In defense of Joe Lieberman [*CORRECTION APPENDED]
That's right, here are rock solid principles in action. Lieberman doesn't care if most people in Connecticut want a public option. Nor does he care if most people in America want it. He doesn't care if he shoots down healthcare reform entirely and destroys the best hope for reform in decades.
And nor should he. Because a deal is a deal, people! And if the citizens of Connecticut aren't his constituents, and the people of America aren't either, that just leaves the insurance companies.
There are senators who get more from the industry -- John McCain for one, and even then-Sen. Barack Obama received quite a bit of cash support back in the day. But I like to think that Joe's relationship is special.
If he rigs the game so that all Americans have to purchase insurance but insurance companies don't have any competition, surely he will have surpassed the industry's wildest expectations. Five'll get you ten he finds a cushy landing at Aetna or Cigna or some other insurance giant when he's out of office. And if he does, then I will applaud. It would depress me if, after he sabotages the national interest, insurance companies "rescinded" his policy.
But that's just speculation.
Maybe it's not that deep. Maybe he's a power-happy idiot who just likes to see everyone squirm.
--Lisa Richardson
*Correction: A previous version of this post incorrectly said Lieberman isn't running for office again. In fact, Lieberman has said he's considering "all sorts of options" for 2012.
Photo: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) acknowledges cheers before addressing delegates at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., on Sept. 2, 2008. Credit: Genaro Molino / Los Angeles Times
I'm sorry, I got like 4 sentences in when I read that "Most of America wants [a public option]." Excuse me, what?
Want to back that wild assertion up? Because I'm almost positive that the opposite is true.
Posted by: Annoyed with stupid "Journalism" | October 30, 2009 at 05:58 PM
Yes, you've got it all figured out. He opposed health care 'reform' because he is corrupt and it will somehow funnel money into his pocket...
Nice article, Stalin.
Posted by: a | October 29, 2009 at 09:58 AM
Or rather the truth of the matter is, Joe Lieberman's wife works as a powerful lobbyist for the insurance industry. Yet one more time Joe is worried about Joe and not the people of Connecticut, or the rest of the country. He is not a stand up guy. He is a pathetic little man that turns on his own repeatedly to serve his own interests. He is a disgusting human being who should just disappear.
Posted by: Bill from Connecticut | October 29, 2009 at 04:21 AM
Ha! A new Facebook group -- "Loathing Lieberman" already formed and growing: http://bit.ly/loathinglieberman
Posted by: S Lanier | October 28, 2009 at 08:33 PM
Lieberman is a soulless tool. Whatever it is he holds sacred in this world, it sure isn't life, or justice, or peace.
Posted by: Baruch | October 28, 2009 at 06:54 PM
Joe Lieberman, you are the perfect example of greed without shame. I see no need for your kind. The only reason to deny health care reform is cash. Cash in your pocket. I pity you and those who have to live with you. May god help you.
Posted by: Bobby | October 28, 2009 at 06:06 PM
Joe Lieberman, you are shameful! You care nothing about this country nor the people in it. Aren't you proud of yourself to have all this power. I guess we are fortunate that Al Gore didn't get elected president; much to my disappointment. You would have been there like another Dick Cheney. What has this country come to? I never dreamed that even you could have such a lack of caring.
Jeanette Bishop
Posted by: Jeanette Bishop | October 28, 2009 at 05:30 PM
I think it's true that most people on medicare are happy and why shouldn't they be? They have a system that is paying out more than it takes in! There are trillions in unfunded liabilities to medicare. Why would anyone want to strap our kids with another program like that? These aren't problems that medicare will have because of the baby boom (common argument). They're problems medicare has right now! The cost of medicare is going up like the cost of everything else in medicine and this is a monopolistic system the government has complete control of! If people were happy with it and it were financially sound, I think it would be a whole different picture, but it is totally irresponsible to add another government program in the mold of one which is unsustainable. There are much better solutions.
Ona a side note, I can tell you I deal with government health care every day and it is BY FAR the most inefficient and backwards part of what I do (the one exception I guess is Tricare which is completely government run as opposed to medicare which is just government insured).
Posted by: Tom | October 28, 2009 at 04:46 PM
Joe has more sense and integrity in his little finger than Lisa has in her whole body. You should expect such thinking from the land of pelosi.
Posted by: Bob Kaz | October 28, 2009 at 04:11 PM
Lieberman a stand-up guy??? Not even in jest. What is so "stand-up" about a guy who loses the primaries and decides to run as an independent? That's not a "stand-up" guy, that's a guy who wants it his way or no way at all. And don't call him principled either. If he was "principled", he would have quit the Democratic Party and become a full blown Republican during this last election. After all, he obviously thought the Republican Party - and their candidates - stood for all the things he seems to stand for nowadays. He also should have caucused with them also, even at the cost of giving up his Chair.
Lieberman is nothing but a turncoat, a man solely interested in benefiting himself. Why is he not running for office again? Because he knows he would lose this time around. Connecticut will not make the mistake of sending a wolf-in-sheep's clothing back to represent them.
But, I'm glad he's causing waves for the democrats. They too were a bunch of greedy idiots when they allowed him to caucus with them and keep his Chairmanship. They created this monster, who should have been ostracized long ago. He should have been the Republicans' problem.
Posted by: Robert M | October 28, 2009 at 03:32 PM
Joe Lieberman is either a simpleton or a Putz, probably both!
(In my opinion.)
Doug Wallick
Posted by: doug wallick | October 28, 2009 at 02:56 PM
DON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND? The radical Liberals Obama, Reid Pelosi know what is best for you ! You are not allowed to question their decisions or their Czar. You have to do what they say, with no recourse!
This government program is going to take over your life, control how you try to fight disease whether you like it or not.
