.

Political Animal runs an interesting timeline of the rationale and mindset of a health care reform denier.

That Joe Lieberman would rather kill health care reform than let some consumer choose between competing public and private plans isn’t exactly new. I continue to find it fascinating, though, to see his evolving explanations.

In June, Lieberman said, “I don’t favor a public option because I think there’s plenty of competition in the private insurance market.” That didn’t make sense, and it was quickly dropped from his talking points.

In July, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because “the public is going to end up paying for it.” No one could figure out exactly what that meant, and the senator moved onto other arguments.

In August, he said we’d have to wait “until the economy’s out of recession,” which is incoherent, since a public option, even if passed this year, still wouldn’t kick in for quite a while.

In September, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because “the public doesn’t support it.” A wide variety of credible polling proved otherwise.

In October, Lieberman said the public option would mean “trouble … for the national debt,” by creating “a whole new government entitlement program.” Soon after, Jon Chait explained that this “literally makes no sense whatsoever.”

Well, it’s November. And guess what? We’re onto the sixth rationale in six months. I actually like the new one.

“This is a radical departure from the way we’ve responded to the market in America in the past,” Lieberman said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press.” “We rely first on competition in our market economy. When the competition fails then what do we do? We regulate or we litigate…. We have never before said, in a given business, we don’t trust the companies in it, so we’re going to have the government go into that business..”

What a pleasant change of pace. Lieberman is moving away from practical and policy arguments — that’s a good move, since he’s totally wrong on the merits — and shifting towards opposition based on traditions.

That’s at least creative. We haven’t set up public plans to compete with dysfunctional private models before, therefore we shouldn’t in the future.

So what’s the deal with Joe?  Rachel Maddow informed us a couple of weeks back.

I think clearly what it’s about is primarily that fact that the industry that he’s serving by doing this—by preventing competition with the public option—is an industry from which he receives very substantial benefits. He’s drowning in campaign contributions from the insurance industry, the health care industry, the pharmaceutical industry—more than $2.5 million.

In early 2005 his wife was hired by a large P.R. firm, Hill & Knowlton, in the pharmaceutical division, which at the time was representing the health care giant Glaxo in major legislation before the Senate. And several months later Joe Lieberman was on the floor of the Senate offering legislation that would directly steer huge amounts of incentives to that company in order to develop vaccines.

So I think what you’re seeing here is the kind of legalized corruption, legalized bribery that runs the United States Senate; only in this case it’s particularly sleazy and transparent because Lieberman is ready to gut the major initiative of the Democratic Party.

___

To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe.

.