This health care debate offers an opportunity to extend a middle finger to Joe Lieberman.

[Music Man]

There was broad support for the public option in the writing of the health care bill in 2009, but Lieberman opposed it, going so far as to say he would filibuster any Senate bill that included it. And it never even got through committee.

What a shame. We could have had nearly 10 years to this point of seeing a public option in action. (Not that it would be an unadulterated, fair test--Mitch McConnell would be doing all he could to defund it and present the illusion that it's a failure.)

I'm glad to see a public option is the minimum our candidates would accept. Here's hoping Lieberman's legacy will be irrelevant at some point in the near future.

[comradebillyboy]

1. We just can't denigrate Lieberman too much.

Glad he's gone.

[still_one]

3. I am glad he is gone too, but the fact is even without Lieberman we didn't have the votes

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=221790

[still_one]

2. Your information is not correct. We didn't have the votes, and it was more than Lieberman. There

was Blanche Lincoln, Lieberman, Nelson in Florida, Nelson in Nebraska, Birch Bayh in Indiana, and I believe Mark Pyror.

Contrary to what some like to project, we didn't have the votes, and there was NOT ONE republican who was willing to vote for any healthcare package with the Democrats, let alone one with a public option or Medicare for all

Here are the facts:

"Here is how much control we had in 2008-2009:

"Obama had control of the House from 2009-2011, but guess what, legislation does NOT become law without the Senate

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. Total control of the Senate requires 60 votes.

In January 2009, Democrats had 57 seats, with Sanders and Liberman caucusing with the Democrats for 59 votes.

That 59 included both Kennedy and Franken. Franken was not officially seated until July 2009, and Kennedy had a seizure in January 2009, and never returned to the Senate to vote, so the actual number was 55 plus two independents which makes 57.

It was during that time that President Obama was able to pass a stimulus package, but only because 3 republicans, Collins, Snowe, and Specter voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing its passage

In April 2009, Specter became a Democrat, Kennedy was still at home too ill, and Franken was still not seated in April. In May 2009, Byrd got sick, and didn't return to the Senate until July 2, 2009, and Democrats still had only 59 votes Kennedy's seat was temporarily filled by Kirk, but not until Sept, 2009


It was then that Democrats had at least potentially 60 votes in the Senate, and it lasted all of 4 months, from Sept 24, 2009 through Feb. 4, 2010, at which point Scott Brown, a republican was sworn in to replace Kennedy

The only thing the Democrats had control of for two years was the House, and for only 4 months did we have total control of congress, and it was during that small time frame that the ACA was passed"

vhttps://www.ohio.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

Within that four month time frame could President Obama have included a public option in the ACA, or Medicare for ALL?

Not likely. People seem to conveniently forget that there were blue dog Democrats
who made it very clear they would not vote for a public option or Medicare for All. They were Blanche Lincoln, Lieberman, Nelson in Florida, Nelson in Nebraska, and I believe Mark Pyror. Contrary to what some like to project, we didn't have the votes, and there was NOT ONE republican who was willing to vote for any healthcare package with the Democrats, let alone one with a public option or Medicare for all

[andym]

4. Lieberman single-handedly killed the Medicare buy-in for 55-64 year olds

not the public option which had less support. Ironic, because he was quoted as favoring it publicly before that point.

[betsuni]

5. K&R

[dalton99a]

6. The 'I' in Joe Lieberman (I-CT) does not stand for 'Independent.' It stands for 'Insurance Industry'

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/10/why-lieberman-hates-the-public-option/347740/
Why Lieberman Hates the Public Option

Resents Democrats At The New Republic, Jonathan Chait says Lieberman is "furious with the party, resentful of President Obama (who beat his friend in 2008) and would relish a Democratic catastrophe...Lieberman won't join a futile filibuster, but if he has the chance to stick in the knife and kill health care reform, I think he'd probably jump at the chance." And he suggests Lieberman's true constituents may be quite wary of the public option. "Another reason for his position, of course, is that Connecticut is home to some huge insurance companies, who don't want any new competition."

In the Pocket of Insurance Companies At The Daily Beast, Paul Begala goes for blood. "Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is identified as (I-CT). But the 'I' does not stand for 'Independent.' It stands for 'Insurance Industry.'" Begala says Lieberman opposed reform in 1993 and 1994 for the same reasons he opposes it now: he receives significant support from the insurance companies. "Lieberman sided with insurance companies against sick people, and with insurance companies against citizens who want to sue to protect their rights in court. As The New York Times reported, 'Many of Mr. Lieberman's friends said he had no alternative but to take this position because it was the one favored by the insurance industry. The industry is important to Connecticut's economy and has generously donated to Mr. Lieberman's campaigns over the years.'"

[Duppers]

7. Mr. Whine should've taken that "D" off

the end of his name yrs before he did.

[BigmanPigman]

8. I learn SO much on DU.

Thank you to everyone who replied before me.