Lieberman Was FOR Medicare For Americans 55+ BEFORE He Was Against It!!
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
December 14, 2009 4:49pm CST
By now, anyone who has been following the health care reform saga knows that Senator Joe Lieberman appeared on the Sunday morning talk shows yesterday and vowed to join the GOP in filibustering the Senate health care bill if it includes the provision allowing people between the ages of 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare.
You probably know now, if you didn't before, that when he ran as Al Gore's VP running mate in 2000 he was very much FOR that very thing. Lieberman spokesman Marshall Wittmann defended this flip-flop by saying, "This is nine years later, and we have a huge national deficit and a program [Medicare] that analysts indicate is in dire fiscal straits in 2009. If anyone believes that the situation has not changed, they also believe that Tiger Woods is not a controversial figure at this moment."
You may also know that he campaigned for the U.S. Senate as an Independent in Connecticut in 2006 and AGAIN was for this provision: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/12/health-care-reform-watch-senator-joe-lieberman-humiliates-himself-yet-again.html
Fine, I'm sure there would be those who would say things have also changed a great deal since 2006 to justify this complete 180. BUT, have they changed that much since September 8 OF THIS YEAR? Here is an interview he gave to the Connecticut Post on Sept. 8, 2009: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1859729944?bctid=36676057001
A few weeks ago I'd heard where someone - I honestly don't remember who it was, but I heard it on the TV news - made the claim that Lieberman isn't really acting on principle or even protecting the big insurance companies from his state but he's simply a very bitter man over what he sees as unfair treatment by the Democratic party and is therefore determined to do anything and everything he can to defeat health care reform.
What do you think? Is he bitter or is he justified in his flip-flops? If you answer the latter, what made him change his position in three short months?
Annie
8 responses
@DennisAdkins (2)
• United States
15 Dec 09
Lieberman is using the same hold up technique used by Senator Mary L Landrieu, LA (D). It is unfortunate that our current elected officials will sell out on an issue of this historic proportion for personal gain. Senator Lieberman sold his vote! We can't be sure at this time what his payoff was, but it will eventually be known.
1 person likes this
@peavey (16936)
• United States
15 Dec 09
Lieberman is pretty well known for his flip flops, but in this case, I think he has a valid reason. It's not realistic to think that they can cut funds, add people and keep the same level of service. That just doesn't make sense.
Have things changed since Sept 8? Yes. They've changed since Dec 8. They're constantly changing as Congress hassles over the bill.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
15 Dec 09
Who knows why he flip flopped. Maybe he got a lot of preasure from his home state or lobbyists.
I will tell you this whole thing has turned into one big mess. Just like everything congress does.
Pelosi is now saying she is willing to put forth a bill WITHOUT a public option in it. And I saw today in the news that the Medicare buy- in was cut too.
So what is left? The mandate that everyone MUST have health insurance by law. And a bunch of tax increases. The insurance companies are laughing all the way to bank with that one. Anyone with a PPO will be crying. While the poeple who don't qualify for government programs but can't afford insurnace will be made into criminal for not having it.
This bill is useless. One big joke. It will cause more problems than it solves.
At this point I think they are just wasting their time. They are not going to be able to pass anything worth the time and attention, not to mention money that has been spent on it.
But because of "pride" they will force "something, anything" through just so they can say they did it.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
15 Dec 09
From what I've heard and read the people of his state are very much in favor of a public option, something which he's been against for months now so my guess would be the insurance lobbyists are his main influence. Them and his bitterness against his Democratic colleagues in the Senate. I know I find it very hard to support a plan that is little more than a gift to the insurance companies. As for any tax increases, I don't think anyone knows if there will be any or how much on whom. I HAVE heard those with annual incomes below $90,000 will be eligible for subsidies to help pay for insurance so IF that's true I have no problem with a mandate. I think that's better than the hidden tax we've all been paying for years to make up for those who use the ER as their primary care facility and then can't pay the exorbitant bills.
Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
16 Dec 09
"Them and his bitterness against his Democratic colleagues in the Senate."
You keep saying that Annie, yet you have NOTHING to back up your claim. Just the other day he voted WITH democrats on their $1.1 trillion stimulus 2 when he easily could have joined the GOP along with a couple other democrats to filibuster it. Why are you so eager to forget that he supported that, the first stimulus, and the bailout? He also sided with them when the GOP tried to prevent the debate from even starting.
