Blog - Joe Lieberman: For Medicare Buy-In Before He Was Against It 
OpenCongress Blog
Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds
Joe Lieberman: For Medicare Buy-In Before He Was Against It
December 14, 2009 - by Donny Shaw
Over the weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman [I, CT], one of the key swing votes on health care, informed Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] that he would vote with the Republicans to filibuster the Democrats’ latest health care “deal,” which would drop the public option in exchange for allowing people aged 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare. To be clear, Lieberman opposes keeping the public option in the bill as well.
Talking Points Memo today had a good catch. As a Vice Presidential candidate in 2000 and as recently as September of this year, Lieberman was a strong backer of opening up Medicare and allowing people to buy into it. In 2000 Bangor Daily News reported:
[Lieberman] said during the interview that the fastest growing group of uninsured are those 55 to 65. For that reason, the ticket proposes an expansion of Medicare to allow those and older to buy into the public program. There would still be a buy-in price but it would be less than buying private insurance, he said.
And here’s the Connecticut Post on September 8 2009 outlining Lieberman’s preferred ways to reform the health care system:
By allowing citizens who are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid to buy in for a rate below the private market, the government can extend coverage to more of those who are currently uninsured, he said.
Why the sudden switch? Ezra Klein thinks it’s about torturing liberals.
UPDATE: And here’s video of Lieberman in September going into detail about his idea to let people buy into Medicare.
Get Blog Updates by Email
Want a simple way to stay on top of what's happening in Congress?
Subscribe to this blog!Send Us a Tip
-
I've been watching a lot of...
Submitted by Robert Schwartzman on Dec 9
-
Proposed Bill HR-2674 Prote...
Submitted by Mary on Jun 16
-
Amendment No. 601 to the Om...
Submitted by Winifred on Mar 3
You can submit a tip anonymously, or attributed to your own name and e-mail, whichever you prefer. Read more about submitting a tip.
Recent Posts
- #SoTU 2013 February 12, 2013
- Pot Legalization Bills Introduce... February 05, 2013
- Endless Blockade for the Senate ... January 25, 2013
- One Year Ago We Killed SOPA -- H... January 18, 2013
- Senate Democrats Looking to End ... January 08, 2013
Archives
See All ArchivesBlogroll
- A plain blog about politics
- The Baseline Scenario
- Capital Eye
- The Caucus
- CBO Director's Blog
- Congress Matters
- The Corner
- CREW Blog
- Crooks and Liars
- Jamie Dupree
- Election Law Blog
- FDL News Desk
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hot Air
- Irregular Times
- Little Sis
- Naked Capitalism
- The Moderate Voice
- OMB Watch
- Open House Project
- Party Time
- Plum Line
- Political Animal
- Political Wire
- ProPublica
- Real Clear Politics
- RedState
- Secrecy News
- Sunlight Foundation Blog
- Talking Points Memo
- techPresident
- 2chambers
- Unanimous Consent
- The Weekly Standard
Sort By
Comments
Displaying 1-30 of 41 total comments.
LOOK you started this reform so everyone that did not have insurance could
have coverage. I need the PUBLIC OPTION, the people that really need the public option are not speaking loud enough.
I don’t have health care right now and I’m under the age of 55, what gives you or anyone else the right to say you have to be any age to have affordable insurance plan. Start acting like legislators and not bought off puppets.
REMEMBER
“…what gives you or anyone else the right to say you have to be any age to have affordable insurance plan.”
What gives you the right to assume possession of other people’s property?
The public option is NOT LEGAL. Read the Constitution or, even better, try to UNDERSTAND IT! The Federal Government has absolutely no right to meddle with health-care and when doing so they violate their oaths of office (and their authority becomes insolvent). We should be putting these criminals on TRIAL right now instead of watching them make a mockery of our laws!
REMEMBER you do NOT have a RIGHT to health-care!
LeMat, stop insisting that the Constitution prohibits publicly run health care. It does nothing of the sort. The Constitution proscribes specific methods for the federal government to lay taxes and to create public institutions. The founders intended for there to be taxes, and they intended for the Congress to create publicly run organizations, so knock it off.
Also, I have “the right to assume possession of other people’s property” in the form of tax money because that’s how civilized societies and governments function. It was legal under the Articles of Confederation; it is legal under the Constitution; it is in no way antithetical to American values or liberty.
Also, according to international human rights treaties that we have signed, health care is a human right. And according to the constitution, treaties we sign are “the supreme Law of the Land.” (Article VI)
The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, and treaties cannot (contrary to popular belief) supersede it: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Of particular note, of course, is the phrase “…to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Also, the very people signing those treaties are BOUND by their oaths. By signing “any thing to the contrary” their authority becomes insolvent. Perhaps you should read rather than telling me off.
I don’t understand how the acceptance of something as a human right can be seen as superseding the constitution. The constitution is very amiable to human rights—it contains the world’s first list of legally enforceable human rights—the idea that accepting one more right via treaty would somehow “supersede” the constitution or be a violation of the oaths of office of those who voted for or signed the treaty is nonsense.
Also of note is the long overlooked Tenth Amendment. Congress can not enact ANYTHING which is not a power specifically enumerated to it. Twisting and bending the commerce clause around the way they have is absolutely reprehensible and in no way representative of the spirit in which that clause was written.
If Congress wishes to act on health-care, they would need to make a Constitutional Amendment allowing them to do so. It is illegal for them to do anything otherwise, and quiet rightly so.
Our Government was never meant to wield limitless power.
Just because you’re a strict constructionalist doesn’t mean that anyone who isn’t is guilty of treason, and that seems to be the path your thinking is taking.
Congress does not need to make a constitutional amendment to establish public health care just like it didn’t need an amendment to charter any of the Banks of the United States or the Federal Reserve. The Supreme Court doesn’t interpret the commerce clause to imply that, while regulating inter-state commerce, the federal government couldn’t create institutions that functioned within states. They’ve done just the opposite, in fact.
You may disagree with any or all of these positions just like you obviously disagree with public health care, but they are not illegal.
They ARE illegal, as is the Federal Reserve (which is why since its inception it has been fought). It is the job of Congress to oversee the money supply — NOT a private corporation free from any kind of outside audit. That is INSANITY and it IS a crime.
Just because our ‘elite’ get away with it does NOT make it LEGAL. They also are not prosecuted because of their favor-trading and INTERPRETATION of LAW. Money talks and BS walks in the District of Criminals.
The reason it is not Constitutional, and your argument is void, is that RIGHTS come from PROPERTY. You cannot walk into a diner and demand free food; you cannot walk into a hospital and demand free treatment; and the Government cannot make EITHER give you ANYTHING for free.
I will be very amused when Uncle Sam tells me I MUST purchase insurance. I will be further amused when they try to fine me.
I know MY rights… you don’t even know what rights are.
I want to address the most absurd thing you wrote here first. Simply put: RIGHTS DO NOT IN ANY WAY COME FROM PROPERTY. The very idea is antithetical to everything that this country, and all liberal democracies for that matter, were founded on. To derive human rights from property rights, you have to accept the idea that a person’s worth, and the liberty that he or she deserves, can and does vary in proportion to his or her financial situation.
To define rights as only coming from property is to reject inalienable rights. It is an authoritarian’s position, holding up medieval absolutism as modern libertarianism by substituting God for capital and dressing it in a suit.
As for the Fed: Of course people have opposed it; bankers could play far more with the money supply before the Fed came around. But congress can regulate money, and it created the Fed to do just that—end of story. Even the pre-New Deal Supreme Court found it legit. And btw, its oldest critics have been elite bankers.
“Just because you’re a strict constructionalist doesn’t mean that anyone who isn’t is guilty of treason, and that seems to be the path your thinking is taking.”
