Lieberman won't back public option on healthcare

Public Option... (0.00 / 0)

I'm not going to waste time even commenting on Lieberman or what he has to say. But last time I checked the "Kennedy-Dodd" legislation didn't mention a public option either. As easy and fun as it is to flay Lieberman, he has become largely irrelevent.

I have been biting my tongue recently as I don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. But two questions have emerged in my mind.

1. Why do we (rightly) howl with indignation, when oil companies are asked to write energy legislation; but seemingly accept the fact that the insurance industry and health care companies are the major contributors for health care "reform"?

2. Sen. Dodd is now in a position to be the major player in writing the health care bill in the Senate. His wife sits on the boards of four Pharmaceutical and Health Care companies. Why is this not considered a classic conflict of interest?

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 00:00:30 AM UTC

The Bottom Line (0.00 / 0)

A health care program without a substantive public option -- meaning absent a range of crippling triggers, self-financing mechanisms etc. which would render the plan toothless or ineffective -- won't ensure that all citizens are able to be covered: Those with preexisting conditions; those who can't afford private premiums (often because COBRA is too expensive once they've lost their jobs); or because they simply are too poor. In any case, to ensure quality care while also controlling costs, insurance and pharma interests frankly need some tough competition.

The pressure that is being brought to bear, given the significant presence of insurance industry interests in our state, is especially intense in Connecticut; however, it's time for members of Congress to stand up to lobbyists and insist upon a bill that protects the public and reduces costs.  

Data about the significant number of families who have lost their homes because of large medical expenses only reinforces the argument for a public option.  

Connecting the dots, it is clear that greedy special interests are prepared -- not for the first time -- to threaten lawmakers and employ misleading PR rhetoric in order to retain control of an expensive and embarrassingly poor health care delivery system that continues to line their own pockets. House and Senate members who fail to step up to the plate on Health Care may find themselves out of a job in 2010 -- and will have earned their retirement.

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 01:11:55 AM UTC

Lieberman on health care (4.00 / 1)

In his own words, July 2006.

"That's why I say he's [Ned Lamont] running a single issue campaign. Every campaign, as President Clinton reminded us, is about the future. And what I'm saying to the people of Connecticut, I can do more for you and your families to get something done to make health care affordable, to get universal health insurance, to make America energy independent, to save your jobs and create new ones. That's what the Democratic Party is all about."

Nevermind the type of health care proposals Secretary of State Lieberman, and the rest of us, would have seen with a President McCain in office.

---

by: tparty @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 19:05:10 PM UTC

Is the public (0.00 / 0)

paying for or subsidizing Senator Lieberman's government regulated health insurance plan?

Oops. Sorry. The Senate has a group plan. It's just not available to the public...

---

by: notcho @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 04:23:44 AM UTC