In addition to this you are going to be required to pay for other people who can't pay for health care (and are not even citizens) thus limit the medical procedures that could save your life or your loved one!
The last time the government had this control over the American people was the draft! That was the last time they could dictate their wishes to me !
I don't want the Health Care program! I will take care of myself! This is not the governments job! You will be fined if you don't join the Health Care program ! The IRS will take money from your Bank, Savings & Loan, Social Security or where ever they can get a hold of it! I refuse to pay for other people who don't have insurance! Let them get a job and pay for their own insurance.
I makes me want to go out and buy a gun and shoot these people in the butt to get their attention. Until then they can all go home or the White House and practice the fine art of self insemination!
This writer is really dumb!!!
Posted by: Tom Bates | October 28, 2009 at 02:51 PM
Did I miss the memo? Apparently the Democrats have fixed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, balanced the budget and returned us to a surplus. Because you'd have to be a damned fool to give the government something else to screw up without making them fix these first.
Here's an idea, one comprehensive bill to accomplish all of this, step by step, with health care being dependent on all the others taken care of. Any takers, Mr. Reid?
Posted by: Michael | October 28, 2009 at 02:06 PM
Obviously, the 50% of voters who don't pay taxes, anyway, are going to agree with your expansive charity with other people's money, Lisa. It's a false virtue, though, and their gratitude doesn't extend to paying a subscription for this paper. You just lost another subscription, from one of the other 50% that has to pay the taxes to make you popular by giving away my money. Let's see if you keep your job that way.
Posted by: andrew nelson | October 28, 2009 at 02:02 PM
Thank you for this fantastic piece!
Posted by: Kath from Penna. | October 28, 2009 at 01:50 PM
'In Defense of Joe Lieberman'? What does he need defending? I say good job standing up for your principles, Joe. That's very much a rarity nowadays...
Posted by: Kole Steubing | October 28, 2009 at 01:43 PM
Remember Fredo from the Godfather?
Thats Lieberman
Oh and not that Obama is the Messiah
But Judas also fits
Posted by: brian | October 28, 2009 at 01:35 PM
I suppose its possible that Connecticut may favor the public option but is it accurate to say that most people in the country as a whole support it? I think you may be mistaken, Lisa. Why not provide a poll result or two to support your assertion?
Posted by: deeber | October 28, 2009 at 01:19 PM
Good for Joe. At least there is one senator with some cajones to stand up to those in lockstep with Pelosi-Reid and the other guy.
Posted by: BLM | October 28, 2009 at 01:11 PM
Saying that the government should compete with insurance companies is profoundly naive.
Why stop with insurance companies. How about affordable cars by government auto companies, affordable news by a government paper, affordable legal care by a government law firm. Why stop with insurance when the sky's the limit.
Just because socialism has failed every time it's been tried doesn't mean socialism will fail here in the United States. Let's give socialism a try because now we have the right people in charge. You can't get much better than a deity as president and having a Messiah running the show is a once in a lifetime chance to get it right. Come on LA Times, lead the way to the glorious path of socialism.
Posted by: Bruno | October 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Check out Today's Question at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html - 81% of (currently) 11,572 people are IN FAVOR of the public option being in the senate health care bill. Either more people support the public option than the republicans claim, or there are a lot of illiterate people responding to that poll.
Posted by: Darr247 | October 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM
MKT,
Just one thing wrong with your comments about Medicare. !. They turn down more coverage than any private insurance company in America...and they are broke. Billions of dollars of debt. Now, take 500 Billion-with a B- from this broken program-over 10 years and I think that you may be able to see what will happen.
What else can you point to that the government runs that works? And if it works is it fiscally sound? Don't talk about change until we pay for what we do now. While our govt is busy printing money to bail out everyone...our dollar contiues to decline and our stability gets drawn into question. Don't kid yourself-get ready to pay big for the earlier handouts: Cash for Clunkers, Homebuyers tax rebate of up to 8000.00. 750 Billion that Bush got talked into and another 800 Billion or so give or take a 100 Billion. You and I will be paying for that, and our children and ther children. They've stepped in it big time and looking for someone to blame. Joe just happens to be gutsy enough to step up and so NO.
Posted by: Mark | October 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Hey Joe from Connecticut, do you not understand that the public option is actually, say it with me now, a more free market option, than complicated legislation designed to break up monopolies through complex systems of limitations? Or that subsidizing catastrophic coverage for the poor is just another way to give insurance companies more money? With the public option, the government will not be able to run a health care system at below the cost of operation, and therefore will be giving an economically efficient alternative to an industry characterized by oligopoly. With competition ( a free market concept, mind you), the insurance companies will have to lessen the costs (now horrifically inflated) of their minimum coverage plans, while still being able to make money from the more Cadillac insurance policies. And if you, as most conservatives do, maintain that private industry implicitly functions more efficiently than government, than the insurance industry should do fine against a government run program, right? So what, again, is the problem with the public option?
Posted by: Ian | October 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Could the Times find a more moronic writer, I guess the layoffs have left the bldg devoid of journalist and only left high school level writers. 'Americans will have to purchase insurance from the dozens and dozens of different insurance companies, but there will be no competition' huh. Any proof or indication that Sen Joe will go to an insurance company, no just the writers extraordinary ESP into the matter. My favorite, because he's not running he doesnt really care, opposite of the other senators and congressfolks who are always reaching for campaign money from special interest and are directed to follow the party line or else. More times drivel. Keep it up your paper is prospering, right.
Posted by: brent w | October 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM
@John Culmer -- Go to OpenSecrets.com, it breaks down contributions from businesses, unions and other interest groups to each federal office holder and candidate.
Posted by: Jon Healey | October 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM