Man in the Middle

Sen. Joe Lieberman made headlines last week when he announced that he would vote against Sen. Harry Reid's healt-reform bill—which Reid unveiled just one day earlier—unless the public-option provision was revised. His announcement ruffled feathers on Capitol Hill, mostly because it killed the buzz around Reid's proposal just as it was gathering momentum. And after his defection to the GOP in last year's election, it provided plenty of fodder for Democratic critics, eager to unleash their pent up anger. Lieberman spoke to NEWSWEEK late last week, laying out exactly what's on the line if Democrats don't come around to his way of thinking. Excerpts:

Let's talk about your announcement this week that you would let the health-care bill proceed to the floor but you would join a Republican filibuster to block final passage if the bill hadn't changed. Why allow the bill to go to the floor at all if you have such reservations about it?
Because I believe there is an urgent necessity to adopt health-care reform this year. It's not going to happen until the debate begins. I also came to the conclusion, in conversations with [Democratic leader] Senator Reid that the prospects of changing the public-option part of the bill as he had conceived it at this point were slim to none. There are other moderate Democrats who may come to a different conclusion. That is to say they may very well wish to negotiate prior to agreeing to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed, and I respect that and I wish them well. Maybe they will come away with a different interpretation from Harry, but that's the one that I got.

People on Capitol Hill have said that you are just posturing or seeking attention.  Others have said you are in the pocket of the large-insurance sector in Connecticut. What do you say to those criticisms?
[Chuckles.] I didn't do this with great eagerness, but just really what I felt was right to do, sensible to do. So here is all the political controversy again. I'd be happier doing the other things I've been doing—working on climate change and Afghanistan and homeland security and all the rest.

I understand that people impute motives. I'm glad there are a couple of health-insurance companies are in Connecticut and people work in them, but I am not at all defensive of the insurance companies. When I was attorney general of the state I sued the Connecticut insurance companies in an antitrust action. And I've always supported regulation of insurance. I will vote for an amendment to remove the federal antitrust exemption from the insurance companies because that makes sense to me.

There's a point of principle or policy here for me which is that in some kind of political rush—maybe related to the desire for some people for a single-payer system—we are doing something really unprecedented and I think unhealthy for our economic system.

Is there any formulation of a public option you could accept?
There's none on a national level. Though you could put qualifiers in, they tend to be, I think, more political compromises than sensible—maybe that is too harsh a word—economic or public-health compromises. You've got to either decide that you want to create another government health-entitlement program or you don't.