You remember what happened to Joe Lieberman in 2006. After being the Dem Veep candidate in 2000, he went from darling to goat after climbing into the sack with GWB and backing many of his policies, especially the invasion of Iraq and its continuing occupation. He sided with the Repubs in the Senate on many key issues, enraging the Dem leadership. When up for re-election in Connecticut in 2006, the Dems primaried him with progressive businessman Ned Lamont. Lieberman was defeated in the primary, and the entire Democratic leadership threw their support behind Lamont. Lieberman abandoned the party, went indepedent, and won the election anyway. He has continued being a thorn in the side of the Democratic leadership, caucusing with them, but poking them in the eye at every opportunity. He supported Grandpa McCain in 2008, even spoke at the Republican convention, and has now killed any chance of meaningful health care reform by reversing himself from just 3 months ago when he publicly supported allowing those 55 - 64 to buy Medicare. Obviously, Lieberman did this, not because it's good public policy, but for one goal.
Revenge.
In an interview with the New York Times, Lieberman actually said that he decided to oppose the Medicare buy-in proposal because liberals liked it too much. In the interview he said,
So. Lieberman supports the Medicare option until the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party enthusiastically supports it. He then suddenly reverses himself and opposes the very proposal that he himself had made just 3 months ago. That's not thoughtful public policy. And it's not erratic idiocy. What we are witnessing is pure, raw political revenge against those who opposed him in 2006.
As we've talked about before, Harvard released a study showing that 45,000 people die each year due to lack of health insurance. The Medicare option would go a long way towards saving many of these lives. Lieberman's choice? Apparently, he's indifferent to thousands of people dying. He'd rather get his revenge.
The people of Connecticut must be so proud.
Revenge.
In an interview with the New York Times, Lieberman actually said that he decided to oppose the Medicare buy-in proposal because liberals liked it too much. In the interview he said,
"Congressman (Anthony) Weiner made a comment that Medicare-buy in is better than a public option, it's the beginning of a road to single-payer. Jacob Hacker, who's a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, 'This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.'"His opposition to the Medicare option flies in the face of his own words from as late as September of this year when his proposal was precisely that. This video from an interview with bloggers emerged yesterday where he touted this idea:
So. Lieberman supports the Medicare option until the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party enthusiastically supports it. He then suddenly reverses himself and opposes the very proposal that he himself had made just 3 months ago. That's not thoughtful public policy. And it's not erratic idiocy. What we are witnessing is pure, raw political revenge against those who opposed him in 2006.
As we've talked about before, Harvard released a study showing that 45,000 people die each year due to lack of health insurance. The Medicare option would go a long way towards saving many of these lives. Lieberman's choice? Apparently, he's indifferent to thousands of people dying. He'd rather get his revenge.
The people of Connecticut must be so proud.
...maybe joe and the folks in conn looked beyond the spin and hype at the real facts...such as those psuedofacts presented in your continued ref to the harvard study touting 45,000 dead...
Lies, Statistics, and the 45,000 dead from lack of insurance
September 21, 2009
The shocking headlined screamed "45,000 die each year from lack of health insurance". WOW! That sounds bad. Now let's see how they came up with that.
"Researchers from Cambridge Health Alliance report in the American Journal of Public Health on a study that followed 9,005 adults under 65 years old who took part in a national survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1986 through 1994. After 12 years, 351 people had died. Sixty of them were uninsured and 291 were insured. "
From this, and based on the estimate of 40 million uninsured, they extrapolated 45,000 deaths per year. Nowhere did they investigate the cause of the deaths, they simply attributed all deaths to lack of insurance to get the shocking headline number. So, using their logic, the 291 others deaths in the study must be attributed having insurance. Therefore having insurance increases your risk of death by 500%! YES! Almost a quarter of a million killed each year because they have insurance, and Obama wants EVERYONE to have insurance? Aren't enough people dying already? What kind of a monster is he?
(For the sarcasm impaired, I realize this is absurd and a complete misrepresentation of the data. The point is that the original 'study' is just as absurd, but no one bothered to look critically at the data because it supported their agenda.)
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/thecleverbulldog/2009/09/lies-statistics-and-the-45000.php
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2009/09/of-homicide-and-health-insurance.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/sep/17/junk-science-expert-sounds-alarm-insurance-study/
**********************************************************************************************
Editor's note: Ar thou is back with more bullshit. His sources are an anonymous reader blog and an opinion piece by Amanda Carpenter from the Moonie Times. Let me think...a study conducted by Harvard Medical School or blog pieces from unqualified nobody opinion slingers. Hmmm...I think I'll go with Harvard. You would do better to quote Sesame Street or reruns of Howdy Doody. Their opinions would be more reliable.
I know you haven't thought about it since it doesn't fit your hate profile, but isn't ONE death from lack of insurance too many? That's what I thought.
Jefe
Bottom line........as long as congress is "for sale", we, the people, will continue to get the short end of THIS stick.
The "tea baggers" have been predicting an "uprising". Talk about your irony, they MAY be right.
I get phone calls almost every day from some liberal political group asking for money. I've stopped donating to Democrats, but will send money to people like Markos and Jane Hamsher, whose national blogs (not that the Hurricane isn't effective) seem to be speaking for me.
Will we ever get a Politician who is willing to go to the wall for the people rather than the PACS ? I, like a lot of others, thought Obama was "The Man", turns out the only change we got was when he became part of the organization. Screwed again !
But I'm guessing they don't offer health benefits. ;)
I can't believe meaningful healthcare reform has been scuttled by one singular asshole. A former Democrat and a VP candidate at that. Lieberman has no conscience. And he will go to political hell for it. He had better get his residency in Arizona before 2012. He is toast in Connecticut.
And Obama and the Democrats have no balls. Fucking eunuchs. This is one time I have to admit the Repubs are right and we are guilty as charged. You would think just once Obama or any Democrat would just badass the dickholes in Congress when we really need him to. Nope. Wussed out just like Clinton. I thought Obama was a good student of history. He apparently has a blind eye to Santayana here. Clinton deja vu all over again to quote Yogi. Absolutely shameful.
Carol wrote: I hope "your people" are not the same ones that are currently in Congress.
----------------
Oh no. These are friends of my Uncle Pietro up in Jersey. My people....can't even vote. But, shall we say, they're very "conscientious" people. They care about the country. Got a lot of money invested in America.
AH, I don't know anything about Greenwald, but the other news sites are writing about this as well...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/16/democrats-lash-out-at-oba_n_394424.html
President Obama needs to jump in feet first and not send his messengers in if we are going to get some kind of workable health care reform.
My fear is that it is too late.
In the words of Howard Dean... "KILL THE BILL".
Mr. Galt,
That's a good question...Last night I heard talk of 'reconciliation' and an even more watered down bill...I don't get it. I'm sure someone here must know the process.
Is it any wonder so many Americans have lost confidence in our government, given the duplicitous and lying behavior by this bastard?
Isn't Greenwald a conservative...Not that there's anything wrong with that...ok, there is something wrong with that. I wouldn't expect anything "fair and balanced" from him?
Oh God! Nevermind...
Which "Sparkle" are you talking about (she asks, shuddering)?
Hmmm, wondering if this bag of hot CT air will be a guest on Sparkle Farkles newly released radio talk show? Just a thought... jerks.
LOL! I hope "your people" are not the same ones that are currently in Congress.
Carol: Find out which train he takes from Connecticutt to DC and let me know. I'll take care of the rest. I know people.
I did not mean to imply that everything would be OK once the bill goes to conference or comes back to the senate.
I was merely pointing out that what Reid is doing NOW in order to placate Lieberman and others does not really make any difference, again, because the whole issue will be revisited later.
Remember, all it takes is 51 votes to pass it. Are you saying you don't think there will be 51 votes?
I read that this morning.
Made me want to throw up in my mouth a little bit.
I think this commentary, from Glenn Greenwald, just about says it all:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/16/white_house/index.html
Obama clearly is getting exactly the bill, he's always wanted.
Spin it anyway you want.
And some Democrats.
I watched a progressive talk about the current bill on msnbc and his claim was that there are a lot of good things in the bill...and the most important goal is to get 'something' and then improve upon it over time. I'm not predisposed to defend Obama today but in reality he has only so much leverage. In watching him yesterday, I was thinking rather than trying to pretend optimism he should have stated how sorely disappointed he was in the jerkoff "independents" and Republicans.
I got nothing to add to what Carol said.
Except: This will cost Dems in 2010 and 2012.
This bad bill is NOT better than nothing.
When the American people find out they are going to be mandated to buying high priced insurance....
They aren't going to reward the Democrats at the polls.
For the Democrats to try to "spin" this.... as "Just the beginning of reform" is intellectually dishonest.
They will have fewer votes in the Congress, after the mid-terms... and look at the mess they made trying to get this done, and the time it has taken, .... with the "overwhelming support" of the American people.
Either way...Carol's right. "We are so screwed."
As one of my buddies in Catholic grade school use to say, "May he go forth and multiply" or in other words, get fornicated.
I am trying to decide what I am the most angry about...Lieberman's unconscionable behavior in blocking the Medicare buy-in, or Obama's "make a deal with him at all costs" to get a bill - however bad -- passed.
We are so screwed.