More

Lieberman And Brown Have Both Expressed Support For Medicare Buy-In Approach

First Posted: 03/18/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 03:55 PM ET

Lieberman

As Democrats in the Senate discuss a compromise approach to health care reform centered on expanding Medicare, they should be encouraged by the fact that opposing sides of their caucus agreed on the proposal at one time.

On Monday, leadership in the Senate acknowledged that, in an attempt to bridge intraparty divisions, it was looking at a proposal that would allow consumers between the ages of 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare. The approach, one of many under consideration, has its plaudits and critics. Progressives worry that it would do little to inject competition into the private market or offer additional advantages to those who still don't meet the age minimum. Others, however, have cheered the possibility of bringing millions of additional consumers into the popular government-run program.

At the very least, it appears likely to come closer than any other compromise suggestion to meeting the most basic of political demands: the 60 votes in the Senate needed to break a Republican filibuster. On Tuesday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) told reporters that he is open to the Medicare buy-in idea though, at this time, non-committal. "I'm open to looking at it," he said. "But I want to make sure that we're not...adding a big additional burden to the Medicare program."

Meanwhile, former DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who was responsible for pushing the suggestion among Senate Democrats this past week, told Think Progress that he favored the proposal provided it was available on day one.

Indeed, support for lowering the age for Medicare access has been around for roughly a decade. Back when Al Gore suggested the buy-in proposal during the 2000 presidential election, Democrats largely hailed it as a smart approach to expanding coverage. The list included Gore's vice presidential nominee, Lieberman, now one of the most conservative member of the Democratic caucus, as well as then-Ohio congressman Sherrod Brown, now one of the caucus's firmest progressives.

On August 11, 2000, the Ohio State News Service profiled Brown as he was set to head to the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. Then the ranking member on the U.S. House Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, he listed as his top priorities the expansion "of health care to uninsured children and providing Medicare to people ages 55 to 64."

"I hope that what comes out of the convention is that the voters pay attention to the issues that are important -- school construction, minimum wage, prescription drugs and the expansion of Medicare," Brown said at the time.

Lieberman, naturally, was even more praiseworthy of the approach proposed by the man heading the presidential ticket. At an appearance in Maine in November 2000, he noted that he and Gore wanted to expand Medicare specifically because the fastest-growing group of uninsured were those between 55 and 65 years old. He even pitched the buy-in's bipartisan appeal.

"The kinds of proposals that Al Gore and I are making are the result of what we learned over the last eight years, and they're designed to be acceptable to both parties in Congress," Lieberman said, according to a Bangor Daily News article.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reporting weeks earlier about a speech Lieberman gave in New Mexico, described the scene as follows:

"Standing on stage in front of a blue and white banner that read "Fair Treatment; Affordable Choices; Quality Care," Lieberman said he and Gore plan to expand the Children's Health Insurance program (CHIP) to cover every child in America by 2005. Gore has described that goal as a first step toward health insurance coverage for all Americans.


For children who don't automatically qualify for CHIP and whose parents work for companies that do not offer health insurance, Lieberman said they should be able to buy into the CHIP program.

For older Americans, Lieberman supported an opportunity to buy in to Medicare with 25 percent tax credit."


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

 
 
  • Comments
  • 30
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
01:02 PM on 12/09/2009
For those of us whose goal it is to pass single payer health care this might actually be a better step forward than the public option. Expanding Medicare to those 55 and over will cover a majority of the people as our population gets older. The next step is to go for Medicare for all. We must make sure that the legislation is worded that way. After all if the majority of the people are already covered by Medicare why would they object to covering everyone that way.
07:56 AM on 12/09/2009
If 55 year olds can buy into it, why can't younger, less risky people? It makes absolutely no sense to exclude everyone else who would only increase the pool and lower average costs for the program.
12:04 AM on 12/09/2009
Exactly, get what you can w/o the PO. Then pass the PO with reconciliation 51 votes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mama4obama
11:45 PM on 12/08/2009
Medicare is a single payer. Expanding a single payer option to those 55 -64 with the proviso that their premiums go into medicare itself is great! That is a lot of people. As far as the exchange, it will be the same as what Congress gets. Remember when we said that was what we want? They pay private insurance companies , but the rates are much less. I am quite certain we would have the clout to demand that as well , those of us younger than 55. This is actually a better option than the weak public option that is proposed. Better still is that this forces the republicans into a smaller box because they were defending medicare last week and now the against it this week. Chess, not checkers! Love it. Also, expanding of medicaid is choice especially with the other goodies in the bill.
09:46 PM on 12/08/2009
What ever happened to "The same health plan members of Congress enjoy". Put the Public Option in the bill now!
01:06 PM on 12/09/2009
Actually what they are proposing IS what Congress enjoys now. A public insurance option was never a part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan. The FEHB is a mixed bag of private insurance plans that are governed by the OMB with rates negotiated based on the number of people signed up for the plans. People in the exchange would have their choice of which plan they want to go with. That is what they are proposing now.
09:44 PM on 12/08/2009
What if you are 45 and uninsured. Stop age discrimination. We want a robust Public Option available to any one who wants to buy into it! This age patchwork is nonsense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mama4obama
11:46 PM on 12/08/2009
There will be an exchange. Harry Reid said that the Public option is not dead.
08:39 PM on 12/08/2009
This is a great plan, providing they make the minimum age 18 instead of 55. If under 18 you can get into CHIP, if over 18 you can buy into Medicare, win win.

That is what they should have had from the beginning, medicare for all. I would greatly prefer paying a few hundred a month and getting medicare to paying a few thousand a year for private health coverage.
07:49 AM on 12/09/2009
Um, a few hundred a month, say 2, equals a few thousand a year, 2.4, to be exact.

It's not free, but I agree with you.

This should be the first step towards Medicare for all, what should have been proposed in the first place. Perhaps, if enough people let their voices be heard, it can happen when the House and Senate reconcile.

Apply the Kucinich amendment!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TyneCrescent
A Word To The Wise Is Sufficient
07:34 PM on 12/08/2009
Is it supposed to be good news for Lieberman and Brown to be for this particular "version" of health care reform? I don't think so. To me, the whole health care reform issue is so watered down now and filled with concessions to politicians like Lieberman, Snowe, Nelson, Landrieu, Baucus and others is shameful. I support Obama and the Dems on most issues, but these efforts to appease Blue Dogs, Repubs, the industry, lobbyists and other obstructionists is not what I, and many others hoped for. Why Dems and the WH let these small groups hijack and influence one of the most important issues is American history is both baffling and infuriating. They all should know by now that bipartisanship is a pipe dream, and the only function of the GOP is to thwart any and all issues brought forth for the American people, to bring about their "Waterloo." What Obama and the Senate majority should be doing is stop pandering, start kicking behind and taking names, and get on with governing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
NielsH
don't call my micro-bio empty
08:04 PM on 12/08/2009
It is not so much appeasing as well as getting the necessary votes. Without compromise there will be no health care reform. The president has no dictatorial powers.
vjones26
2 kinds of Republicans...Millionaires & Suckers
08:57 PM on 12/08/2009
Study up on Reconciliation. The public option could be passed with 51 votes.

Pass the other stuff with 60 votes.
07:09 PM on 12/08/2009
The democratics are a weak bunch of a$$holes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:18 PM on 12/08/2009
Wait, if Liberman is for it, I must now be against it. Got to be a catch in here somewhere.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
NielsH
don't call my micro-bio empty
08:06 PM on 12/08/2009
Don't worry, Lieberman only needs to ask Aetna why he should be against it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bpeirce
10:13 PM on 12/08/2009
or his wife
04:19 PM on 12/08/2009
I'm in that age group also, and would love a chance at medicare. I see first hand its advantages through my brother who is a Viet Nam vet. I have employer based insurance. The rates are pretty good, as far as payroll deductions go. However, I pay out-of-pocket all year long because this is covered, that is not covered, this is part of your deductible, that won't be part of your deductible. The insurance companies play so many games with coverage/non-coverage - I honestly don't know how they determine what's covered. I know I pay hundreds all year long. And - will never reach my deductible unless I go in the hospital - and God knows I don't want that because I couldn't afford it. For the life of me, I cannot understand how there are poor and middle-class people who are actually against health care reform. However, I have very little patience for those who refuse to accept truth and reality. If our seniors are so dumb as to believe all the crap they're hearing, then I choose not to consider them wise because of years of ageand experience. I truly hope I'm not that gullible when I'm in (if I reach) my golden years.
04:05 PM on 12/08/2009
This is all a ploy by the Ins. Co. to dump all their highest cost customers(the aging 55 to 65) and gain all the young people that are being forced to buy insurance. This is pretty clear to me... can't you all see that?! In fact, I would say that this was a deal that was made a long time ago between the Obama administration and the Health Care Mafia. We've been had! Again!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ScottontheSpot
03:53 PM on 12/08/2009
So, basically, you can add this to the long list of things that would have been different/we could have had if the man who had garnered the most votes in 2000 - Al Gore - had actually been allowed to be President. Can we start blaming the Supreme Court for the millions of uninsured deaths in the last 8 years, our lack of competitiveness, and the ever-escalating cost of healthcare now? I'm still blaming them for Iraq and the greatest increase in the national debt in history.
03:20 PM on 12/08/2009
does this mean that there will not be a 400 billion cut?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jeanwny
04:12 PM on 12/08/2009
Everyone, I mean every single person except for Congressional Members who have obstructed, the logical single payer/public option, and people to whom money is no object is going to pay the price for a plan (?) that has morphed into a non plan of real reform. The only consolation; maybe just maybe they will lose their offices next time around. Their are consequenses to people who are that criminal.
03:16 PM on 12/08/2009
I don't think this is a bad idea, here is what I'm predicting, once this is pass, it will eventually be extended to folks 40-64 and possibly younger. Think about it for a minute, if the government can get another 30-50million people buying in to medicare, think about what it does to the insurance companies. I guaranty you if this works, provided they make this go into effect immediately, Obama will push for the 40-64 age group to buy into it.