Joe Lieberman’s Medicare Dodge

He once supported expanding Medicare. Now he’s standing in the way of the public option.

Photo by the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/newshour/2823165891/">PBS News Hour</a> used under a <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">CC</a> license.

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


As the Senate begins voting on health care reform legislation, Sen. Joe Lieberman, the onetime Democrat from Connecticut, has continued to play a pivotal role. He has threatened to join a GOP filibuster against the bill if it contains a public option, referring to the last-resort government-run insurance plan as “a risk we can’t afford.” He depicts his position as one of principle, but in reaching his current stance, Lieberman has had to run away from his own history.

In a recent column for the Hartford Courant, Lieberman cited the rising costs of Medicare to justify his opposition to expanding the government’s role in health care. But in 2000, when he was Al Gore’s running mate, Lieberman campaigned on a platform of offering everyone 55 and older an option to “buy-in” to Medicare. That proposal—which was a central part of the Gore-Lieberman campaign’s health care plan—essentially would have created a robust public option for people aged 55 to 65.

These days, as Lieberman rails against the public option, he won’t comment on whether he still favors that idea. Asked if Lieberman believes Medicare should be expanded in this fashion, a spokeswoman for the senator said in an emailed statement, “Senator Lieberman is a strong supporter of Medicare and Medicaid and supports efforts to strengthen those programs and to help the millions of Americans who rely on those programs for their health care.” That was a dodge. The statement did not indicate whether or not Lieberman currently backs his Medicare expansion proposal.

Lieberman has been moving to the right for years now. After Ned Lamont, an anti-war candidate, beat Lieberman, who supported George W. Bush’s Iraq War, in the Democratic Senate primary in 2006, Lieberman ran—and won—as an independent. Although he still caucuses with the Democrats, Lieberman campaigned vigorously for his friend John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.

While he was always a hawk on foreign policy, Lieberman’s domestic views have become increasingly conservative—especially since the election of Barack Obama. In a few years, he’s gone from being a favorite of groups like the American Public Health Association that back single-payer health care reform, or “Medicare for all,” to opposing the much more limited public option. Why has he changed so much? “For Lieberman, the personal has become political,” Peter Beinart suggested in the Daily Beast last month:

[Lieberman is] bitter. According to former staffers and associates, he was upset by his dismal showing in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary. And he was enraged by the tepid support he got from many party leaders in 2006, when he lost the Democratic primary to an anti-war activist and won reelection as an independent. Gradually, this personal alienation has eaten away at his liberal domestic views. His staff has grown markedly more conservative in recent years, and his closest friends in Congress are now Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

With Lieberman threatening to deep-six Obama’s top legislative priority, it’s hard to believe that only nine years ago he held second billing on the Democrats’ national ticket. In those days he proudly championed the expansion of government-run health insurance. Now, he’s the scourge of government involvement in health care. The question is, why won’t he acknowledge his shift?

This is how change happens.

One story at a time.

This investigative reporting takes time too. Months of research. Weeks of writing, editing, and fact checking—and putting together the photography, art, video, and audio that tell the stories in a new way, illuminating new perspectives and voices.

We can afford to take our time because we don’t report to oligarchs or corporations. We report to you, and for you.

And the stakes are high. Democracy is on the defense. We’ve been exposing corruption and scandal for five decades, and this is a pivotal moment in our country’s history. Will democracy prevail? We won’t wait for time to tell—independent journalism is essential for democracy, and we’ll keep doing our part to amplify the free press.

So, we’re asking: Will you join the fight? Mother Jones has been here for 50 years, and we need your support to fuel the future of investigative journalism. Mark our 50th anniversary with a gift of any amount.

This is how change happens.

One story at a time.

This investigative reporting takes time too. Months of research. Weeks of writing, editing, and fact checking—and putting together the photography, art, video, and audio that tell the stories in a new way, illuminating new perspectives and voices.

We can afford to take our time because we don’t report to oligarchs or corporations. We report to you, and for you.

And the stakes are high. Democracy is on the defense. We’ve been exposing corruption and scandal for five decades, and this is a pivotal moment in our country’s history. Will democracy prevail? We won’t wait for time to tell—independent journalism is essential for democracy, and we’ll keep doing our part to amplify the free press.

So, we’re asking: Will you join the fight? Mother Jones has been here for 50 years, and we need your support to fuel the future of investigative journalism. Mark our 50th anniversary with a gift of any amount.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate