Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

Not only does Ben Nelson intend to oppose President Obama's public health care plan, which is central to the president's health care reform policy, but he's using stupid right wing talking points to do it.

From The Huffington Post:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Friday that he will oppose legislation that would give people the option of a public health insurance plan. The move puts him on the opposite side of two-thirds of Americans. [...]

Nelson's problem, he told CQ, is that the public plan would be too attractive and would hurt the private insurance plans. "At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game," Nelson said. Including a public option in a health plan, he said, was a "deal breaker."

You see, for Republicans and their allies, the corporate Democrats such as Nelson, the very fact that the public plan is cheaper and more efficient and thus more appealing to consumers, means it must be crushed because it represents a threat to the private insurance industry. And really, that's the constituent Nelson is most concerned about.

As Jason Rosenbaum writes over at The HCAN blog:

The company Nelson finds himself in is laid out clearly: business, the insurance industry, and Republicans. Of course, this isn't surprising, considering his campaign donation history. Open Secrets says Nelson received $608,709 from the insurance industry in 2007-2008, making the insurance industry his biggest donor group, more than lawyers and even lobbyists.

And guess what Nelson intends to do to galvanize support in the Senate for his opposition to the public plan? That's right, create a "coalition of like-minded centrists," although how one can argue that opposition to a public plan is a centrist position is a mystery when polling shows clearly that support for a public plan is overwhelmingly popular and hence the mainstream and -- dare I say -- centrist position.

A poll released this week by Consumer Reports National Research Center showed that 66 percent of Americans back the creation of a public health plan that would compete with private plans. Nelson, in comments made to CQ, joins the 16 percent of poll respondents who said they oppose the plan.

I imagine once upon a time centrist meant "in the middle" on some perceived left/right spectrum. Now, thanks to shills like Nelson, it's become synonymous with "corporate."

But luckily we have a coalition of our own, a large group of congressional Democrats including 16 Senators ranging from true centrists to liberals who have stated plainly with no ambiguity their support for a public plan:

A new public insurance plan is an essential part of reforming the U.S. healthcare system, 16 Democratic senators declared in a letter to two powerful committee chairmen Wednesday. [...]

"As members of key committees and leaders on health care issues, we write to support a public plan option as a core component of this reform," the letter said. "There is no reason to believe that private insurers alone will meet the public purpose of ensuring coverage for all Americans at affordable prices for taxpayers."

Below is the full list of Senators who signed the letter:

Sen. Sherrod Brown
Sen. Dick Durbin
Sen. Bob Casey Jr.
Sen. Kirsten GillIbrand
Sen. Tom Harkin
Sen. Daniel Inouye
Sen. Ted Kaufman
Sen. Carl Levin
Sen. Jeff Merkley
Sen. Jack Reed
Sen. Jay Rockefeller
Sen. Charles Schumer
Sen. Debbie Stabenow
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Sen. Jim Webb
Sen. Bernie Sanders

With such wideranging support as this and a budget resolution that preserves the option to use reconciliation for health care legislation, hopefully Ben Nelson's opposition to the public plan will be next to irrelevant.

Tags: Ben Nelson, health care reform (all tags)

Comments

51 Comments

Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh are Republicans...

Their Ideological Forefather is Ronald Reagan, and they are closer in philosophy to George Bush then Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Ben Nelson is a disgrace, can we trade him for Olympia Snowe?  

She is more a Democratic party member then he is, anyway.

by WashStateBlue 2009-05-02 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

I think so far I like how the healthcare battle is being handled. I do not expect people like Nelson to stop being assholes. I just expect policy makers to start making these sorts  of people irrelevant. There are too many people counting on these reforms to let men like this hold up the process. As I said, I hoped Obama would learn something from the stimulus, and it appears he did. I am cautiously awaiting the next steps as we change the direction.

by bruh3 2009-05-02 05:25PM | 0 recs
I was thinking the same thing

the other day when I read the story about Obama's meeting with members of Congress on health care--the meeting where he repeatedly reminded Republicans that he got zero votes from them in the House on his stimulus bill, and where he made clear he was not giving them a veto on health care reform.

