Lieberman: No reform at all is better than a public option

By John Amick

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Sunday that no health-care reform bill at all is better than legislation that includes some form of a government-run public option.

"The truth is that nothing is better than that because I think we ought to follow, if I may, the doctors' oath here in Congress as we deal with health care reform. Do no harm," Lieberman said.

Lieberman, a critical vote for Senate Democrats in the health-care debate, said a public option, unlike extending insurance coverage to the uninsured and controlling premium costs, was never a priority until recently.

The former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, now an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said he would not filibuster to stop debate on health reform, but he feels strongly about discarding any public option. He called public option backers who have declared their stance as the only way to true reform as part of a "classic Washington" scenario that is stifling debate while broad bipartisan support exists for a host of other important reforms.

He pointed to a report from Congressional Budget Office, released on Friday, that figured "a less healthy pool of enrollees" would probably be attracted to the government-run option, resulting in higher premiums than the average private plan.

Lieberman appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation."

By washingtonpost.com editors  |  November 1, 2009; 12:46 PM ET
Categories:  Daily Dose , Health Reform Share This:  E-Mail | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Stumble Previous: Health-care lobbyists continue spending spree
Next: Health insurance companies urge staff to fight reforms

Comments

The Lobbists have never made and spent so much money as they have and are trying to stop[ this heath reform. They are putting out more misleading information then they have ever done before, everything from stating it will cost more to claiming that ilegal immigrants will be coverd and anything else that these people who KILL for PROFIT can think of. The people on the hill are trying everything to get out of a Public Medical System for ALL AMERICANS. Do the people of America not understand that these Legal Murders, and they are Legal Murders that put people out on the streets to die rather then pay for the medical bills, they cancell their policies to avoid paying. Even those dirtbags had to admite that they kill 45,000 people every year in America to avoid paying their medical claims, and they are allowd to. Can you people not tell at all when you are being mislead and lied to by the very people taking the money from the medical Insurance Companies Lobbists in Washington. They don't care at all about the fact that this is BLOOD money of Americans Murdered for the Profits of Wall Street. Do you people have no sence of Right and Wrong or are you just being flooded with so much mis information that you don't lnow what to believe. Look at this way all of the world nearly outside of America has Public Heath care and it works very well most places. So do you think it is all of the world that is wrong for not being ripped off by for profit medical systems or is it America that is wrong for allowing Murder in the name of Profit and rip offs in the name of profit for this So Called Medical System in America where only the rich who can SUE get what they need with out question. While nearly all of the rest of the world gives their people what they need with out question no matter how old they are so long as they are covered by their Public Medical System and in most places all that is needed to be covered is to be a "legal citzen".

Posted by: nicklan | November 1, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

The Public Option is one of two ways to get a good practical outcome over time, years from now. The other is comprehensive insurance reform that regulates the private insurers completely (since health insurance works differently from other types of insurance by fundamentals). The catch is, comprehensive regulation has a lot of pieces.

Not all of the complex pieces may survive the legislative process in tact.

Instead, lobbyists have many places where they could greatly weaken the regulation, resulting in reform that eventually looks surprisingly less effective than people imagined it would.

Risk-pools.

Shifting.

New forms.

Reform canceled.

I'm not referring to the popular pieces, which will certainly pass through reform, like no dropping, guaranteed acceptance, no pricing discrimination.

I'm referring to the critical pieces of regulation that the public does not readily understand, or at least not yet.

Make or break issues like risk-sharing (aka "risk pooling", aka "reinsurance") which lessens cherry picking, adverse selection, and similar processes by which reform would...simply be a failure in time.

There are a lot of ways insurers could lobby to create little loopholes to allow themselves to effectively get reform in name only.

And this is why the Public Option could be helpful, since it makes it much more difficult for insurance lobbyists to create effective loopholes in the massive, complex regulation needed.

As to the idea the Public Option premiums will be relatively high.

You bet they will.

When you get more services, then that costs more.

If you buy 30% more groceries for example, it often costs about 30% more money.

It is genuinely disengenous for the CBO and others to mention the Public Option will cost more and leave out all of the context of *exactly* what they are saying.

All insurance will cost more.

And if the risk-sharing is weakened enough, the Public Option will even cost more than private insurers, in spite of having 12-15% advantage at the outset in administration/salaries/profits expenses.

findingourdream.blogspot.com

Posted by: HalHorvath | November 2, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Let me put it another way.

Saying the Public Option premiums will cost more than private premiums is asserting/presuming/(hoping?) that risk-pooling/reinsurance will be ineffective.

But risk-pooling (risk sharing, reinsurance) *is* one of the 3-4 most crucial, central issues in reform!

Asserting the PO will cost more is asserting there will be weak or non-existent risk pooling.

It's asserting ahead of time that Congress can't create risk-pooling.

Perhaps that's true!

If so, then the legislative process is even more corrupted than I fear.

Posted by: HalHorvath | November 2, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Excellent health care article based on WH briefing at the Lipman Times:

www.lipmantimes.com

Best site I've seen.

Daily 24/7 Obama news:

Economy, Health care, AfPak, Iran, Stimulus, Entertainment, Opinion.

The HuffPo of Obama news.

Posted by: DocinDC1 | November 2, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I am a Senior on a Medicare
Advantage HMO Plan. While I do
not care whether we have a Public Option or not, I do feel like I should bend over when Congress says that monies for the Public
Option and other things will
largely come from a severe reduction to Medicare & Advantage Plans benefits. Reducing Expenses
should come from the solvable
problems that should be dealt with. LIKE MEDICARE FRAUD which is costing billions and noone in
government is accountable? LIKE
TORT REFORM, which is so costly
that insurance premiums and other
"tort" caused prices go through
the roof; LIKE PHARMA PRICES I
can buy my medications cheaper in Canada than I can here, prices must be regulated; LIKE ALL INSURORS must be regulated to provide for NO refusals of coverage, no cancellations cause of severe illness. Our current system or any other system is
financially unsustainable over time unless these problems are solved!

Posted by: namnorm | November 2, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

THE MAN IS INSANE!

Posted by: asclepious2 | November 2, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

The Dems. act like little kids that got away with something. That they pretend they have achieved something great is insane and sre sticking to it- indicates a moronic attitude.At least they say its so involuetd no one in their right mind could understand it.

Posted by: rvaw120 | November 3, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

My suggestion for the Health Plan the Democrats created is to have the Democratic Congress swithch from their cadillack health insurance to that pile of crap they have jointly created for the unsuspecting public.

Posted by: rvaw120 | November 3, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

AARP is proud to endorse the Affordable Health Care for America Act. We urge members of the House to pass this critical bill this year and finally fix our broken health care system.

Posted by: vk82 | November 5, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

That would be Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Insurance Companies.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | November 6, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Guess Joe thinks he will get more camera time if he is against a public option. Probably has a healthcare executive job lined up for when he is voted out.

Posted by: birdydadum | November 7, 2009 10:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2009 The Washington Post Company