The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Joeidiocy

Re: Joeidiocy

MikeR — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:55:16 -0000

You're an bigot.

Re: Joeidiocy

akr — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:05:24 -0000

although suddenly alert to how that might appear to, say, the graduates of Gallaudet, because I just noticed that why that might work for some is the analogy to "deaf." I did not mean that AT ALL. Selfish is what I had in mind (deaf hadn't occurred to me at all, just the ease of hitting 'd' when you meant to hit 's' and the self-interestedness of Sen Lieberman). Delf would work if everyone mentally pronounced the l, as in selfish, but probably too many wouldn't.

Re: Joeidiocy

akr — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:51:44 -0000

I think delf (presume it was a typo for self) interested should join the ranks of internet typo-driven jargon.

delf is the new pwn. That guy's so delf! (Liebermanesque, derivation: See T-N Coates at the Atlantic, 11/2009)

Eh. Nerd here.

Re: Joeidiocy

Barry_D — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:39:16 -0000

Dan W November 2, 2009 2:42 PM

"It seems like a game of chicken to me. He's basically weighing that the GOP will make a comeback in 2010 vs. the risk of losing all the power he has under a Democratic senate."

Remember, he's repeatedly told the Democratic leadership to f*ck off and die, and has been rewarded as if he were a former Republican who defected to the Democrats. At this point, I can't see the Democratic leadersihp (Reid *or* Obama) having any credibility with him. He doesn't fear them.

Re: Joeidiocy

Barry_D — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:34:59 -0000

deva (Replying to: BabylonSista) November 2, 2009 3:40 PM

"But doesn't he get that either way? His bad behavior doesn't improve his lobbying prospects. His long tenure in the Senate does."

His bad behavior could derail any real, significant healthcare reform this year. Barring some very good fortune for the Democrats, that means for the rest of the Obama administration (if it can be blocked now, it can be blocked later). Given that the only 'reform' a GOP administration would support would be to pump more money into the insurance/pharmaceutical companies, this means no chance of real, significant reform until ~2020. This means many, many billions of dollars per year in profits ensured, for at least a decade.

When Joe gets his cushy post-Senate payoff, it won't be for what lobbying he *will* do, it'll be a payoff for what he *did* do.

Re: Joeidiocy

BreakerBaker — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:16:11 -0000

Of course, there's no real guarantee that his previous statements in favor of comprehensive healthcare reform (with some sort of public plan) were anything other than political posturing. Maybe this is what he genuinely thinks. Or maybe he's just being vindictive. Honestly, I would have been surprised if some Dems didn't drop off of this plan. I'm not saying this is Lieberman making a principled stand. I'm simply not convinced that he was making anything other than a political stand on the campaign trail.

Re: Joeidiocy

kadzimiel — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:09:01 -0000

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/66005-reid-reassures-the-left-lieberman-is-on-board

.

It seems that Joe Lieberman has reversed course again. Is he now filibustering himself?

Re: Joeidiocy

Brent — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:54:49 -0000

Isn't it the same thing though?

I wouldn't say so. It is certainly true that, depending upon the circumstance, one vote can be more damaging than the other. But, for me, the operative principle here whether one actually believes in democracy, or whether they believe they should have a sort of veto power, especially within their own caucus.

Any group, any team, work around the same basic idea. The team discusses what they want to do. Dissenting voices are heard but one way or another, the group decides how to move forward. When you decide that as a member of a group an issue is important enough to you that you will obstruct the decision of that group because you disagree with it, then you aren't really a member of that group.

You disagree with the team's decision? Fine. You have your opportunities to convince the team that you are correct (and Lieberman's arguments are transparently stupid and unconvincing) and if they still don't agree, you will have a chance to vote against it. But if your choice instead is to make sure that the team never even gets a chance to make the play, then what is the point of belonging to that team.

However, given how times have changed...effectively, a vote against the filibuster of a bill is a yes vote, even if you do vote no.

Times haven't changed. It has always and forever been the case that, for the most part, legislators more or less know where the votes are going to end up. What has changed is that many legislators have determined that it is best not to let it get to that stage. There is no intrinsic political reason that it needs to be that way.

Re: Joeidiocy

Brent — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:37:11 -0000

Now, some reforms like eliminating lifetime caps and recission practices are broad-based market reforms that many of these companies agree with.

If by "agree with" you mean that they (some companies) will agree to go along with limited approaches to these reforms in order to forego more serious restrictions than yes, they will agree to them. They certainly do not agree to them as inherently profitable business practices because, of course, they aren't.

But simply killing them off sounds too much like shooting the messenger for the bad news -- in this case the insurance company is the messenger/disciplinarian and the message is high costs of health care.

The messenger and the message are, of course, not unrelated here. Health care costs are largely set by the buying practices and bargaining power of the insurers and for a variety of reasons, they have not controlled prices. Moreover, they have resisted the efforts of both regional and Federal governments to control prices out of fear for their own business models and profits. But it is certainly true that insurance companies are not the sole contributing factor to this particular problem. It is also true however, that constructed properly, a public option that either sets or negotiates lower rates has the potential lower costs throughout the system, which is, of course, the whole point of the public option.

Re: Joeidiocy

martin peretz dispenser — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:23:46 -0000

That's if you make the distinction that a vote against a filibuster is the same as a vote for a bill. However, given how times have changed...effectively, a vote against the filibuster of a bill is a yes vote, even if you do vote no. This also means accepting the reality that a supermajority in the senate is needed to get anything accomplished, instead of treating the filibuster as the parliamentary technicality that it is.

Re: Joeidiocy

kadzimiel — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:14:42 -0000

The issue isn't whether Joe Lieberman votes his conscience. The issue is whether his conscience allows him to be a member of the Democratic caucus in good faith. In my opinion, if you want to caucus with the Democrats, it is incumbent on you to allow their legislation to proceed. If you find that you can't, do the honest thing and resign from the caucus. That's what a person of principle would do.

Re: Joeidiocy

martin peretz dispenser — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:01:35 -0000

Having not done extensive studies on either, I can say that my interactions with the post office have been marked by long lines and unhurried clerks who do not seem to care.

Amtrak I've generally been happy with, until I discovered that Chinatown buses can deliver me for roughly a quarter of the price.

But those are just examples. A few more I could bring up would be...the local campus food options at the school I am at. The food trucks provide a great variety of food for low prices, while my experience with food venders at school-sanctioned locations is that they are on a whole slovenly, slow, and not so good. Take that for what you will.

Anyways, the main point is that a public option changes one aspect of health-care delivery, a tangential element, that of the profit motive, which to many might seem unseemly especially when someone is denied a treatment.

The profit motive happens to also allow for outside funding outside of the taxpayer, and I don't see anyone complaining about people investing money in insurance companies, only when they take profits out of them. Also, insurance companies are known historically for being too slow to raise insurance rates -- that's right, too slow.

Now, some reforms like eliminating lifetime caps and recission practices are broad-based market reforms that many of these companies agree with. But simply killing them off sounds too much like shooting the messenger for the bad news -- in this case the insurance company is the messenger/disciplinarian and the message is high costs of health care.

Re: Joeidiocy

mrein — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:01:30 -0000

Isn't it the same thing though?

Lieberman was, fairly, condemned on the left for voting for cloture on the Alito nomination. That brought the nomination to the floor and Lieberman's vote against Alito at that point was pointless. The real damaging vote was made at the procedural stage.

Re: Joeidiocy

mrein — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:57:35 -0000

Lemmy,

I don't disagree that Lieberman is pro-Israel or that he cares about Israel.

But how does your cut-and-paste suggest that Lieberman "only" cares about Israel?

Re: Joeidiocy

Brent — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:40:40 -0000

Amtrack and the Postal Service, two other quasi-public entities regularly run into budget problems, and I do have to say that in general compared to their private competitors are lacking

What competitors and lacking how? I suppose you could argue that in some areas, the Postal service is competing with say, UPS and FEDex. But the USPS gets consistently high customer satisfaction ratings and is significantly cheaper than their private competitors in the areas where they do compete. Thats aside from offering services that their competitors actually don't. The problems that the USPS has with its budget has always had to do with expensive public services its mandated by law to provide and its labor costs. In other words, if it were forced to operate as its competitors it would only mean that it would have to offer less service, to fewer people and offer their employees less benefits and all at a higher price. I am not sure why that would be in the public's best interest.

Amtrak has no real private competitors unless you mean to compare its eastern corridor service to say, Greyhound. Train service has never really been profitable anywhere so it makes little sense that completely private trains services would be offered. Nonetheless, inter-regional rail services, the whole world over are among the most popular services that any government provides. Governments everywhere but the US are resolved to the fact that interregional train systems, especially highspeed trains, offer major boosts to regional economies and have invested accordingly. Maybe we will catch up in 30 years or so but I doubt it.

As for foreign countries, let me propose something: they free ride off of American medical innovation. The high cost of US healthcare allows the US a competitive advantage

This is a claim I have seen brought up and shot down quite often. I have found it pretty unconvincing in the past but if you have something you can cite which makes a good case, I will be happy to read it.

Re: Joeidiocy

Joel — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:03:34 -0000

Joe Lieberman is Fredo Corleone.

I think we're pretty close to the end of Godfather II...

