without actually doing anything to make it happen,” said Jane Hamsher, publisher of the liberal blog Firedoglake. “It’s hard to believe that the two most powerful people in the country — arguably the world — could not do more to achieve their desired objective than to hand the keys over to Joe Lieberman. They would not be where they are if they are that bad at negotiation.”
Press secretary Robert Gibbs defended Obama against charges that he was caving in to moderates to get a final bill passed, even if it risked angering liberals who wanted more government involvement in the health care system.
“There’s very little legislation that’s passed that has each and every idea that each and every member of the Senate or the House wants to have in it,” Gibbs told reporters Tuesday. “On balance, does this legislation make a big difference in the lives of everyday working men and women? It’s not even a close call on that.”
If Obama was hoping for a triumphant announcement out of a rare White House meeting with the entire Senate Democratic Caucus Tuesday, his measured tone and acknowledgment that differences remain showed how much work is still ahead for Democrats eager to wrap up by Christmas.
Reid was still awaiting a price tag on his bill from congressional scorekeepers, and Nelson said he still can’t support the current version of the bill, which lacks the tough anti-abortion language he seeks.
But after leaving the White House meeting, even some of the staunchest public option advocates seemed resigned to passing a bill without it or the Medicare buy-in, a sort of public option for people ages 55 to 64 — a sign of a split between liberal elected officials and the activist base. Obama’s argument that Democrats shouldn’t pass up a once-in-a-generation chance to achieve reform appeared to be sinking in.
Brown, who has said several times throughout this process — including two weekends ago — that the president needed to get more involved, brushed aside any introspection about what the loss of the public option says about Democrats or the president.
“It says something about the math here,” Brown said. “You’ve got to get all 60 Democrats and independents, and it is hard to do. I want to continue to talk to people. ... I like the bill. I just think we could make it better.”
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), also a major advocate of the public option a few months ago, is a convert to the bill. He has a perspective that many of his colleagues lack: He was around 15 years ago when President Bill Clinton rejected compromises that fell short of his goal of providing universal coverage.
“If you think of what I don’t get, and you think of what we do get, that’s a pretty long list,” Rockefeller said.
--
Carrie Budoff Brown contributed to this story.
Angry liberals: Why didn't Obama fight?
By: Craig Gordon
December 15, 2009
08:40 PM EST
More than anything else in Barack Obama’s presidency so far, health reform has exposed a get-a-deal-at-any-cost side of Obama that infuriates his party’s progressives.
And as Democrats tried to salvage health reform Tuesday, some liberals could barely hide their sense of betrayal that the White House and congressional Democrats have been willing to cut deals and water down what they consider the ideal vision of reform.
“The Senate version is not worth passing,” former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told POLITICO, referring to plans to strip the latest compromise from the bill, a Medicare buy-in. “I think in this particular iteration, this is the end of the road for reform.”
Dean said there are some good elements in the bill, but lawmakers should pull the plug and revisit the issue in Obama’s second term, unless Democrats are willing to shortcut a GOP filibuster. “No one will think this is health care reform. This is not even insurance reform,” he said.
The White House pushed back hard at liberals’ complaints Tuesday, with Obama talking up what’s in the plan but not saying a word about what’s been left out:
A single-payer plan, a public option, a state “opt-out” of the public option, a trigger and a Medicare buy-in — all ideas pushed by Democrats and blessed by Obama at various times but now gone from the bill.
But it’s not just the liberal base that’s feeling unsettled. Obama has also proved frustrating to moderates, who simply wanted to know where Obama’s core principles on health care stood, all the better to cut a deal to the president’s liking.
Time and again, he rebuffed Democrats’ requests to speak up more forcefully about what he wanted — a strategy that allowed Obama to preserve maximum flexibility to declare victory at the end of the process, no matter what the final bill looked like.
He began that process in earnest Tuesday after a meeting with Senate Democrats, who are resigned to dropping a Medicare buy-in compromise to win the vote of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and get the 60 votes needed to pass a bill.
Obama hinted at the Democratic retreat on the plan — saying not every senator’s favorite ideas can be included in any bill — while staunchly defending what Senate Democrats can accomplish in a bill, including making coverage more affordable for 30 million uninsured Americans, cutting insurance premiums and reducing the budget deficit.
“These aren’t small changes. These are big changes. They represent the most significant reform of our health care system since the passage of Medicare. They will save money. They will save families money. They will save businesses money, and they will save government money. And they’re going to save lives,” Obama said.
In the White House meeting, there were signs of tension within the Democratic Caucus. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a proponent of the public option, challenged Lieberman’s arguments that allowing people ages 55 to 64 to buy in to Medicare would add to the deficit and hurt the program.
“I made a direct appeal to him ... and answered the arguments I’ve heard him make,” Brown said. “We’re not giving up. It’s going to conference.”
But in the end, Brown said he would vote for the bill. “I can’t imagine I wouldn’t. There is just too much at stake,” he said.
Obama’s need to pass a reform bill ahead of the 2010 elections drove the political calculus as the calendar turned to December, when the days grew short and the pressure to sign something, anything, began to take precedence. Otherwise, Democrats risked facing voters next fall with little to show for a full year of twin congressional majorities. It’s what drove White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal with Lieberman.
The final bill isn’t even close to a bill then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama spoke of in 2003, when he said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan,” using the terms that commonly refer to a government-run health insurance system.
But whatever Democrats can pass now — if they can pass anything at all — also will fall short of ideas Obama discussed during the year to create a public health insurance plan to provide competition to private insurance companies and keep them honest.
Yet perhaps what angers liberals the most is that Obama himself never seemed willing to push hard enough for the public option — and, in fact, all but took it off the table in August when he said he could sign a bill that didn’t include it.