If not for the spectacular failure of Obama's efforts to get broad bipartisan support for the stimulus, he might never have come around to using budget reconciliation to pass health care. And if Obama weren't doing that, then Ben Nelson being an asshole on health care would be much more significant, because it would virtually assure Republicans of being able to filibuster the health care reform bill.

by desmoinesdem 2009-05-02 07:32PM | 0 recs
Consider This Alternative For Obama

This is just Nelson's opening bid in a time-honored bidding game. Nelson wants something, something big, say a huge expansion of Offut AFB near Omaha. He has just picked his price and laid it down. Whatever it is he wants, we now know its price: the public option in health care reform. Just watch this play out. Rham will find something Nelson already has and threaten to take it away from him, saying, "Bill, two can play this game. Is this really what you want to do?"

by Arthurkc 2009-05-02 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I was thinking the same thing

He absolutely should not give the GOP or conservative Democrats a damn thing. This is not about Republcian. Or, the conservative Democrats. This is about what's best for the American people. A public option is a really important aspect of changing healthcare in this country. I am glad to see not only his resolution so far, but also that of progressives in Congress who are playing hardball. I must also give a shout out to the conservative Dems like Webb whom I supported from Virginia for also making it clear "no public option, no deal."

by bruh3 2009-05-02 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

This may sound like a joke but it's not: wasn't Ben Nelson "Cooter" on The Dukes of Hazard?

by Jess81 2009-05-02 06:11PM | 0 recs
you are thinking of

Ben Jones, who played Cooter and was later elected to Congress from Georgia.

by desmoinesdem 2009-05-02 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

I wrote Nelson an email accusing him of venality, economic small-mindedness, bribery, thwarting countless human lives, and disregard for the fate of his immortal soul.  But I doubt the evil SOB cares about any of that.

by tdub 2009-05-02 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

If you donate $600,000 to his campaign he will...

by 30000Fine 2009-05-03 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

Didn't someone here say something about exerting pressure from the left? Here's the deal, Washington does not give a flying fuck about the left. Let me repeat: your Democratic senators and congressmen do not give a flying fuck about the left because they have us by the balls. They shafted the left on mortgage legislation, the shafted us on TARP, they shafted us on torture, they shafted us on state secrets and I predict they will shaft us on healthcare legislation as well. Nothing will be done. Why? Because for some inexplicable reason the president is approaching this very important, maybe even his flagship legislation, as a bipartisan. We have seen it in the 90s and I predict we will see it now. Healthcare legislation will be DOA.

by tarheel74 2009-05-02 06:40PM | 0 recs
Here's something to mull over

Nelson, pledging his support for his Illinois colleague, said Obama has "the greatest potential to ending the bitterness and poisonous atmosphere in Washington."

I guess he actually meant someone who will not be partisan enough to impose progressive legislation but maintain status quo. Frankly right now after working so many months to elect this president my confidence in him, given the way he is handling Washington and caving to the right, is running low.

by tarheel74 2009-05-02 06:44PM | 0 recs
Here are some things YOU should mull over

The Lilly Ledbetter Fairpay Act.
His willingness to use reconciliation to force through healthcare and similar goals.
Reinstituting funds for Stem Cell Research.
Putting an end to Bush's draconian practices RE: birth control.  
The plan to close Gitmo.
His willingness to reach out to foreign leaders rather than show disdain for them.
His release of the Bush Torture Memos.
The most active first 100 days since FDR.

Has it been perfect? No.

But if perfection is the only acceptable outcome to you then you are going to live a sad and disappointing life... and if your patience is running thin now think about what a President McCain would be like.

by JDF 2009-05-02 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Here are some things YOU should mull over

While all that is laudable we are yet to see any bill directly aimed at alleviating the economic hardships that the common people are facing right now. The stimulus bill takes a small step but it is negated by the billions and projected trillions being thrown at TARP while the same banks block mortgage legislation and stonewall credit card legislation. We have problems, people who are in the tank with the banks don't care much for bipartisanship. Things need to get done, laws need to get passed to help people on the ground, without that bipartisanship is useless.

by tarheel74 2009-05-02 08:43PM | 0 recs
You obviously not aware

that Carolyn Maloney's Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights passed the House of Representatives by an OVERWHELMING margin yesterday as did her amendment to the bill, which passed the House 284-149.

by DTOzone 2009-05-02 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: You obviously not aware

Talk to me when it passes the senate. The mortgage cramdown bill passed the house 234-191, only to die in the Senate.

by tarheel74 2009-05-02 09:13PM | 0 recs
Cramdown didn't die in the Senate

They haven't even put it for a vote. Durbin's amendment died in the Senate.

234-191 is a hell of a lot closer than the credit card bill passed by.