""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…"
That is the Oath of Office, and it is NOT up for interpretation. Not faithfully upholding said oath is grounds for charges of Perjury and Treason. Not making an amendment to the Constitution giving themselves power to legislate on health-care matters means they are breaching their authority — and thus — their oath. Perjury in itself is a FELONY. I’m pretty sure felony offenses are illegal… but you can look it up if you like.
But what you just said is precisely my point. First you wrote:
“Congress can not enact ANYTHING which is not a power specifically enumerated to it.”
And now you add:
“Not faithfully upholding said oath [to support the constitution] is grounds for charges of Perjury and Treason.”
Quote 1 defines supporting the constitution as not using any power not specifically enumerated in it. That is a strict constructionalist view. Quote 2 thus implies that representatives, senators, and presidents who aren’t strict constructionalists should be charged with perjury and treason.
The oath of office may not be up for interpretation, but the constitution is. A strict interpretation of the text is not, and never has been, the view of all members of the Supreme Court or Congress. Often it’s been only a minority’s view; it’s certainly never been mandatory.
Supreme Court decisions for the last 200 years have held that Congress has implied powers. You can’t use rhetoric to change that.
I think you need to read “American Jurisprudence” (try Volume 16, Edition 2) before you go tossing around false claims about what the Supreme Court thinks. I would also like to point out that Case History does not LAW make, merely precedent. Also, the Constitution is a TREATY between WE THE PEOPLE and the Government WHOM WE EMPOWER. The Government is LIMITED and the Constitution limits it! How is it possible for the Constitution to LIMIT Government if the Government can pretend it says whatever they’d like it to? It is NOT possible, and merely a farce to gain as much power as they’d like.
That’s why it says that all powers not SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED belong with the States or with the people. If you cannot comprehend basic English then why am I wasting my time?
The constitution can’t be a treaty between the people and the government because, at the time of its adoption, the federal government as we know it did not exist. A non-existent entity cannot make treaties…or do anything. The constitution is a treaty between the states, through which they agreed to establish a centralized governing system to tie them together.
Also, the 10th amendment never says “specifically enumerated.” It says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
There is nothing there that negates the idea of implied powers. It simply prohibits Congress from passing laws that limit state authority in areas that Congress isn’t given sole authority. It was a protection of states’ internal affairs, not a requirement to strictly interpret the constitution.
That said, I’ll check out the volume of American Jurisprudence you mentioned.
You are correct: the Constitution is a treaty between the States creating a Federal Government, drafted by ‘We The People’. I misspoke on purpose, simplifying the matter so I could point this out to you: it is NOT up for interpretation. This document was drafted to keep the Government’s power RESTRAINED. If you had any idea of what the founders were trying to accomplish, you would know this. Add the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to your reading list.
‘Implied powers’ were a Hamiltonian idea that sprung up after the Revolution. Hamilton died at the hands of Aaron Burr… and not nearly soon enough. We still feel the aftershocks of Hamilton’s greed and idiocy to this day. Wall Street Bankers still leave flowers on his grave, if that puts this in perspective at all for you.
I’ll help you out with AmJur in just a minute, when I dig it out.
From American Jurisprudence [16 Am Jur 2d; SS81]
“A written Constitution is not only the direct and basic expression of the sovereign will, it is also the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and offices of government with respect to all matters covered by it, and must control as it is written until it is changed by the authority which established it. No function of government can be discharged in disregard of or in opposition to the fundamental law. The constitution is a mandate of a sovereign people to its servants and representatives. No one of them has a right to ignore or disregard its mandates, and the legislature, the executive officers and the judiciary cannot lawfully act beyond its limitations.”
Continued from American Jurispudence [16 Am Jur 2d; SS81]
Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public. Neither emergency, nor economic necessity justifies a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantees…
…There is no law enforceable by the courts above or beyond a constitution."
So on and so forth. Still think they can ‘interpret’ them as they like? It is LAW; black ink on white paper. There is no room for ‘gray areas’. If someone thinks there is a ‘gray area’, they do not understand LAW.
These were not even the section I had wished to qoute for you but the book is quite large and today is my day off. I think it gets the point across quite nicely, though I’m sure you can ‘interpret’ some sort of flaw. Do go ahead — I have heavy books and I’m not afraid to use them grin.
I agree completely with the entirety of both those sections you quoted; however, I still do not see how they are supposed to prove that Congress cannot create national health care without a constitutional amendment. If nothing else, Article I Sec. VIII empowers Congress to provide for the general welfare, allowing it to make all necessary laws to do so. Additionally, Article I Sec. IX lists all the things Congress is mandated NOT to do. If creating a national institution of any sort were listed there, I would agree with you. But it’s not. So since Congress is not prohibited from creating national institutions, and since it can be seen to fall under the category of general welfare, I don’t see how it can constitute disregard, disobedience, or evasion of any constitutional mandate. I like your quotes, but I don’t see how they apply.
Now that’s a loose constructionalist view, but if national health care were created and then taken to court, it’s the view that would prevail.
Those sections are a secondary ‘proof against action’, much like the First and Second Amendments, and were argued AGAINST by the founders because they represent fundamental human rights endowed upon each person by birth. Your RIGHTS do not come from a Constitution, they are fundamentally yours from birth unto death… unless you fritter them away by contract.
‘To provide for the general welfare…’ You are making the Alexander Hamilton argument VERBATIM. In truth, this spending of taxes must be tied to the specifically enumerated powers!
Once again, I ask you how a constitution can limit the Government if Government can do whatever it likes? It cannot, and no matter how much you would like to attack the language your fundamental argument is flawed on principle.
Hamilton was shot for a reason.
You’re not being consistent. In an earlier post you accuse me of not knowing what the founders wanted and suggest that I read the Federalist Papers. Now you accuse me of making Hamilton’s argument, which you obviously disdain.
But Hamilton was one of the founders who helped write the constitution as well as MOST of the Federalist Papers. The founders weren’t mythical beings who created a magical document. They were people who constantly disagreed over the constitution they had written together. That’s why THERE ISN’T ONE RIGHT INTERPRETATION.
They created a republic to prevent rule by an absolutist king. They obviously weren’t worried about national institutions since the 1st Bank of the US was chartered while many of the constitution’s authors were in Congress or the Washington administration.
Many people who wrote the words “general welfare” supported Hamilton’s argument and put it into practice. It’s yet to destroy the republican process, unlimit government, or create tyranny.
I’m being perfectly consistent, but count Hamilton in the same list I count Benedict Arnold… the ‘traitors’.
Of course they did not agree! Men are fickle beings and generally are very easily corrupted. The first bank you mentioned was Washington’s greed, and he agreed to it under coercion (from Hamilton and a recommendation of one of Washington’s former commanders… I have forgotten the name), the deciding factor of which was where they placed the capitol of Washington D.C. George Washington sold out his principles so he could get the nation’s capitol to border his lands.
Wow, I totally agree with you now. The Constitution SHOULD be sold out for the gain of the ruling elite. I’m sure that’s what the magical founders had in mind.
The truth is, love it or hate it the PURPOSE of the document is a LIMITATION on Government power, because in the end “when the spirit of Liberty has fled, and Truth and Justice are disregarded, private rights can easily be sacrificed under form of law.”
Do you want a bunch of power hungry bureaucrats ‘interpreting’ our most fundamental laws, or responsible men and women who will OBEY them? They serve US, not the other way around. You can twist and coil this argument all you like, but you cannot argue the fundamental fact that the Constitution is a document intended to limit and restrict the powers of government. If you read it knowing this, all ‘interpretations’ become quite clear.
Of course the purpose is limiting governmental power, but the point was to prevent authoritarianism from arising. When run by the founders, the government exercised lots of implied powers and built national institutions. With no branch ruling absolutely, they saw it as limited government. The Supreme Court agreed. Health care is no different than the Bank and less drastic than the Louisiana Purchase.
