Lieberman says he won’t be the 60th vote
That 60th Senate vote is proving elusive for an increasingly anxious Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats.
“WASHINGTON — In a surprise setback for Democratic leaders, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, said on Sunday that he would vote against the health care legislation in its current form.
The bill’s supporters had said earlier that they thought they had secured Mr. Lieberman’s agreement to go along with a compromise they worked out to overcome an impasse within the Democratic Party.
But on Sunday, Mr. Lieberman told the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to scrap the idea of expanding Medicare and abandon any new government insurance plan or lose his vote….
A Senate Democratic aide, perplexed by Mr. Lieberman’s stance, said, “It was a total flip-flop, and leaves us in a predicament as to what to do.”
And hence the magic of that extra-constitutional 60-vote requirement. As the chart below documents, the number of cloture motions and votes — i.e., demands that the 60-vote requirement be met — have soared dramatically, creating an obstacle to legislation that the Founding Fathers never envisioned. But senators aren’t likely to change the rule because as Lieberman likes to demonstrate, it greatly enhances the power of each individual senator. And they will not support anything that undermines their position at the center of the known universe.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
356 comments Add your comment
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
December 14th, 2009
11:25 am
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18.
Aahhh, yes, the 24 percenters.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
December 14th, 2009
11:25 am
302!
RW-(the original)
December 14th, 2009
11:26 am
DoggoneGA,
How can anybody quote anything from the Reid “compromise” bill? He said it’s on double secret probation until the CBO comes back with their fairy tales about it.
Mrs. Godzilla
December 14th, 2009
11:27 am
RW
Your question makes no sense as it relates to my post.
USinUK
December 14th, 2009
11:27 am
curious – they only spat on the flag at your meeting???
wusses.
Robert
December 14th, 2009
11:28 am
Doggone/GA, you really believe the that the intent for most of the elected democrats is to NOT have the government run healthcare? Open your eyes and stop debating the wording I used. They ultimately want a single payer system in this country, which is government-run healthcare. Obama has even been on record saying it.
Doggone/GA
December 14th, 2009
11:29 am
“How can anybody quote anything from the Reid “compromise” bill?”
then how can anyone say that government will be running healthcare after it passes?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
December 14th, 2009
11:29 am
President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. won’t be on the midterm ballot next year, but their former Senate seats will be, and both races are now either tossups or leaning Republican in high-visibility contests.
Drive on Hairy, drive on!
RW-(the original)
December 14th, 2009
11:29 am
Mrs G,
Perhaps because my question preceded your post.
Anyways, I’ve got to head to the forest. I’m just glad to see most of you not jumping down that “extra-constitutional” rabbit hole with Jay B.
See y’all this evening
Doggone/GA
December 14th, 2009
11:30 am
“you really believe the that the intent for most of the elected democrats is to NOT have the government run healthcare?”
I’m not concerned with their intentions, I’m concerned about what is in any bills that are passed.
Paul
December 14th, 2009
11:30 am
USinUK
Thanks for those Kinky quotes – I needed a chuckle!
I suppose I should have been grammatically correct and written ‘quotes from Kinky’ not ‘Kinky quotes, but aw heck, it’s the same thing….
thomas
December 14th, 2009
11:31 am
Very classy by the liberals to go after Joe Lieberman’s wife’s job because of Joe’s views on Health Care.
Say what one would about the man but to attack his family for his job performance reeks of something wrong.
Especially since it is liberals who usually champion that each person has their right to their own opinion. Now its fine as I said earlier to attack an individual for their beliefs but quite cowardly to try to get their wife fired from her job solely because of her husband’s views.
HEALTH CARE OWNED BY CHINA
December 14th, 2009
11:32 am
USinUK :
“If there are 36 countries that are better at health care treatments why are we trying to get more people access to ours?”
the primary reason they’re better is because people have better access to care than they do in the US
Better, says who????? Democrats?? Liberals????
