huffingtonpost.com — Sen. Joseph Lieberman's abrupt announcement that he will sink the health-care bill if it includes a provision to expand Medicare has spurred a torrent of angry recriminations from Democrats -- and confusion among those trying to divine his motives.
Dec 14, 2009 View in Crawl 4
hughesw2Dec 15, 2009
If his opposition was based on cost, then why is he supporting the more expensive version of the bill that lacks a public option?
emmeronDec 15, 2009
That's a great question -- one the article could have spent some real time with. My critique is on the article, not Joe, just so we're on the same page. Honestly, there are few times I agree with him. When I do, I don't really agree with him, I agree with the stance he's been funded towards taking. Then again, that's true of all our Senators I suspect.Side note -- do you have any figures that support one being more expensive than the other? So far all I've seen (just my disclosure, not an attack by the way) is data that indicates the opposite. The GAO doesn't like the looks of public option one bit... what would make it more expensive if it lacked? Honest curiosity here, please share.
vatosplaceDec 15, 2009
Joe Lieberman (I-Israel)The best senator money can buy.
clbwDec 15, 2009
f**k you bishop-America
Closed AccountDec 15, 2009
He's the new boogey man!
ncmusicDec 15, 2009
Except the bill is not government taking over your health.
frodobagginsDec 15, 2009
f**k Gravix!
wjr5108Dec 16, 2009
Ive paid into medicaid for 40 yrs--I say we all go forward together; our future is in our children. In addition, the "trust fund" is not adequately funded--current recipients of services are funded by present workers' payroll deductions--I would take the position that if the elderly are the basis for denying my children/others coverage, then the hell with them.