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
- 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
- Welcome the 113th U.S. Congress:... January 03, 2013
- Secretive Conference Committee F... December 20, 2012
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 31-41 of 41 total comments.
Moderated Comment
Going last to first:
I think that republican government has the potential to be democratic; it is (technically) answerable to the people. I’ll always throw in my lot with the democratic system, the more democratic the better. It’s not about the gov’s interests; it’s about my ability to participate in the process.
And laws are not contracts, and they don’t give the gov total control over you. In no country where people have had basic human rights has this been the case. There are no legal structures or precedents for the gov to force relocation to make its policies fairer. Are you picturing 1960s China? I’d like an example of when it’s happened to anyone but an “enemy” population.
Also, who is this cabal trying to “regulate every single aspect of our existence”?
Finally, support for this plan just went below 50%; that’s not unpopular. It’s actually amazingly high for a plan that both left and right hate. 47% think it’s the gov’s job to get us health care. http://bit.ly/1thawX
You want a ‘democratic’ system? Socialism does not work — ever — and is simply tyranny of the majority. In a Republic, you have ‘property’ and ‘rights’ (because rights come from property) which exist over and above the law. The Government cannot lay a tax on something you OWN… and this is why Income Tax can be (and has been) defeated in court, because you own your labor. In a democratic system, your property can be simply voted away from you because that’s what the majority wants.
Our current system has been abused by those in power. Senators are meant to be appointed, not elected. In this way if a Senator abuses his or her power they can be recalled immediately instead of waiting for the next term election. Your local Representative and town/county/whatever officials are the only people you should be electing in this Government, and in this way the power trickles UP from the people. ‘Democratic’ doesn’t work… that’s why we’re a republic.
As for the ‘cabal’ trying to regulate our existence? It’s called ‘government’ and that’s what governments DO. There is a little voice inside the man-beast that compels us toward ever greater power and control over others. Have you seen how many permits it takes to take your dog with you fishing at the shore these days? Drivers license, auto registration, safety inspection, emissions inspection, certificate of insurance, dog license, proof of vaccination, beach tag, parking permit, fishing license, and some states require you have a permit to carry fish back across state lines. That’s off the top of my head.
Cap & Trade and government health-care are going to make this better?
There are no legal structures or precedents for the government to force relocation? ‘Presidential Emergency Powers’, ‘Eminent Domain’ and FEMA, to name but three ways they can move you ‘for your own good’ off the top of my head. Health-care just expands their options so they can control where health-care workers live by controlling their money supply. They can (will) also need to control where you go for treatment based on where you live once the rationing starts. It’ll be for your own good, of course. Vast sections of land will need to remain undeveloped, of course, if they manage to shove Cap & Trade through.
It’s hard to debate you because you keep making philosophical arguments not based in Western law or philosophy. Why can’t property be taxed? Where does that come from? It’s neither English nor American law.
If income tax was beaten in court, why does it exist? Did the gov conspire to ignore the ruling? I don’t get it.
You keep insisting that rights come from property, but it’s not true. If property determines rights, the propertyless have no rights. That violates every republican ideal of the past 400 years.
Also, I can’t understand how you can focus on the idea that Congress works for us, yet you deride the word “democratic” as a synonym for socialism and say we’d be better off having our Senators appointed. For someone so focused on freedom, you don’t seem worried about unelected groups governing you.
Rights coming from property, property “over and above the law,” votes limited to town/county, the essential abandonment of the social contract: What you’re describing is feudalism.
As for everything else, I’ll admit there are a lot of permits today. I’m sorry you have a problem with them. They can be annoying, but they are the burden of civilization. Car registration charges drivers for the roads. Rabid dogs, reckless driving, and emissions are deadly. (The carrying fish over state lines thing sounds kinda dumb.)
We have civilization (not government, mind you, but civilization) to protect people from the state of nature. You do give up some freedom, but that’s the price to not be eaten by wild dogs or sold into slavery. Within civilization we have social contracts to protect us from government.
You seem to think 2 things: 1) The existence of government by definition nullifies the social contract and creates tyranny, and 2) the few freedoms we give up in a liberal democracy to facilitate civilization are not worth the benefits, and we should instead have rule by ownership. I disagree on both points, and we’ll be talking past each other until this is addressed.
Not based on Western Law of philosophy? The problem here is you do not even understand where ‘Law’ comes from.
Everyone owns property. You own it the very day you are born until the day you die (unless, as previously stipulated, you give it away by contract. This property is, of course, your own body. No one can tell you what you can and cannot do with it, and no one can make a law to the contrary.
The purpose of ‘law’ is to protect personal property. If someone punches you in the face, they have violated your property. If you don’t understand this then you do not understand law at all, and shouldn’t preach about it.
As for Senate appointments? I already explained this: you elect who appoints the Senator. The power trickles UP from the people. If your local representative in your district appoints a Senator you hate, you vote him out of office. District elections are ABSURDLY easy to overturn.
Income tax is defeated all the time… Google it.
Socialism is democracy in it’s purest form. If you do not understand this — you do not understand the nature of the beast.
A quote from John Adams about property to drive the point home that you really do not have a clue what you’re talking about: “The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Property is not the only thing that law in the Western tradition is designed to protect. John Locke would argue that “life” and “liberty” were equally as important. Also, John Adams’s insistence that property is “as sacred as the laws of God” is a far cry from your earlier claim that property is above the law. That’s what there is no basis for in Western law. 400 years of political thought have concluded that nothing is above the law. If you’re going keep insisting that property is the ONLY aspect of life covered by law, and that it’s above the law, you’ll need to give me theorists’ names and the titles of books so that I can figure out where you’re getting this from.
I understand the derivation of law quite well, which is why your statements are confusing me.
However, if you really hate democracy and want to limit or abolish it in favor of rule by property, I’m afraid we disagree on the basic principles of life, government, and society.
You already said it yourself: “as sacred as the laws of God” which, and please go ask ANY man of faith, are above the laws of men. It seriously does not get simpler than this.
Due process can remove a man’s property, but only through laws which are written justly. Seriously though, I’m going to have to cut this short because I’ve been making merry and am completely tanked. I’ll take a rain-check on citing supporting arguments until after all the festivities are well-over.
Merry Christmas!