I know, that would be news if this wasn't a day ending in "y" but his latest mishegas goes way beyond garden variety chutzpah. It's a shanda.
Drudge is reporting repeating that Politico is reporting repeating Lieberman's baseless claim:
It’s classic politics of our time that if you look at the campaign last year, presidential, you can’t find a mention of public option," Lieberman said. "It was added after the election as a part of what we normally consider health insurance reform — insurance market reforms, cover people, cover people who are not covered.
"It suddenly becomes a litmus test. I thought Democrats were against litmus tests."
That's classic, alright. Classic Lieberman. Here's a litmus test for ya, boychik. Do you think it's ok to rewrite history? For the record, me no likee the denial of historical facts, it burns me up.
I can understand if Sarah Palin's followers don't want to remember stuff, but a Man of The Book knows you don't get to rewrite stuff just because it didn't go down well. Rewriting history is a crime beyond the pale. What's next? Schnook.
The Platform covered this in explicit detail, for example:
While there are different approaches within the Democratic Party about how best to achieve the commitment of covering every American, with everyone in and no one left out, we stand united to achieve this fundamental objective through the legislative process.
We therefore oppose those who advocate policies that would thrust millions of Americans out of their current private employer-based coverage without providing them access to an affordable, comprehensive alternative, thereby subjecting them to the kind of insurance discrimination that leads to excessive premiums or coverage denials for older and sicker Americans. We reject those who have steadfastly opposed insurance coverage expansions for millions of our nation’s children while they have protected overpayments to insurers and allowed underpayments to our nation’s doctors. Our vision of a strengthened and improved health care system for all Americans stands in stark contrast to the Republican Party’s and includes:
Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options. Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.
Oh...wait a second...they DID use the magic word. They called it an OPTION! They also include the OPTION of a PUBLIC plan. Gee Joe, what d'ya know?
Let's see what Obama said about health care... how about we go look at the campaign's website:
Obama Offers Universal Health Care Plan
Newsday | May 29, 2007
By Mike Glover
Democrat Barack Obama is offering a sweeping plan that would provide every citizen a means to have health coverage and calls on government, businesses and consumers to share the costs of the program.
Obama said his plan could save the average consumer $2,500 a year and bring health care to all.
"The time has come for universal, affordable health care in America," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday in Iowa City.
A copy of his remarks and documents describing the program were obtained by The Associated Press.
Obama's plan retains the private insurance system but injects additional money into the system to pay for expanding coverage. It would also create a National Health Insurance Exchange to monitor insurance companies in offering the coverage.
Those who can't afford coverage would get a subsidy on a sliding scale depending on their income, and virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers. The plan that would be offered would be similar to the one covering members of Congress.
His package would prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
Now the magic phrase "public option" is not on the site at that point in time, more than a year before the election. That much is true. But pretending this is suddenly a new concept that was never discussed is nonsense. Ask our friend Google and you will find over 2 million hits for obama universal health care. This issue was discussed in detail.
Obama's plan doesn't have the mandate that his rival John Edwards is proposing to ensure that all Americans get coverage. The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee would require everyone to have health insurance, much like state requirements for auto insurance for every driver. Both candidates would require businesses to help cover their workers.
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who oversaw a massive but unsuccessful project to overhaul the nation's health care system while she was first lady, has promised universal health care but has yet to provide specifics.
"My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is that the amount of money you will spend on premiums will be less," Obama said. "If you are one of 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will after this plan becomes law."
The issue was even discussed in one of their many debates. Quite heatedly. In fact, it was one of the rare flashpoints in their debates. Hillary's declaration that universal health care was "a core democratic principle" she would go to the mat for was a huge applause line.
Maybe Holy Joe missed that one because the TV was off for the Sabbath or something. Actually, it was a Monday night so you can forget that excuse. Given the fact that EVERY ONE OF THE FINAL THREE Democratic candidates supported universal health care and it was also covered in the 2008 Democratic Party Platform, yeah I guess you could say there was a consensus on this point. You call it a "litmus test", I call it "a consensus viewpoint." The irony here, back in 2006 there was this guy running for the Senate in Connecticut who said
And what I'm saying to the people of Connecticut, I can do more for you and your families to get something done to make health care affordable, to get universal health insurance, to make America energy independent, to save your jobs and create new ones. That's what the Democratic Party is all about.
Next time you are in front of a mirror, ask him why he supports this "litmus test" that you find so objectionable.
The idea of an option was distinquished from universal single-payer even before the platform was adopted. Norman Solomon described that in "Democratic Platform Option: "Guaranteed Health Care for All" (written in July, 2008 before the convention) when he contrasted the party's consensus position to the one proposed by John Conyers:
In contrast, H.R. 676 -- the single-payer bill introduced by Rep. John Conyers that now has 90 co-sponsors in the House -- would guarantee publicly funded, privately delivered health care for everyone in the United States.
So Joe, what are you going to do? Pull a Coburn? Are you going to oppose it because it's too expensive and then oppose it because it doesn't go far enough? Feh, umfarshemt.