Yeah, Great idea. The GOVERNMENT does such a swell job running the Post office compared to Fed-Ex & UPS, Social Security, Medi-care, Etc, Etc…..
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
December 14th, 2009
11:33 am
Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation.
Drive on Obozo, drive on!
Southern Comfort
December 14th, 2009
11:33 am
Paul
Freudian slip perhaps??
Jackie
December 14th, 2009
11:33 am
@Jess
Tried to find some information to corroborate your contention about Canadian health care system being nearly broke. Can’t find it. Please post a link to this information.
I found lots of documentation relative to Canada’s problem with their system not being as responsive as it should. They readily admit to the problem and claim they are working to correct it. It has nothing to do with denial or lack of money, however.
Robert
December 14th, 2009
11:35 am
Doggone?GA
“I’m not concerned with their intentions, I’m concerned about what is in any bills that are passed.”
Question for you. Do you think the latest proposal to expand Medicare is a good proposal? What are the benefits and how is this going to cost the average person less and not at to the debt at the same time? Thank God we have a sensible person like Lieberman who won’t let this pass.
Paul
December 14th, 2009
11:35 am
SC
More like a kinky slip?
USinUK
December 14th, 2009
11:35 am
HCOBC – dude. you seriously need some decaf.
the organizations (such as WHO) look at things like infant mortality, mortality in childbirth, overall life expectancy and then compare it to the amount paid for health care and access to basic services. The US comes up far below other industrialized nations.
so, as much as it may pain you, this isn’t a democrat/republican, liberal/conservative issue.
USinUK
December 14th, 2009
11:37 am
paul – 11:30 … kinky quotes …
Mrs. Godzilla
December 14th, 2009
11:37 am
Definition of Single-payer health care
Single-payer health care: A system of health care characterized by universal and comprehensive coverage. Single-payer health care is similar to the health services provided by Medicare in the US. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.
Single-payer health care is distinct and different from socialized medicine in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=25520
repeated for emphasis:
The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.
and again….
The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.
ANd yes, that’s just exactly what we need!
and extra bonus – it ain’t socialist!
Doggone/GA
December 14th, 2009
11:38 am
“Question for you”
Here’s an answer for you: I don’t care how they do it, as long as they end up with affordable, available healthcare for ALL citizens.
If you want MY personal opinion: I’m for single-payer
MAC
December 14th, 2009
11:40 am
Country over Party…. a novel concept these days by anyone in Congress.
Grumpy
December 14th, 2009
11:42 am
Wow. Those cloture requests really shot up in 2007 and 2008 once the Democrats took over both houses of Congress. Highest number in history, as a matter of fact.
Seems to me if it’s good enough for the Democrats to do in 2007-2008, it’s good enough for the Republicans to do today.
Robert
December 14th, 2009
11:43 am
Doggone/GA,
We can agree on the first part of your response and I believe everyone in this country would agree with you. It’s the “How do you do it?” that we don’t agree on. The proposals we have seen so far don’t get us there, only makes it worse. How would your single-payer system work? Would it be similar to the NHS in the UK? Would it look like France or Canada? How would it be paid for and how would you address the fact that we currently do not have enough primary care physicians to see everyone?
Jackie
December 14th, 2009
11:43 am
@USinUK
The USA is only the 17th best country relative to infant mortality.
There are 3rd world countries in the Caribbean that have better care for their children than we do.
Southern Comfort
December 14th, 2009
11:44 am
Mrs. G
No matter how you put it, if the phrase “government pays” is anywhere to be seen, it will be viewed as socialism or government-run. I’ve been asking everyone I know that has TriCare if they wanted to give up their “government” insurance, and the usual response is “hell no!!” It’s not quite the same with Medicare, so there’s some good and bad to government insurance according to my very non-scientific poll.
Grumpy
December 14th, 2009
11:45 am
Sorry Mrs. Godzilla, you’re splitting hairs. Working for the government (receiving a salary) and being paid by the govrnment (fee for service) are no different. Uncle Slam may not “own” you, but if they control the amount of payment you receive, you might as well consider yourself owned!
Doggone/GA
December 14th, 2009
11:47 am
“It’s the “How do you do it?” that we don’t agree on”
And I don’t see how we can “disagree” when I’ve already said I DON’T CARE how they get there, as long as they do.
“How would your single-payer system work? Would it be similar to the NHS in the UK? ”
Again, I wouldn’t care…as long as they get there.
MAC
December 14th, 2009
11:47 am
Mrs. G wrote: “60 years ago FDR hit the nail on the head when he talked about a second bill of rights.”
FDR was a socialist and dead wrong.
As von Hayek articulated well in his answer to FDR and his ilk, this is “The Road to Serfdom”. Get a copy at the library and read it, you may learn something.
USinUK
December 14th, 2009
11:48 am
Grumpy –
“for the government (receiving a salary) and being paid by the govrnment (fee for service) are no different.”
really??? so Lockheed, Boeing, et al, are government entities???
Jackie – 11:43 – access, baby! it’s all about making sure you have access to doctors early and often for the health of your lil’un
Robert
December 14th, 2009
11:49 am
Doggone/GA
Would you be open to any of the Republican’s proposals if they “got us there?”
Jackie
December 14th, 2009
11:49 am
The complaint about some Senators holding up the health care bill to be debated on the floor is an exercise in political cowardice. The recalcitrant know that if the bill is allowed to be debated on the Senate floor, Sen. Reid can choose to move the bill to the reconciliation process where a simple majority is needed for passage.
Those that resist are only doing so because they do not want their constituents to have an opportunity to see how they actually vote for the bill.
Del
December 14th, 2009
11:55 am
Robert,
The esoteric compromise bill that ten democrat senators came up with behind closed doors was supposed to placate those who were against a public option by saying that the compromise would forgo a public option and make Medicare available to those at age 55. Lieberman and others smelled a stealth element in the compromise that would make an ultimate public option/single payer system rapidly come into existence because by reducing the Medicare age along with Medicaid and an already expanded SCHIP the government would then be insuring close to two thirds of all Americans. This bill would add cost rather than meet the original cost reduction objective.
Jackie
December 14th, 2009
11:56 am
@Doggone/GA
One could look at the system being used in Australia as a basis for single-payer.
Everyone pays a 7% health care tax giving them the right to visit any doctor at anytime. No exclusions, no exceptions, no rejections.
Robert
December 14th, 2009
11:59 am
This is what nationalized healthcare in Europe gets you:
A European study found that, compared to 18 European countries, the U.S. had strikingly higher five-year survival rates in all 12 cancers studied, except for one: stomach cancer. Even there, the survival rates were close — and the difference was attributed to the location of the cancer in the stomach.
For all types of cancers, European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to 66.3 percent survival rate for American men. The greatest disparity was in prostate cancer, which American men are 28 percent more likely to survive than European men.
European women are only 55.8 percent likely to live five years after contracting any kind of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent for American women.
In five cancers — breast, prostate, thyroid, testicular and skin melanoma — American survival rates are higher than 90 percent. Europeans hit a 90 percent survival rate for only one of those — testicular cancer.
Most disturbingly, many cancers in Europe are discovered only upon the victim’s death — twice as many as in the U.S. Consequently, the European study simply excluded cancers that were first noted on the death certificate, so as not to give the U.S. too great an advantage.
Paul
December 14th, 2009
12:00 pm
Mrs. Godzilla
Good definition of single payer.
Serious question: can you see such a system enacted in the US, where, similar to SS, ALL wage earners pay the same tax up to a certain income amount? Not exempting whole blocks of voters or subsidizing them?
Outhouse Go-Kart
December 14th, 2009
12:05 pm
Robert
December 14th, 2009
11:59 am
Cowardly EuroTrash.
ken
December 14th, 2009
12:09 pm
I think that Joe is the most honest person in D.C. He is a Statesman and not a politician.
Del
December 14th, 2009
12:13 pm
Robert,
Your 11:59am was a good post. Offering up valid statistics, however, won’t win the argument with those who really see this whole healthcare issue through the prism of ideology and politics. It’s not what’s best for the country and American citizens. It’s what’s best for the far-left interest.
Robert
December 14th, 2009
12:19 pm
Del, you are right. Looking at the Rasmussen poll again, it also shows that Obama will always have approval of African Americans. I don’t think it matters to that segment of our society even if he has made no significant improvements in 3 more years. They will vote for him.
By the way, Rasmussen has been the most accurate pollster recently, so this shouldn’t be ignored like Spokesperson Gibbs did of the Gallup poll the other day.
“Seventy-seven percent (77%) of liberals approve while 76% of conservatives disapprove. The bad news for the President is that there are a lot more conservatives in the country than liberals. However, he gets a bit of a boost because 57% of moderate voters still offer their approval.
The President earns approval from 37% of White voters and 98% of African-American voters.”
itstrue
December 14th, 2009
12:33 pm
I can’t figure Lieberman’s move out. He’s gone back and forth on where he stands on the issues. He was pro-Medicare buy-in before he was against it. He got upset about costs before the CBO announced what the costs would be. He’s held every opinion on the Public Option that a senator can hold.
If he’s negotiating for some power in the Democratic caucus, like a chairmanship, he’s not doing a good job at it. If he’s trying to represent the good citizens of Connecticut, he’s doing a terrible job, since polls show they want the more liberal reform package. He barely squeezed by a primary challenge last time around. What about now?
It all seems like political suicide, and not even a principled one. It all sounds like something personal, rather than ideological.
None of the known facts or statements add up to a coherent picture of where the guy stands. My guess is that there are about 10 facts on this that aren’t public for every one press soundbite coming out of Joe’s shop. Where it’s headed is anyone’s guess.
At the end of this, I think they’ll pass something. It won’t please the left or the right, but it might be the beginning of a decent system that gets the market working for people by forcing everyone to actually compete honestly for lower costs and more value in a coverage plan. I see neither a “government takeover” of health care, nor a “government as savior” package emerging from this thing. Myself, I’ve never thought it was ever all that extreme a reform approach from either side, nor did it need to be. But it might get more people more coverage for cheaper, while preserving consumer choice. That’s good, anyway.
So much fuss. It hurts my head.
Mrs. Godzilla
December 14th, 2009
12:39 pm
Paul
I hope so.
MAC
FDR a socialist. Bless your heart.
Del
December 14th, 2009
12:42 pm
Robert,
Obama’s biggest problem is with the Independent voters. They represent the voters who got him into office. He’s lost many from this group. Additionally, he’s angered many on the left who think he made a mistake with his Afghan decision and what they perceive is his failure to move their hot button issues. I’m looking ahead to next year and what all this will mean with the Congressional vote.
Grumpy
December 14th, 2009
12:49 pm
USinUK – if the government entirely controls the fee you receive as a doctor, and has the power to cut that fee whenever they want, they own you. Period.
Robert
December 14th, 2009
12:50 pm
Here’s a real-life example of how a lack of competition results in higher premiums to employees. My company has over 10,000 employees and we can get a decent plan that doesn’t cost us an arm and a leg in annual premiums. It is more than last year though. A friend of mine works for a small company and her annual premiums are about 4 times what I pay. One of the employees at her company has been very sick and is driving up the costs for the company, which means everyone is paying more to cover it. If her company was allowed to buy from an out of state insurer, instead of the few we can choose from here in GA, then wouldn’t it likely mean that everyone would pay less? Common sense people. Also, as one of the Republican proposals outlines, allowing smaller companies to pool together would give them the benefits of larger companies, such as mine…thus driving costs down.
