Lieberman Would Vote Against Senate Health Care Bill

Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman surprised Democrats yesterday by declaring he would vote against the Senate health care bill in its current form. In an interview on Face the Nation, Lieberman said that he would "have a hard time" voting for the bill if it includes a compromise, reached last week, to set up insurance plans run by nonprofit companies supervised by the government, and allow people without insurance to buy into Medicare at age 55. His remarks seemed to surprise some Democratic leaders who thought Lieberman had agreed to go along with the compromise.

Lieberman said the Medicare buy-in has "some of the same infirmities that the public option did. It will add taxpayer costs. It will add to the deficit. It’s unnecessary. The basic bill, which has a lot of good things in it, provides a generous new system of subsidies for people between ages 55 and 65, and choice and competition." Lieberman opined that without his support, the bill did not have the filibuster-proof 60 votes to pass. One Senate Democratic aide described Lieberman's statements as "a total flip-flop, and leaves us in a predicament as to what to do."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky crowed, "The Democrats are in serious trouble on this, and the core problem is the American people do not want us to pass it." Democrats hope to pass a bill by Christmas, but at this point Lieberman isn't their only obstacle. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat, was also on Face the Nation yesterday, and declared, "I can't support the bill with the abortion language that's there." Nelson is strongly opposed to any bill that would include insurance coverage for abortion, and on Saturday Senate majority leader Harry Reid met with advocates of abortion rights to explore ideas for a compromise. Watch the Face the Nation interview below.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in News on December 14, 2009 9:53 AM

Comments [rss]

PSS

Lieberman alone could bring health reform to a halt or are there are Dems that aren't on board ?

jj99

you freakin libs

healthcare will bkrupt us

jt10000

He's an opportunistic hypocrite who'd been bought by the insurance industry. He only cares about their money to him.

Look at his beliefs here and compare them to his recent statemetns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIb13mYoy0Q

RevWaldo

"You know what? I'm happy. I already have health care..."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-3-2008/john-mccain--the-person-he-is

(Jump to 3:00)

Spirit of 76

It's small consolation that while Bush and Cheney stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, they at least also stole the vice presidency from Lieberman.

felixthecat2

Deep down, I don't think Lieberman wanted Gore to win.

Spirit of 76

Sure he did. Think of the worst case scenario. Gore became PotUS. After eight years of a successful, peaceful Gore administration, Lieberman runs on his coattails in '08 and we'd be a year into Lieberman's first term right now. Scary.

EastRiver

After eight years of a successful, peaceful Gore administration

And 9/11 wouldn't have happened, right? And the tech bubble wouldn't have burst. There wouldn't have been a recession in 2001-2002. I guess we can safely assume a Gore presidency would not have seen massive tax cuts but without the Iraq War I don't see how the Democrats would have retaken Congress so there goes healthcare reform. . .

Spirit of 76

Heed the words of Benedict de Spinoza. "Peace is not the absence of war. It is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence and justice." There's definitely the possibility that 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Maybe Gore would have been less dismissive of the reports of planned attacks using hijacked airliners. Even if it had still happened, Gore probably would have pressed the attack on Tora Bora and stayed in Afghanistan rather than losing interest and looking for another fight in Iraq. As for healthcare reform, there's a good chance, thanks in large part to Lieberman, that it's not going to happen anyway, Democrat-controlled Congress or not.

EastRiver

There's definitely the possibility that 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Maybe Gore would have been less dismissive of the reports of planned attacks using hijacked airliners.

I'd say very low possibility. There's a large gap between knowing some attack is coming and knowing exactly what it is and how to stop it. Gore was part of the same administration that put in rules limiting the sharing of intelligence between agencies. You want to believe that a top down order was going to change a culture that had developed in the FBI, CIA etc for the previous decade. And half of the hijackers entered the US during the Clinton administration.

Even if it had still happened, Gore probably would have pressed the attack on Tora Bora and stayed in Afghanistan rather than losing interest and looking for another fight in Iraq.

