Uninsured father, Lee Stranahan wants to know why Joe Lieberman really opposed public option for health car (h/t math4barack):
Hey Joe, why do you really oppose the public option for health care?Keep in mind, that a Research 2000 poll of CT voters and the public option, as BarbinMD reminded DKos yesterday:
You SAID it's because 'there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market."
But that's not true at all.
Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?
Favor Oppose Not Sure
All 68 21 11
So who is he representing?
Lieberman has accepted $2,395,369 in donations from the health sector and $1,033,402 from the insurance industry.
So here’s what Joe Lieberman claims the public option will do:Marcy then has a round up of which media outlets did and didn't bother to fact check Lieberman's lies. Read the full piece. It's worth understand how ignorant (corrupted) our media truly is.
- Be costly to taxpayers
- Drive up premiums
- Involve cost-shifting to private plans
- Create an entitlement
- Increase the national debt
- Put more of a tax burden on taxpayers
As DDay points out, this is utter nonsense.
Lieberman’s justification on this is just nonsense – the public option would SAVE money for the government, to the tune of $100 billion dollars over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. It also would cost nothing to the taxpayer, being financed by individual premiums.
Now, there’s the possibility that if the public option was set at Medicare +5, there might be cost shifting, if you ignored challenges to that claim, if you ignored the way insurance companies will game the system to push high cost people into the public option, and if you ignored the many other ways the insurance companies will be cost shifting themselves once this system is set up.
But everything else Lieberman said is horse puckey. He is either completely ignorant about health care works (unlikely, for a Senator from Connecticut). Or, he’s lying his ass off as to his rationale.
Don’t you think the press ought to call him on that?
TPM's Brian Beutler has a post up that does, finally, question Lieberman's outrageous misinformation about the public option: Key Senators React To Lieberman's Fuzzy Public Option Logic. You should all read as well...
"Joe and I are good friends," Dodd told me, "and there's a difference on this and that's certainly his right to express it.... I'm disappointed we're not in agreement on this, but that happens from time to time on issues."
He did acknowledge the consensus on the public option: "I believe it brings down costs, I think it's going to save money as well," Dodd said. "And so I'm still hopeful that before we complete this process there'll be a lot more support for the public option, possibly even a good colleague and friend from Connecticut."
Lieberman's argument is that the public option will need significant infusions of government money to survive. But here's how Delaware Sen. Tom Carper described the plan under consideration by Senate health care principals.
The public option, he said, must "have to retain earnings, create a retained earnings pool, so that if they run into financial problems later on the financial needs of the plan could be met by the retained earnings, not by the federal government."
Check this piece of shit out form his appearance on FOX last night. He has the nerve to claim the Public Option would need a bailout of it's own, which of course is a lie since the public option will reduce the costs of any bill it's in and he knows it. That's one of the main points of it (also via TPM):