Admit it Annie, you just can't handle any democrat that doesn't vote with the party 100% of the time. Independent thought has no place in the DNC.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
16 Dec 09
To be fair independent thought is not very welcome in the Republican party either. It seems both parties have issues with poeple not following the party line ALL THE TIME on everything.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
14 Dec 09
I've been paying less and less attention to all of this garbage, but the way I understand it, they are trying to cut 500 billion or some outrageous number from Medicare AND extend it to people 10 years younger (millions of more people). So maybe they weren't trying to do that back then and now he's worried about quality of care.
Justification would be relevant. But I do suspect that there are more factors in the last few months that would prompt someone to change their mind.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
15 Dec 09
The way I understand it is there won't be any cuts to actual services and care that Medicare participants currently receive. If there were, for what it's worth, I'd certainly be opposed to it. What Lieberman did say originally, when they first started discussing the idea of Medicare for younger people was that he'd "take a look" and that he and others should wait for the CBO report before passing judgment. Several days later he changes his mind and tells of his plans to help filibuster the bill, even though the CBO has yet to release their grading. The filibuster itself is another thing he's done a 180 about; he is also on tape from 1995 speaking out against the whole idea of filibustering. Now he sees it as this great "power" he's been given as a U.S. Senator.
Annie
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
15 Dec 09
The fear some people have about the cuts, although people can certainly be overtly specific and cite that "it's not in the legislation," is really the reality of putting them in action as opposed to what they're "intended" to do.
I don't think it's any coincidence that some of the most business-minded people are the ones against spending and cutting and expanding and blah blah in the first place. Business owners know all too well what happens when the money's messed with at all. Maybe pay cuts, benefit cuts and unemployment wasn't what so-and-so expected when they raised taxes on businesses, but it's just a consequence.
You can fit this square peg (government-run Medicare) into a round hole (private industry) due to the corners they'll cut off in order to keep it from becoming a trillion-dollar monster. That's one thing they cannot afford to do -- literally. So It'll slide right in. Any cuts at all could very well end up being passed down the line. Heck, I would think this to be true 10-times over when dealing with the government. Regardless of who you pull for, I think it's a mighty safe bet that the government is incredibly inept at 99.9% of things they try to accomplish when there's a single penny involved.
But as far as Liberman is concerned, he can hit the road, too!
I say pass every piece of major legislation through all 50 states and let the folks vote. &$*^ these politicians. I'm sick of the lot. 
America is great for many reasons. One of the last on the list (way, way down) would be government -- and certainly not any government in recent history. Let the people sing and freedom ring.
America is great for many reasons. One of the last on the list (way, way down) would be government -- and certainly not any government in recent history. Let the people sing and freedom ring.1 person likes this
@coolcoder (2018)
• United States
14 Dec 09
I don't really see your point. Lieberman changed his mind, possibly after doing some more research on it; so what?
You probably heard this claim from one of the liberal news stations such as CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, or others who think that opponents of the liberals' way of doing things are evil, bitter people who want to do everything in their power to screw up Obama's administration.
@stephcjh (38473)
• United States
15 Dec 09
Who knows? I think alot of them to get paid off to choose this or that or to change their mind. I think it is all just one big political game. They like to toy around with everything.
@artistry (4151)
• United States
18 Dec 09
........Hi again annie, I for one am totally ticked with just about everybody in Washingtoon, D. C. I have never seen such uncaring peope who walk around spouting off about how they want to do something for the American people and they are so full if it, it makes one want to upchuck. I called my sister the other nigth and had her laughing out loud at me, because I told her I wanted something very bad to happen to Mr. Lieberman and I needed her to pray for me because I should not wish
for such a thing. But I can't stand this man, he has been bought and paid for by the insurance company and they say the same thing for Mary Landrieu. The two have supposedly gotten millions for their campaigns and therefore helped to water down the health care reform bill so that the insurance companies can have a party when and if th bill is signed in its present form. He is also on a vendetta against those progresives who defeated him the last tine he ran and this is payback time. All I know is that if he does not go to work for an insurance company when the next election comes around, they better get someone to beat his behind. He does
not deserve to be in the Senate. He is a pure disgrace and a liar to boot. He is doing the exact opposite of what he said he wanted to do with Medicare, when he ran. Take care.