For 220 years Congresses have made laws, and the courts have ruled on their legality. Call whomever you like a “bureaucrat,” but this officious system (which the founders began) has successfully staved off authoritarianism. When the government has overstepped its role, the courts have (eventually) forced it back. That’s how the constitution limits government, not by inhibiting all action—and it has worked.
But I finally get you: Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the constitution is a traitor, even if that person helped write the thing and was instrumental in its adoption.
I think we’re going around in circles here, so as a peace offering I have a video you might enjoy. It’s the Civil War in 4 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN85StJ2mTU
I should point out that this is what happens when one sizable group of people really believes that another is trying to subvert the constitution. I don’t believe that any of the pundits, Senators, and Congresspeople going on and on about the travesty of health care reform actually think it is authoritarian or illegal, not even Ron Paul. I think they’re just playing it up for the voters or to get ratings, and until I see Chuck Norris as the president of an independent Texas, I’m not likely to change my mind.
I’m hoping states wake up and take back their 10th Amendment rights because of this bill. I really don’t think you see the true depths of the heath care problem though. So lets table our disagreement on the Constitution.
Let just go with the idea that the government has implied powers, and that this health care bill is legal (I am willfully suspending my disbelief here). If and when you sign on to this gov’t run health care, you (contractually) become a creature of the state! Once they are paying for your health care, you will not have a RIGHT to not take care of yourself. Smoking, drinking, whoring or eating fatty foods… whatever it is you like to do THEY CAN MAKE ILLEGAL at WILL.
They would have the power to do this under contract law. Private rights CAN be given away via contract (form of law). Once they are paying, they have a right to ‘care for’ you however they wish and can justify it along their bottom line.
The problem with the nanny state fear is that the government already does those things. The courts have held up the gov’s power to regulate drugs, and I don’t doubt that a law against cheeseburgers would be seen as legal too. But that has nothing to do with national health care. It might make the Congresspeople concerned with federal spending more inclined to outlaw fatty foods than they would have been if the gov spent nothing on health care, but it doesn’t create the power.
I think we’d be better off under a government system because power does, ultimately, rest with us. Look at the recent mammogram controversy. Congress couldn’t oppose the recommendations fast enough because people freaked out. If we demand fatty food, booze, AND health care from the gov, we can have it all as long as we’re willing to pay for the higher medical costs using them causes. You can’t make that demand of a private insurance company using ITS money. You can of the gov using since it’s using OUR money.
If the power truly rested with us then they would not be trying so hard to pass it. Health care is unpopular right now, in case you’ve missed the numbers. I’m sure Washington hasn’t missed them, but do as they wish anyway.
Also, it DOES create the power under contract law to regulate on our behavior, because we will become their dependents (investments). It doesn’t even stop there… to create a more ‘fair’ health care system they can even tell you where to live, and with Cap & Trade also in the works they are looking to regulate every single aspect of our existence… and it will all be very much ‘legal’. Interpretively, of course.
The writing is on the wall. The question you need to ask yourself is do you believe our Government has your best interests at heart, their own?
Government is a slow, creeping infection. They do not ask — they take.
I started a new post to continue this. This was getting too narrow. It’s on page 2.
I suspect you dislike poverty.
The government programs that you want do nothing for you but force you to stay in a position of poverty.
You are so prepared for the tax paying citizens of this country carry your burden for you? Is that right? Perhaps I should give you my hard earned paycheck instead right?
I understand that people are in hard times, but the answer is not the public option. Health care is not the responsibility of the tax payer, it is the responsibility of the individual. The Government can only guarantee you the pursuit of happiness and general welfare. Granted some of that is being hampered by greedy insurance company’s, but they are the ones that need to be addressed, not a new Government run system. I suggest you look research the current government run programs and see where they are at and in what condition they are in. Then after you do that, I suggest that you look into states where everything was run by the Government such as the USSR, and see what became of them.