New Haven Independent

Why’d He Do It?

by Paul Bass | December 15, 2009 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (25)

That’s the pop psychology question of the hour as Congress tries to pass health reform. It concerns Connecticut’s maverick U.S. senator, Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman found himself meeting with the White House this week and in the driver’s seat of maneuvering over an historic health care reform bill.

He landed there after a remarkable reversal of position.

Until last week Lieberman was on record supporting allowing 55-to-65 year-olds to join the Medicare program as an alternative to a new “public option” government-run insurance plan. He pitched that idea as recently as three months ago in a meeting at the Connecticut Post. (Click on the video to watch. Read about that here.)

Because Lieberman is the 60th vote needed to pass a health reform bill, Democratic Party leaders crafted a compromise last week based on that Medicare idea.

Then Lieberman went on national TV Sunday and declared: If that Medicare idea is in the bill, he’s going to prevent the whole schmear from passing.

Which sent the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leaders scrambling yet again to find a way to secure Lieberman’s support.

Why’d he do it?

“I don’t have a theory. I am puzzled by that apparent reversal in the space of a week,” said New Haven State Sen. Martin Looney, a longtime Lieberman supporter.

Other Connecticut Lieberman-watchers do have theories. The top five theories follow. Check them out — and then offer your own view in the comments section below.

• He Really Means It. That’s Lieberman’s claim. He now says the country can’t afford a Medicare expansion. He told the Times Monday that he hadn’t remembered advancing the Medicare idea before, and that besides he meant a different version of the Medicare idea when he advanced it in the past. The right-wing Republican press has been hailing him as a hero of conscience.

Lieberman issued a statement Tuesday afternoon “clarifying” his position along those lines. He said that when he supported including more people in Medicare during the 2000 presidential campaign, the country was in better economic shape. And no larger health reform proposal was under serious consideration.

Similarly, he said his remarks to the Connecticut Post “were related to past ideas for health care reform I have considered or supported, and were made before we had a bill for consideration on the Senate floor that contains extensive health
insurance reforms, including limiting how much more insurance companies could charge individuals based on age and providing subsidies that would specifically help people between the ages of 55 and 65 to afford health insurance.”

“Any inclusion of a Medicare buy-in for that same age group would be duplicative of
what is already in the bill, would put the government on the hook for billions of
additional dollars that are not paid for, and would potentially threaten the solvency of Medicare, which is already in a perilous state,” Lieberman said. “I also had concerns
that this provision would result in cost-shifting that would drive up premiums for the 180 million Americans who now have insurance.”

toni%20.JPG New Haven State Sen. Toni Harp (pictured), a leading voice in Hartford on health care, subscribes to this theory, even though she differs with Lieberman on health care.

“I think he meant it. When he had more information, he realized it was not do-able,” Harp said Tuesday.

“The first thing that came to my mind is that he had said it [backing the expansion idea] before he ran the numbers. After he saw the costs, he probably realized that it was not affordable.

“He [also] probably polled a number of groups from doctors, hospitals and insurance companies. I don’t think any of those groups would like it. Medicare reimbursement has gone down the past five years. It’s not likely to come back up.”

Harp said she personally believes that there’s no choice but to include a Medicare expansion if Congress drops the public-option plan. Uninsured people between 55 and 65 right now cost the most to insure — and therefore have the hardest time getting insurance. “If you are not working and uninsured, it’s almost impossible to get insured” at that age, Harp said. And it costs us more when they end up going to the emergency room for non-emergency care.

• He Just Wants To Kill The Bill At All Costs To Get Revenge On The Democrats. According to this theory, Lieberman has never stopped simmering over losing the 2006 Democratic primary and having to run as an independent to retain his seat. So he backed the Republican candidate for president in 2008 — and was the chief mainstream attack dog, suggesting Democrat Barack Obama could be a Marxist.

• Like Any Politician, He Tries To Be The Go-To Guy, The Last Person Needed To Pass A Law. That puts you in the spotlight. And it enables you to bargain for concessions you believe in, like … expanding Medicare?

“He’s put himself in a very powerful position. Most senators do that if they find the right time and the right timing to have an impact on a huge debate,” observed Connecticut Republican Chairman Chris Healy.