Does this make sense to anyone else out there?
Gatorzone
December 14th, 2009
1:07 pm
Thousands of uninsured Americans show-up at emergency rooms everyday with stage 4 cancer, and Joe Lieberman finds this moral travesty wholly acceptable. In contrast, rather than fund insurance reform by raising taxes on the wealthiest, Mitt Romney has, instead, proposed reducing the deficit by cutting the salaries of blue collar Federal employees. The cost of the Bush tax cuts over the next ten years is $3.9 trillion (insurance reform: $1.2 trillion). As a result of Bush’s tax cuts, the period from 2001 to 2008 registered the weakest jobs and income growth in post-war America. When Bush entered office, 12% of the population was living in poverty; by 2008, that number had swelled to 17%. In 2001 the unemployment rate was 4%; by 2008, it had doubled. Under Bush, overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first time since tracking began in 1967. In 2001, 17 million Americans received food stamps; by 2008, 30 million were relying on food stamps. Republicans who now deride the $800 billion recovery package implemented by Obama as “too big” willingly jumped aboard the Bush bandwagon claiming his $1.35 trillion in tax cuts would create millions of jobs and bolster the economy (not!). In fact, when Bush took office, he inherited and quickly squandered a $759 billion surplus created by Clinton; thus, Bush equals recession, and compassionate conservatism is a scam.
Tom
December 14th, 2009
1:19 pm
What a disgusting little dwarf is Liebermam. Recall that vivid photo of him rubbing up against/with McShame as they performed a “totally safe” shopping trip in Baghdad. Traitorish little punk.
Jake
December 14th, 2009
1:34 pm
WHO’s rankings mean very little. USinUK cites life expectancy, but if you take away homicide and MVA’s the US has the longest life expectancy in the world. Homicide and MVA’s are hardly what anyone thinks of when they think of health care. US residents also have the highest survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common cancers. We have the best health care in terms of quality of acute care you will get in a US hospital. We only come up short in access and affordability.
Jake
December 14th, 2009
1:42 pm
Gatorzone – No recognized rational economist would agree with you that the Bush tax cuts led to the weakest job growth in years. You are totally overlooking the 2001 recession (which obviously occurred before the tax cuts), very expensive wars on two fronts, and the sub-primne mortgage crisis and ensuing credit crunch. In short, you have absolutely no understanding of macro economics. Please read something, anything, before you post again.
Del
December 14th, 2009
1:43 pm
They weren’t winning the healthcare/economy debate so the lib’s moved over to Jay Bookman’s latest blog about Obama vs. the bankers. Whenever the lib elite regulars on the Bookman blogs show their protest about too many conservatives countering their claims they just stop posting, which I guess prompts Jay to gin up another subject thread.
MAC
December 14th, 2009
2:23 pm
Mrs. G: Socialism, collectivism, government dependence…. they are all one-in-the-same, a distinction without a real difference. FDR was an advocate of these programs (though some might argue he was a fascist), take your pick on what you want to call it.
When people are guaranteed an outcome, there is no longer an American way.
btw, your “bless your heart” comment is just one more example of your smug, condescending attitude toward all who have different views here.
MF Intown
December 14th, 2009
4:33 pm
SoCo at 9:01 “Whether you’re a citizen living in Biltmore Estates or a cardboard box under I-20, the Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Actually those words are in the Declaration of Independence – a pretty compelling document that shapes our national character, but not a legally compelling framework for the creation and enforcement of the land’s laws.
Kristopher
March 10th, 2010
5:51 pm
Perfect. blogs.ajc.cm is killer.
Jayson
March 10th, 2010
6:51 pm
Great stuff. blogs.ajc.com deserves an oscar.
Emmanuel
March 10th, 2010
7:44 pm
blgos.ajc.com, how do you do it?