Once Obama said he didn’t need a public option, these progressives argue, there was no cost or penalty to be paid by a Lieberman or a Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) or a Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) for taking to the Senate floor and opposing it, too.
Progressives feel betrayed, but are not surprised, by the Senate’s move to drop the Medicare buy-in and the public option. They blame Reid and Obama for not exercising their power to fight for the provisions.
Obama’s failure to demand a public option and Reid’s decision to take reconciliation off the table emboldened moderates who might have thought twice about challenging a popular president or a Democratic majority comfortable with using Senate procedure to pass a bill with 51 votes.
“They were very good at making it look like they wanted a public option in the final bill without actually doing anything to make it happen,” said Jane Hamsher, publisher of the liberal blog Firedoglake. “It’s hard to believe that the two most powerful people in the country — arguably the world — could not do more to achieve their desired objective than to hand the keys over to Joe Lieberman. They would not be where they are if they are that bad at negotiation.”
Press secretary Robert Gibbs defended Obama against charges that he was caving in to moderates to get a final bill passed, even if it risked angering liberals who wanted more government involvement in the health care system.
“There’s very little legislation that’s passed that has each and every idea that each and every member of the Senate or the House wants to have in it,” Gibbs told reporters Tuesday. “On balance, does this legislation make a big difference in the lives of everyday working men and women? It’s not even a close call on that.”
If Obama was hoping for a triumphant announcement out of a rare White House meeting with the entire Senate Democratic Caucus Tuesday, his measured tone and acknowledgment that differences remain showed how much work is still ahead for Democrats eager to wrap up by Christmas.
Reid was still awaiting a price tag on his bill from congressional scorekeepers, and Nelson said he still can’t support the current version of the bill, which lacks the tough anti-abortion language he seeks.
But after leaving the White House meeting, even some of the staunchest public option advocates seemed resigned to passing a bill without it or the Medicare buy-in, a sort of public option for people ages 55 to 64 — a sign of a split between liberal elected officials and the activist base. Obama’s argument that Democrats shouldn’t pass up a once-in-a-generation chance to achieve reform appeared to be sinking in.
Brown, who has said several times throughout this process — including two weekends ago — that the president needed to get more involved, brushed aside any introspection about what the loss of the public option says about Democrats or the president.
“It says something about the math here,” Brown said. “You’ve got to get all 60 Democrats and independents, and it is hard to do. I want to continue to talk to people. ... I like the bill. I just think we could make it better.”
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), also a major advocate of the public option a few months ago, is a convert to the bill. He has a perspective that many of his colleagues lack: He was around 15 years ago when President Bill Clinton rejected compromises that fell short of his goal of providing universal coverage.
“If you think of what I don’t get, and you think of what we do get, that’s a pretty long list,” Rockefeller said.
--
Carrie Budoff Brown contributed to this story.
racehorse
Obama: Do Not Fear; This Health-Care Bill Puts Us on the Edge of a Large, Scary Cliff
It was with an odd statement that Obama announced the progress he had made in meetings with Senate Democrats today on the health-care bill he's desperate to pass by Christmas, no matter what's in it.
“We are on the precipice of an achievement that has eluded Congresses and presidents for generations,” Obama told reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats for about an hour at the White House complex.
If you're thinking to yourself that the word "precipice" has negative connotations, and you're wondering why the great orator would use it to illustrate his grand victory, you have reason to wonder. Here are the two definitions of the word, both quite unnerving when applied to the health-care debate:
1. a cliff with a vertical, nearly vertical, or overhanging face.
2. a situation of great peril:
If Bush had done it, the clip would have been on loop as Freudian proof of Bush's dislike of Americans and his intention to get rid of them via risky health-care overhaul, but when the greatest orator of our time stumbles over his words, nary a newscaster will mention it.
But maybe I'm underestimating Obama. Perhaps his intent was to delve into our collective cultural memory to evoke famous, inspiring cliff imagery from American cinema as a metaphor for his great generational health-care triumph.
You know, like, this one:
[there follows several images from contemporary cinema of people/cars flying off cliffs]
Well, in that last one, they do at least get out alive, so maybe the President is trying out a new pitch. "Obamacare: You could get off this frightening, sheer cliff face alive, but you will hang in terror for a while unsure about your fate." Come to think of it, that is rather apt. Touché, Mr. President. Touché. Welcome to the precipice.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/T ... ealthc.asp
It was with an odd statement that Obama announced the progress he had made in meetings with Senate Democrats today on the health-care bill he's desperate to pass by Christmas, no matter what's in it.
“We are on the precipice of an achievement that has eluded Congresses and presidents for generations,” Obama told reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats for about an hour at the White House complex.
If you're thinking to yourself that the word "precipice" has negative connotations, and you're wondering why the great orator would use it to illustrate his grand victory, you have reason to wonder. Here are the two definitions of the word, both quite unnerving when applied to the health-care debate:
1. a cliff with a vertical, nearly vertical, or overhanging face.
2. a situation of great peril:
If Bush had done it, the clip would have been on loop as Freudian proof of Bush's dislike of Americans and his intention to get rid of them via risky health-care overhaul, but when the greatest orator of our time stumbles over his words, nary a newscaster will mention it.
But maybe I'm underestimating Obama. Perhaps his intent was to delve into our collective cultural memory to evoke famous, inspiring cliff imagery from American cinema as a metaphor for his great generational health-care triumph.
You know, like, this one:
[there follows several images from contemporary cinema of people/cars flying off cliffs]
Well, in that last one, they do at least get out alive, so maybe the President is trying out a new pitch. "Obamacare: You could get off this frightening, sheer cliff face alive, but you will hang in terror for a while unsure about your fate." Come to think of it, that is rather apt. Touché, Mr. President. Touché. Welcome to the precipice.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/T ... ealthc.asp