Monday, December 14, 2009

Taking Flip-Flopping To a New Level

"It’s not entirely clear that Lieberman was offering a full-throated current endorsement of the proposal, but his tone is clearly positive and approving. It’s yet another sign, as if you needed one, that Lieberman’s current opposition to the Senate proposal doesn’t appear to have any roots in a genuine policy disagreement." - Greg Sargent's Blog-The Plum Line.  Video taken from an interview with a newspaper in his homestate of Connecticut.

What is clear is what he said yesterday:  "Lieberman punctuated the discussion by telling the majority leader directly that he will vote against the bill if the Medicare buy-in and public option provisions remain in it. Roll Call reports that Lieberman said he would also support a Republican filibuster of legislation that included these provisions.
RECAP:  1.  Three months ago, Senator Lieberman offered what I characterize as strong support for a Medicare buy in-for folks 50-55.  2.  Yesterday, he said in no uncertain terms that he will filibuster just such a bill if it contains a medicare buy-in and a public option.  3.  There is no public option in the current bill.

On third thought:  Now, the counter-argument is that Lieberman may well come up with a reason to back away from that bill as well. Given his obvious bad-faith negotiation, that's certainly a danger. But Olympia Snowe is not negotiating in bad faith, and she, unlike Lieberman, actually seems to care about health care reform. So even if you revert to something like the Senate Finance bill and Lieberman tries to stab you in the back, you can still pick up Snowe. (A fact that itself reduces the chance that Lieberman will attempt a second act of sabotage -- why try to knife health care reform if you can't kill it?)

Finally, the defining post by Lee Siegel as to who Joe Lieberman really is, and why he does what he does.
"I grew up surrounded by non-religious Jews who were guided by the principle of rachmones, meaning “compassion.” They were guided by feeling, too, but it was not the absolute certitude of fundamentalist feeling. Rather, it was the feeling that life changes fast, and that people are vulnerable. They were gentle and ironic people. They liked this Yiddish saying: “God loves the poor, but helps the rich.” They probably lost more than they won in life, but they never fooled themselves into thinking that they were doing good when they were merely doing well."


  1. Ok, I admit, I stopped watching at the one minute & 23 second mark of the video. Convoluted thinking, poor articulation, and obvious obfuscation at work here. But, my bottom line remains the bottom line. Priority number one in the nation is our debt. We can pass endless do-good bills and our collapse will make them all meaningless.

  2. You didn't miss much....

    Or we can do nothing and forestall the inevitable what, 5 years?

  3. Oh, no, not do nothing! That's never been my opinion. I want real tort reform & an end to pre-existing condition discrimination. How about allowing people to invest their money into private retirement plans as opposed to forcing them to buy into Social Security? Flexible spending accounts, allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, etc. There are some decent ideas out there which won't create a money sucking monster.

  4. Words have meaning. Do you mean to let our parents and grandparents to have lost literally 60-70% in the last year because of the stock market, just wither up and die? Bush wanted seniors to invest in solid, gold-chip stocks to preserve their nest-egg. Those banks, Citibank for one, has been regarded that way. To get personal, my Mother lost a lot from a small inheritance that was given to her by being invested in those (excuse the language) fucking, piece of shit bank stocks. You have read my posts and seen me rile against them. Banks are worthless and produce NO VALUE to our society other than that of blood-sucking vampires. By the way, always feel free to use language that you mean to say here. There are no language rules. If I'm offended or think it wrong, I won't reply.

    I TOTALLY agree with tort reform and allowing insurance companies to sell their wares across state lines. I URGE you to check out tort reform and get back to me as to how much of a % of health care reform costs it is. I have looked it up and have found it not as much as claimed. BUT, I agree, let's have it. They already have it in several states, Texas being one that comes to mind, did it lower any costs there, or a better question, How did it help the people?

    My understanding, and I am sure there is SOME correction you can find, is that insurance generally is a state regulated industry, and is subject more to state laws, and could be purchased interstate if the laws would allow. I would appreciate your finding of facts on this one.

    As I said in my post elsewhere regarding your words, How about we eliminate medicare, medicaide, The VA, and social security, all government run programs with the highest approval ratings, and see where we are. If that's your solution, then I respect it. I don't think that, while philosophically thinkable, it's politically, or more important, pracitally possible.

  5. Yes, insurance companies are run by the states. That's part of the reason you can't buy certain insurances in certain states. As to doing away with the federal agencies you cited, that can never happen. We are so entrenched with these social services that I doubt we can ever wean the nation off of them. That's another reason I oppose a new from scratch gov't run health insurance program. We will continue with the same problems while adding more to the debt. The idea is to start reducing the debt, remember? If we expand Medicare, at least we have a framework in place, and don't have to start all over again. But those loonies in D.C. want to cut Medicare while exanding it, but they aren't expanding Medicare to let every uninsured person in, only those over 50. In my house we have seen our retirement funds lose money due to the recession. We have also been without health insurance when my husband was out of work for a year. My husband's former company stopped contributing to his pension fund outright. He was lucky to have been there awhile, so he had some money which survived. I am not a heartless person. But I really believe that we will reach a point when our national debt gets to the point where we can't pay it back. TWELVE TRILLION dollars. Do you really think adding more debt will help? Do you really think we have enough wealth in this country to pay it off?