Lieberman Comes Out Against Public Plan Option

By
Monday, June 15, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Until now, the debate over a government-backed insurance plan has been largely partisan, pitting Democrats who support the concept against Republicans who don’t. Today, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) reminded us that the protection of regional industries will also play a role in this fight, telling MSNBC that private insurance companies are plenty capable of ensuring that all Americans have sound health care. His reasons for opposing the public plan option:

One is I’m fearful that at a time when we’re spending much too much money here in Washington, going much too deeply in debt that a public option on health care, no matter how you structure it, will end up costing the taxpayers money.

Secondly, we don’t need it. There’s more than 350 companies, maybe more than that, selling health insurance. There’s going to be a lot of competition for health insurance once universal health insurance comes.

And the third, and probably the most important, the votes are not there for a public health plan, government-run option. And this can stand in the way of a historic achievement for President Obama and Congress and the American people, which is really to establish a universal access to quality, affordable health care plan in America.

He forgot to mention that Connecticut, the home-base for scores of insurance companies, has the highest concentration of insurance jobs in the country. Not that it isn’t Lieberman’s job to represent his constituents, but at what point does the moral imperative of covering 46 million uninsured Americans trump the protection of insurance industry profits?

Comments

13 Comments

Liebermann still stirring up trouble « Later On
Pingback posted June 15, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

[...] pick of Lieberman for VP brings Kerry’s judgment into question—at least in hindsight. Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent: Until now, the debate over a government-backed insurance plan has been largely partisan, pitting [...]


ipod
Comment posted June 24, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

I'm against that…


Timo_s
Comment posted July 3, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

He forgot to mention /// the protection of insurance industry profits
heh heh reeeally


Timo_s
Comment posted July 3, 2009 @ 6:38 pm

He forgot to mention /// the protection of insurance industry profits
heh heh reeeally


wingman329
Comment posted July 29, 2009 @ 9:19 pm

This is why he is an “independent ” now. He only cares about getting Joe elected again, and the insurance companies help him fund that. Our system has less of a turnover in congress than the old Soviet polit bureau did…. God help us!! Anyone who opposes this exposes him or herself for who they really are and who they really represent.


michcael
Comment posted August 17, 2009 @ 7:33 pm

why doesn't Joe just admit he's a republican?


Where the public option stands in the Senate « Sohum Parlance II
Pingback posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

[...] No [...]


Understanding the Left | PoliPundit.com
Pingback posted September 5, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

[...] ObamaCare will also not get 60 votes in the Senate. At least three Democrats have publicly come out against it – Nelson (NE), Lincoln (AR), and Lieberman (CT). [...]


Gauntlet | PoliPundit.com
Pingback posted September 19, 2009 @ 2:02 am

[...] committee. Even if it did, it would be successfully filibustered. At least three Democarats – Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), and Nelson (NE) – are opposed to the public [...]


adidas online
Comment posted June 4, 2010 @ 8:15 am

Thanks for this interesting post,i like it.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.