Healy embraced all three of these theories. Lieberman has been consistent in saying that the government can’t afford massive new spending in a recession, especially after the Wall Street and Detroit bailouts, Healy said. And “if you read some of the recalcitrant left-wing bloggers, I don’t blame him. I might do it for spite too!”

• The Insurance Industry Owns Him. Lieberman was the second-highest recipient of insurance campaign cash in the 2006 Senate races across the country. He led a similar charge against universal health care when then-President Clinton sought it in 1994. Lieberman disagrees with this theory, pointing out that he has backed some legislation the industry opposes.

Tom Swan has pushed this theory since 1994. Then as now, Swan has been promoting universal health care — and opposing Lieberman — as executive director of Connecticut Citizen Action Group. (He took a detour to run Democrat Ned Lamont’s 2006 Senate campaign against Lieberman.)

“The insurance companies wanted him to do this. They wanted a bill that guaranteed that they make more money,” Swan said Tuesday. “They’ve always made up more of his base” than fellow Connecticut U.S. Chris Dodd’s.

Swan also said he believes math might be at play: If Democrats succeed with health care, they’d have a better chance of building a filibuster-proof Senate majority.”If they get up to 61 or 62 he’d be irrelevant.”

• Joe Lieberman Is A Republican.

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: R | December 15, 2009 12:03 PM

"Lieberman was the second-highest recipient of insurance campaign cash in the 2006 Senate races..."

Flood his office w/ letters, calls and emails so he knows he is not representing most of his constituents. We should be ashamed of ourselves for electing him and allowing him to do this. He is essentially taking away lives that might have been saved w/ access to affordable health insurance. It is unconscionable.

Posted by: observer | December 15, 2009 1:13 PM

It has become an unendurable embarrassment for Connecticut to have perpetrated this despicable, self-obsessed public official onto the country as a whole.

Posted by: terrapin | December 15, 2009 1:40 PM

Please stop running photos of Lieberman and his smug grin. My blood pressure is high enough as it is.

Posted by: William Kurtz | December 15, 2009 1:57 PM

The biggest shame is that we likely won't have the opportunity to vote him out. I can't imagine he will run again; it seems more likely he's laying a path for some kind of lucrative post-Senate career, and salting the earth behind him.

Posted by: Sep | December 15, 2009 2:01 PM

Bill Press aptly describes Lieberman as "Traitor Joe"- a play on the suppermaket-Trader Joe... Either way, Lieberman is trying to trade in influence- his own. He relishes being a deal-breaker and being in the spotlight, even if that means a betrayal of his constituents wishes and the country's needs... My calls and letters to his office have been met with an indifferent-"joe sees-it-this-way kind of reply. I think the Dems should strip him now of his committee chairmenships and disallow his caucusing with the Dems. He has back-stabbed the president many times and proven that placation is a waste on this self-serving Republican and Faux Independent Democrat. Go For the 51 votes and forget about 60.

Posted by: Sep | December 15, 2009 2:33 PM

"It concerns Connecticut�s maverick" There's a vast difference between being mavricky and being a traitor- Joe is the latter.

Posted by: Ira Rosofsky | December 15, 2009 2:35 PM

"He said that when he supported including more people in Medicare during the 2000 presidnetial campaign, the country was in better economic shape. And no larger health reform proposal was under serious consideration."

People need health care in good times and bad. To be consistent Lieberman should call for suspending Medicare during recessions.

" He Just Wants To Kill The Bill At All Costs To Get Revenge On The Democrats. According to this theory, Lieberman has never stopped simmering over losing the 2006 Democratic primary and having to run as an independent to retain his seat."

Very mature.

"Like Any Politician, He Tries To Be The Go-To Guy, The Last Person Needed To Pass A Law. That puts you in the spotlight. And it enables you to bargain for concessions you believe in, like � expanding Medicare?"

Ask the senator if he believes in democracy.

He is good at forgetting his record, having stated in the past that he is opposed to unrestrained filibustering. During the 90s he cosponsored legislation to lower the number of votes for closure. During the supreme court debates during the Bush administration, he was part of the "Gang of 10," which threatened to vote for closure if Democrats filibustered the nominees.

"The Insurance Industry Owns Him. Lieberman was the second-highest recipient of insurance campaign cash in the 2006 Senate races across the country. He led a similar charge against universal health care when then-President Clinton sought it in 1994."

Public option aside, ask the senator if he would support mandating that private insurers provide health care policies on a nonprofit basis, as they do in Switzerland. A comparative look at health care indicates the key to universal coverage and better outcomes is not necessarily public coverage, but nonprofit coverage.

" Joe Lieberman Is A Republican."

That will be his de facto historical legacy, along with an overall legacy of being on the wrong side of history. He will be compared to another famous human rights obstructionist, Strom Thurmond. He too filibustered human rights and left the Democratic party twice. Once to run as a Dixiecrat for president. Later, to be a Republican.

I feel that if he does run for re-election as a Republican in 2012, it could be a good thing and easier to defeat him than in a three-way race.

Posted by: thebpp | December 15, 2009 2:37 PM

Joe Lieberman hates us for voting him out of the Democratic party... He hates working people who struggle for healthcare and he really hates having to talk to the people he is suppose to be representing. What we are witnessing is Joe "working it" to secure a cushy insurance industry job when he retires from the senate in 2012- since he knows he is toast if he tries to run again.

Posted by: G. Kimbro | December 15, 2009 2:45 PM

If there is ever such a thing as a "Domestic Terrorist" then we need not look any further than at LIE berman's behavior! Joe must go, and soon! Im embarrassed to have to be so closely associated with him

Posted by: Walt | December 15, 2009 3:42 PM

Maybe Joe is listening to CT seniors and is defending Medicare, which old folks, like me. need badly.

The Obamacrats are hell-bent on destroying our health insurance coverage by killing Medicare Advantage Plans and draining the already financially- weak Medicare program of a half-trillion $$$ to give to other Dems.

Certainly hope so!

Joe is rhe only Dem-type in CT who may be a friend rather than an enemy to seniors (maybe including your parents) re health care this year.

Please Sen. Joe, don't let us down.

Posted by: JR | December 15, 2009 3:50 PM

All my family members who once supported this guy -- including my elderly Jewish grandmother in southern Connecticut who is in Lieberman's core, core demographic -- have repented and apologized for voting for him. They can't believe what he has become. He is the worst kind of politician there is.

Posted by: terrapin | December 15, 2009 4:12 PM

Perhaps Senator Joe is trying to preserve Medicare by seeing to it that fewer of us survive to seniorhood. My Blue Cross just went up $300 a month, and I really would have liked to have had the public option to consider. While I would like to see the Senator run for re-election for the joy of seeing him lose, I'm afraid that seeing the sheep in this state re-elect him again would kill me.

Posted by: TheVin | December 15, 2009 4:14 PM

God Bless Joe....

Posted by: nfjanette | December 15, 2009 4:26 PM

I note with interest the lack of willingness to explore the option of "He Really Means It". I do not dismiss the other possibilities, especially that of taking advantage of the situation to position himself powerfully, which as mentioned, many other politicians (properly?) would do in the same situation.

The question hanging in the air that serious serious attention to is: how will any plan be funded if the optimistic cost/revenue projections are incorrect? If the economy does not recovery "as planned", or it continues to be a jobless "recovery" with the associated decline in tax revenues, how will each plan impact future budgets and deficits? Without an answer to such a question, the other theories and hand wringing are moot, and Senator Lieberman may deserve credit for standing firm on certain points of the legislation. I state that even as someone who would prefer most of the more "liberal" parts of the reform package.

Posted by: concernedwestvilleres | December 15, 2009 5:13 PM

The Dems plan won't help anyone. Doctors are dropping Medicare and if there is a government plan paying them less than a reasonable amount they will leave the practice. CT already has a shortage of OB-GYN Doctors. This plan will only exacerbate the problem.
While people rail on Insurance companies as motivated by profit, their profit margins average only 3%. Due to coverage mandates they can't make money and as long as healthy young people choose not to be insured the pools are full of sicker people and people who overutilize the system.
Whether Joe is doing this for personal reasons or principle, remember Medicare is near bankruptcy and expanding it will only hasten the bankruptcy. The government is $12 Trillion in debt with no way out. Increasing taxes doesn't provide all the money government thinks they will get as the money is not invested (generating Capital Gains Taxes), saved (generating taxes on interest) or spent (generating sales taxes and income taxes for business that would have profited). As a result the projections will fall flat and the economy will suffer.
Healthcare reform is needed. Anyone who is sick should not be denied care because they can't pay or are uninsured. Yet there are more sensible ways to do so without impinging upon freedoms. If the Dems plan passes with a mandate, it will be tied up in courts until the Supreme Court rules and if it is ruled unconstitutional it's back to square one.
Here are a few ideas to think about:
1. Insurance doesn't pay for every doctor's visit and test. Instead catastrophic coverage for hospitalization, cancer, and maternity should be held. Those that can't afford it would have subsidies. Those that can and choose not to would be required to pay all their bills at what insurance pays. This reduces doctors costs and also gives people incentive to get health insurance.
2. Prescription drugs should be cheaper and it should be done by requiring the free-riding world countries to help pony up for R&D Costs or allowing pharmaceutical companies to amortize thier R&D costs over shorter periods of time on tax returns.
3. Everyone will have to sacrifice. Insurance companies could become nonprofit if all profit is put into lowering costs. Seniors would have to give up some benefits (such as the free scooters advertised on TV), and young and healthy people would have to get insurance or suffer consequences if they have catastrophic illnesses.
4. We need to examine end of life issues and determine if it is worth it to give life-extending treatments to those who are terminal and will die in a few months without treatment or a year or two with treatment. Insurance should not be required to cover the treatment if the life extension is not cost-effective. Doctors and research would show the effectiveness and not insurance companies.

Healthcare reform done right is a good thing. A bad bill will cause many problems. Make sure the bill is done right!

Posted by: The Count | December 15, 2009 5:21 PM

No matter: You guys will find something ELSE to hate Joe for.

Posted by: anna | December 15, 2009 5:28 PM

blah, blah, blah joe....and all while you are feeding at the public trough, enjoying your own health insurance that is paid for by TAXPAYERS. your lack of care for the well-being of the people of this country disgusts me.

Posted by: James D | December 15, 2009 6:27 PM

I can see the Dems' huge relief in having been gifted with the ideal scapegoat, Lieberman, to blame for their failure to pass meaningful reform.

The REAL question is: Will Dodd, Murphy, Larson, DeLauro, Courtney & Himes rubber-stamp non-reform that:

- forces us to buy overpriced/defective private insurance products;
- taxes our insurance benefits if our employers offer those deemed as �Cadillac coverage� regardless of our income;
- can't guarantee employers will keep our current insurance plans/provider networks or that insurance companies will keep benefits & providers the same � so we cannot keep what we�ve got if we like it; &
- lacks a public option?

I suppose we�ll soon find out. And then - will we hold them ALL accountable?

********

OK... you may now return to MORE self-satisfying, pointless Lieber-bashing posts....

Posted by: steve | December 15, 2009 8:25 PM

We can't recall Joe Liberman but we sure can drive/keep him out of CT by protesting him everywhere and everytime he takes a breath of CT air!! ...

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | December 15, 2009 9:22 PM

Why'd he do it? Because he's a manipulative, lying, narcissistic ... relishes being the center of attention. All you "loyal" Democrats who refused to back Lamont should pride yourselves on screwing the country ...

Posted by: Dumb Liberals | December 15, 2009 9:23 PM

You go Joe! I will be voting for you the next time around!

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | December 15, 2009 9:45 PM

It's mostly a psychological thing with Joe. First, he felt like he was cheated out of being VP in 2000 (he's right about that). Then he thinks that he is the logical front runner for the Dem. pres. nomination in 2004. It is when he is rejected for the nomination that he goes off the tracks and turns increasingly bitter to the Democratic base. From that point on, he pals with Cheney and Bush, and starts going out of his way to bash Dems. The 2006 wake-up call he got from the Dem base, only increased his anger and bitterness at the Dems, whom he feels denied him his due yet again. At this point he loves sticking it to the Dems in the name of "bipartisanship" or "principle". If he can never be president, he can at least always be the one hold-out senator the Dems have to court. Joe is a textbook case of how ambition can eat away your soul.

Posted by: john | December 15, 2009 9:46 PM

tried to call the CT office: vm was full, or the line was busy, and nobody picked up. pretty clear ole joe doesn't care to listen anyway!

Posted by: Martha H | December 16, 2009 9:51 AM

"Has Lieber-bashing made some practitioners insane?"

See: "Hartford Courant prepares for backlash created by today's blatantly anti-Semitic cartoon"

Why’d He Do It?

Comments

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed