In the Arena
Uncategorized

Credit Where Due

By Joe Klein | @JoeKleinTIME | December 1, 2009 | +

I’ve just received this from Joe Lieberman’s press office:

Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) joined Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) today in introducing an amendment that would revoke health insurers’ and medical malpractice insurers’ existing exemption from federal antitrust laws that prohibit anti-competitive conduct such as price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations.

“There is no reason that health insurers should be exempt from our federal antitrust laws,” said Lieberman.  “Anti-competitive conduct that reduces consumer choice and drives up prices is harmful to consumers and should be subject to the full range of federal remedies to end such practices.  I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment that will promote competition, increase consumer choice, and lead to more affordable health insurance for those in Connecticut and throughout the country.”

This is a good idea and an important amendment, and I’m glad that Lieberman and Leahy had the courage not to let their colleague Ben Nelson’s opposition prevent them from attempting to insert it. Now, I hope Lieberman will reconsider his pledge to filibuster any bill that contains the public option. This bill is simply too important–it will provide relief, in a variety of ways, to millions of people–to have an up or down vote blocked by a Senator’s opposition to this one, relatively peripheral provision.

Related Topics: Uncategorized

  • Latest on Swampland

    2012 Election May 25, 2012

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

    From our Partners

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Must Reads May 25, 2012

    Morning Must Reads: Haunted

  • destor23

    Well, even Joe Lieberman can have a good idea every once in awhile.

  • kathy

    Great idea. Would this also let any insurance company sell insurance in any state?

    I notice that Lieberman says “this amendment that will promote competition,”, rather than “this amendment that would promote competition.” Only if the bill gets passed, so it sounds like he’s expecting that. Or am I reading too much into this, since senators take credit all the time for things they know won’t become law.

  • 53_3

    He’s not going to give up his GOP creds, Joe. It’s the only creds he’s got left.
    .
    After all, even he knows this isn’t Israel…

  • pafro

    Anti-competitive conduct that reduces consumer choice and drives up prices is harmful to consumers and should be subject to the full range of federal remedies to end such practices.”
    I can think of one “federal remed[y]” off-hand that Joe Lieberman already declared off the table.
    Crook.

  • ohiolib

    It’s about flippin’ time some tried to address this!!!! I won’t say this often, but good for Lieberman. And good for Leahy for joining him.

  • bobcn1

    ‘Would this also let any insurance company sell insurance in any state?’
    .
    Sure. Why wouldn’t it?
    .
    The insurance companies can sell in any state now. What they can’t do is sell policies that fail to comply with state regulations. Usually when we hear calls for insurance companies to be able to sell ‘across state lines’ what is really desired is to be ability to sell policies that fail to meet state standards.
    .
    This is another example of the ‘states rights’ crowd trying to take away states rights that they don’t like.

  • piper1

    Ending this ridiculous anti-trust exemption is a low-hanging fruit that should be unobjectionable to anyone but the most shameless industry shills. Glad to see a common sense measure like this introduced, and very surprised to see Joe Lieberman actually playing a constructive roll in the debate.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Thanks to you, too, Joe, for bringing this up with his office.

  • diecash1

    Big deal. LIEberman will almost certainly vote against the health care bill when the final vote rolls around. I’m sure it’s easy for him to sponsor an amendment when he knows he will be voting against the bill it is attached to. Douche.

  • Cliff

    Now, I hope Lieberman will reconsider his pledge to filibuster any bill that contains the public option.
    .
    You’ve got to be sh*tting me. How many times does Lieberman have to yank the football away from you?

  • diecash1

    Good observation. He is Lucy to the Dem’s Charlie Brown for sure.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I’m reminded of the anti-AIDS funding in Africa that GWB was responsible for. It may be nice but after all the unecessary loss of life that he was responsible for, it’s nowhere near enough.

  • rustyreturns

    Oh my look at all the little Liberals jumping on board with a REPUBLICAN idea. Where were all the accolades when the Republicans were putting this idea on the table?
    .
    Hypocrisy at it’s finest.

  • richinnj

    I am as strong a supporter of a robust public option as almost anyone, but the public option contained in the proposed bills is extremely weak, and would only be open to a few million people.

    Perhaps the most prudent course at this point is to pass a bill that has a national health care exchange that is open to everyone (so that it has maximum purchasing power), as long as it also contains this anti-trust provision,

blog comments powered by Disqus