Re: Joeidiocy

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:39:48 -0000

It's not even voting his conscience--it's obstructing a vote. I have no problem with him voting against the package. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about not letting it get to the floor.

Re: Joeidiocy

martin peretz dispenser — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:35:21 -0000

It's the best term. I'm not using it in a derogatory way. Lots of things are socialistic: the police, for instance, the fire department, the garbage crews, the public library. In my neck of the woods SEPTA is socialistic...employees there regularly make 50k/yr for little more than manning clerking booths...but I digress.

Every argument I've heard in favor of a public option argues that by being non-profit it will better allocate resources. While the monies not spent on shareholder profits can be used for medical care, there's no indication that a public option will by dint of being non-profit make better decisions on health care. There haven't been any proposed new techniques in relation to the public plan. It would still be fee-for-service, which is the fundamental problem with health care, only "non-profit". Another thing to consider is the flip side of the public option: difficulty in raising new money. Aetna, etc can raise new money on Wall St by issuing stock. How would the public plan do it? What if it ran into problems? Amtrack and the Postal Service, two other quasi-public entities regularly run into budget problems, and I do have to say that in general compared to their private competitors are lacking. I think the temptation for a bailout would be too much.

As for foreign countries, let me propose something: they free ride off of American medical innovation. The high cost of US healthcare allows the US a competitive advantage, like how Germany produces industrial equipment and Japan has electronics.

Re: Joeidiocy

Brent — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:25:57 -0000

Look, the guy can vote his conscience

Of course he can. The point is that if "voting his conscience" mean actively obstructing the majority will of the Democratic caucus, then he can vote his conscience from outside the caucus. What exactly is the point of having something called a caucus otherwise?

I said this after the election in Nov but I have simply never heard of any group at any level of organization, from the Girl Scouts to NATO, that would allow a member to do to them what the Democrats allowed Lieberman to do without, at the very least, some sort of very serious penalty. Forget about some of his nastier comments during the campaign. If Lieberman had succeeded in what he very much wanted to achieve, every single item on the Democratic agenda, every single one, would have been dead on arrival for at least four years. They responded to these actions with some mild criticism and offering him the reward of his committee chairmanship which he had already neglected to use for anything substantive during the Bush years and which continues to languish as anything other than a sinecure for Lieberman now.

But as much of a slimy weasel as Lieberman is, he is not really the problem. My question for the Dem Senate caucus is: Why exactly did they imagine Joe wouldn't work against their interests on key legislative priorities now? They have already made it clear that he faces no consequences for several key attempts to damage Democratic legislative priorities in the past. If they are surprised by then they are too dimwitted to be trusted to govern in any case.

Re: Joeidiocy

Lemmy Caution — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:08:20 -0000

Ella, your point 2 is well-taken.

mrein, I will simply cut-and-paste from Wikipedia:

"Mark Vogel, chairman of the pro-Israel National Action Committee Political Action Committee (NACPAC), has stated that "Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions ... is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress. There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman. That is why he is incredibly important to the pro-Israel community." According to The Center for Responsive Politics, Lieberman currently ranks fourth on the list of candidates who received money from pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) in 2006."

Re: Joeidiocy

TW Andrews — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:00:12 -0000

I think he can vote his conscience on the final bill. On procedural votes, he needs to vote with the caucus, or else lose his leadership positions.

Re: Joeidiocy

TW Andrews — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:57:14 -0000

I'd guess that the Dems lose seats in 2010, but do they lose the Senate? That's hard to imagine. The GOP is a little bit better about assigning chairmanships based on something besides seniority, so he might have some sort of leadership position if he switches, but it's still pretty hard to see how it's a good move for him.

Re: Joeidiocy

Danny Schroeder — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:49:25 -0000

You make the mistake of conflating liberals with the Democratic party.

Re: Joeidiocy

scott — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:40:43 -0000

Look, the guy can vote his conscience - I haven't seen anything in his career to suggest he has done otherwise, even when (see War, Iraq) it has hurt him considerably. I understand everybody's upset, but to talk about betrayal - well, that would be kind of like the left wing of the Democratic party spending millions of dollars in the first place to oust their own popular, electable Democratic incumbent candidate. And as for hurting the Democratic balance of power - well, that would be kind of like... the left wing of the Democratic party spending millions of dollars in the first place to oust their own popular, electable Democratic incumbent candidate.

Re: Joeidiocy

TW Andrews — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:40:29 -0000

Seriously. If he wants to caucus with the Democrats, ok. If they want to give him leadership positions, I can see that, so long as the understanding is that he votes with the caucus on *all* procedural votes. He decides to filibuster, he's kicked out of the caucus and it's a done deal.