Stay in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda moves into Pakistan earlier than they did. You're stuck in this mindset of changing a single factor and expecting the same reaction as if Al Qaeda hasn't shown again and again how adaptive they are. When the US invaded Iraq thousands of foreign fighters went to Iraq. If the US had not invaded Iraq it's logical to assume a good many of those fighters would have gone to Afghanistan or elsewhere.

Spirit of 76

Changing one thing could definitely change a lot when that one thing is the Bush presidency. If there was a bad option for any situation, Dubya chose it. How many intelligence analysts have come forward and said that they had actionable information about an upcoming attack but that nobody in the administration took them seriously. How was al Qaeda going to go into Pakistan earlier? They were cornered at Tora Bora. But Dubya and his cronies let him escape either by stupidity or by plan. And it would have been much more preferable to fight in Afghanistan alone. No military strategist would say it's a good idea to split your forces and open a second front if you don't have to. Not to mention Iraq created the ideal conditions for IED evolution. It was all those military weapons caches left unsecured after Saddam's government fell that provided a treasure trove of powerful explosives to kill American soldiers. The success of those IED attacks emboldened and inspired similar attackers in Afghanistan.

Splicer

Is there really anything more to be said about Lieberman? He's the little annoying prick we all knew in high school -- the obnoxious twerp who would stand there and needle you until you beat on him. At that point he'd just get up and laugh at you until you beat on him some more. Lieberman is so wrapped up in his own ego that he see all the abuse heaped on him from liberals and Democrats as validation of how great he really is.

Politicians of his ilk have existed forever -- the Roman Republic was quite full of this sort of self-serving jackass. Kick him out of all committees and make him a back-bencher. Don't acknowledge anything he says nor give him more than the minimum to speak. When he gets on the floor to make remarks, conveniently make C-SPAN have technical difficulties. The only way to remove this cancer from the Senate is to make believe he doesn't exist.

Atomische

Lieberman is an attention whore. I don't believe he really cares one way or the other. If Joe Lieberman filibusters health care, I will donate to his opponent

JW

If the Dem leadership doesn't strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanship in the new year because of this, they are bigger pussies than I even thought. Come on Reid, grow a pair and ditch Joe.

JGNY

Obama was elected with an overwhelming majority yet he is letting this jerkoff and other democrats get away with murder in order to prop up insurance companies. He should call these guys out on national TV and stop pussy footing around them. Get on 60 Minutes or the next address and say "because of Joe Lieberman, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck you or someone you love will die and they will have blood on their hands". Grow some balls.

BDS=(Boycott.Divest.Sanction)

I loathe that man immensely. sort of serves the democrats right for not ostracizing him after he Supported BUSH! Both parties are corrupt, its sham to think the people have a say in what our goverment does.

Mordicai

NO KIDDING. Also-- uh, he doesn't pretend to be a Democrat? He's "Connecticut for Lieberman" by party affiliation, right?

Also, eff Nelson & his stupid backdoor attempt to make legal medicine quasi-illegal.

Casey

On one hand, Lieberman is a flake and a two-timing, self-serving ass.

On the other, the current version of the health care bill is so far bastardized away from the idea of actual health care for Americans that it might as well not pass anyway at this point.

Maybe we Americans are going to have to accept that our politicians and our more backwater peers don't actually want us to have affordable health care. Which doesn't seem rational to me, but I guess other Americans don't like the idea of other Americans being healthy...

tingo

This guy is such a flake. How does he still have any friends in congress (besides lobbyists)?

He needs to stop pretending to be a democrat.

nicemarmot

Lieberman is such a little bitch. I'm surprised the Democrats haven't just booted him out for good. He seems like a really good fit with the ideologues over on the Republican side.

Please let me note I also hate the Democrats, so don't bother with the "Obamalover" crap.

zodak

republicrats, one & all. they don't even care anymore if you know. good job CT voters.

NannyState

You know who votes in CT? Elderly shut-ins that put on three layers of macrame before driving the '85 Buick at 12 mph to the polling station to cast another vote for that vile prick. Lieberman is their last hope for a return to 1952 before they gack.