It only got 71 votes against.

by DTOzone 2009-05-02 10:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Here are some things YOU should mull over

a.) Obama can only sign what gets passed and he no longer has a vote in the Senate

b.) We all need to stop pretending like this is the second Great Depression. I have spoken to people who lived through that era and I have a degree in history. Let me tell you that this isn't even close.

c.) Its been 100 Days, what did you expect? The Glorious Revolution? Mao's Red Book? My guess is that no matter what our President does you won't be happy with it.

by JDF 2009-05-02 10:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Here are some things YOU should mull over

I agree we're not in a second depression, but until some of the economic fundamentals start getting better and we quit bleeding jobs, we're not out of the woods.

by tpeichel 2009-05-03 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Here are some things YOU should mull over

Of course we are not out of the woods, there are a lot of problems, I just don't think we should pretend they are any bigger than they really are.

by JDF 2009-05-05 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's something to mull over

I think you are wrong on this issue. There are others I would agree. But here Obama has been playing this about how he should be playing it.

by bruh3 2009-05-02 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

Then why do you come here? Why do you care? If we have no true allies in Washington then whats the point?

The truth of the matter is you are wrong and the things you say in the above post are bordering on criminally stupid. I won't pretend to know if Public Healthcare is going to win the day, but to suggest that we have no shot is defeatist and ignorating. In my mind it makes you about as relevant as the tea-baggers and secessionists.

by JDF 2009-05-02 07:25PM | 0 recs
He's approaching healthcare as bipartisan?

Must be why he kept open the idea of reconciliation to pass it, huh?

Your so wrong, it hurts.

by DTOzone 2009-05-02 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: He's approaching healthcare as bipartisan?

I am willing to eat crow, but I rather see something happen than yet another healthcare bill DOA.

by tarheel74 2009-05-02 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: He's approaching healthcare as bipartisan?

Also his main pointman in the senate for healthcare legislation is against reconciliation. So unless he says so explicitly on the record I am skeptical.

by tarheel74 2009-05-02 08:46PM | 0 recs
Pay Attention

On another controversial subject, whether the Senate should employ controversial budget reconciliation rules to protect health reform from a Republican filibuster, Baucus likewise maintained that plenty of time remains to make a decision.

He's not against it, he prefers not to use it...I think we all do, since reconciliation is only good for a few years, while passing it without reconciliation would make a permanent plan. Nevertheless, the reconciliation language remained in the budget.

I'd rather now revisit this issue in 2014.

by DTOzone 2009-05-02 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Pay Attention

Max Baucus is one of the usual suspects of blue dog senators who sided with the banking lobby against mortgage bankruptcy legislation. That is a fine progressive record!! Already he and Ben Nelson have spoken against the House measures to use reconciliation to pass healthcare reform. It is like an old movie rerun. Of course now ex-Republican senator Arlen Specter has joined them in speaking against reconciliation. Seeing is believing. Right now I don't believe anything that comes out of Max Baucus' mouth until he has a legislation ready for the senate.

by tarheel74 2009-05-02 09:22PM | 0 recs
Yeah ok we get it

Max Baucus = the suck. Assume the worst. Woe is us. Democrats are epic fail.

by DTOzone 2009-05-02 10:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Pay Attention

except look at who is on the list of people in favor of the public option. Your points a valid, but are wrong  under the context. If the conservadems were all aligning against this, the threat may have mattered regarding the few conservadems alligning against the public option. That's not the picture I am seeing. Yes Obama must  lead on this, but I think getting what he has gotten thus far is leadership because it means the few conservative dems who are against it are not enough.

by bruh3 2009-05-02 10:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

Can we send him to the GOP?

by esconded 2009-05-02 07:10PM | 0 recs
I'm pushing a straight up trade for Oly Snowe

Nelson is bought and paid for by the Health Care Industrial Complex.....

So, he might as well be a GOP'er and we will take Oly Snowe with an option for Collins, if she plays well..

by WashStateBlue 2009-05-02 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

'The Public Good versus Private Greed'.

THAT out to be our motto.

by dogenman 2009-05-03 03:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

Has the monkey stopped to consider that a public plan, paid for by taxes, would be beneficial for business broadly because employers would be relieved of the obligation to provide costly healthcare benefits.  That profitability, competitiveness, and stock prices would rise?

by Bob H 2009-05-03 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

Won't workers simply demand higher salaries to replace the previously received healthcard compensation? I know I will. We will need the extra money when taxes are raised to pay for the healthcare.

by tpeichel 2009-05-03 07:02AM | 0 recs
Workers can demand all they want...

But middle class wages have been dead flat for years...

I expect that to continue, as Corporate-land is going to wail and moan that after the meltdown, they need to recover for a while.

But, you usually have the right wing take on these boards, so your comment about raising taxes is well understood. TP.

by WashStateBlue 2009-05-03 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Workers can demand all they want...

Isn't it remarkable that once the Democrats are in control of Washington we are being asked to walk lock step with what Washington decides, no longer what we want. Gone are those lofty ideas where the people will have input and what comes out on top will be given serious policy thought. Right now it seems we have become less progressive but more conservative-lite. Even with 60 votes we are at the mercy of the conservatives, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Claire McCaskill, Mary Landrieu, Evan Bayh (who to his credit did vote for the mortgage relief bill) and of course the ever wonderful Bushdogs in the house. I am yet to see leadership on issues that really matter to average Americans like mortgage relief, credit card debt, healthcare come from our Democratic leaders in the senate and the White House, when trillions of dollars are being shoveled to Wall Street. As of right now there is nothing that I have seen on issues that really matter to average Americans that gives me any cause for optimism.

by tarheel74 2009-05-03 08:40AM | 0 recs
Claire McCaskill?

When the hell has Claire McCaskill sided with conservatives? McCaskill has been a very good vote against the banks. Now I know you're not paying attention.

by DTOzone 2009-05-03 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

WSB,
I am more fiscally conservative than most on this board, but I try to be respectful. I guess we have a few options to pay for healthcare.

1) Decrease other spending

  1. Deficit spending
  2. Raise revenue from citizens

Did I miss an option? What do you see happening?

by tpeichel 2009-05-03 08:29AM | 0 recs
I like option one....

You automatically assume option 3 will happen.

I don't.

Plus, I like option 4: raise taxes on those who can afford it most...

And how about 5: Drive down costs, which have been doing NOTHING but going up for decades, with little increase in services.

Let's see where this ends.

Here's another point to consider.

Not sure what part of the private sector you work in, but private business which in previous decades used to carry as a business expense, benefits as it were, most of the cost of health care for its employees, has been shifting more and more of that burden onto the workers.

Along with a health care industry that is the highest profitable part of the economic sector bar none. Even Energy is not as much of a gold mine as the private sector health care industrial complex.

Ever seen a chart showing the top paid 500 US executives? The health care industry dominates the top 50.

SO, one of the reasons our health care costs have skyrocketed is, the costs are driven by the most insular and highly profitable buiness sector in the US market.

And, of course, you are aware, as our prices have gone up, our quality has gone down. We now trail ALL of the industrial world for dollars spent and benefits gotten.

So, I have a bit of a hard time feeling sorry for the private sector, or wanting this mess to continue.

But, back to business, and how it has shifted the health care costs onto the workers.

In the past 10 years of "optomising stock-holder value" (which really means, the Executives get more) they have shifted MORE and MORE of the burden of health care to the workers.

So, I want to see a change in strategy, AWAY from the complete domination of the private sector.

Did you see Nelson argument, this is unfair competition for the private sector?

Yes, unfair competition for a virtual monopoly?

Shoot, boy, that is one hell of an argument!

Now, if have seen me on these boards argue this, I am not one to throw myself on the flaming pyre of Single Payer or nothing.

I am perfectly comfortable with the health care plan I have through work, EXCEPT the price to me keeps going up and up and up.

And, unlike the salaries of Primera-Blue Cross Executives, MINE is not.

SOMETHING has to give here, because, if you can tell me HOW this system has gotten any better for anyone but health care executives, and Senators wanting to raise tons of cash for relection from said Execs, I am ready to hear it?

by WashStateBlue 2009-05-03 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: I like option one....

I have no idea how its fiscally conservative to want to create corporate welfare , which is what Nelson's beef is. Notice he's not talking about the money anymore since that's already decided. He's talking about who gets the money and for whose benefit the money is used. It's bizare to discuss being moderate or conservative on the budget but then really only have a problem witht he public option.

by bruh3 2009-05-03 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I like option one....

Which of course brings us to this fundamental point: Are we going to have a public option in addition to a private sector option. As the healthcare saga unfolds we have the usual suspects voicing their opposition to a public option. The most disturbing being Max Baucus, the principal architect of healthcare overhaul in the senate, who has now gone on the record with TAP to assert that healthcare reform can be achieved without a public option. Makes you wonder what he plans to do in order to make the private insurers reduce their costs:

give govt. subsidies to them (corporate welfare)

Till now that is all I could glean from his tortuous logic.

by tarheel74 2009-05-03 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: I like option one....

I like option one as well, but even if we cut spending, increase efficiency, and raise taxes on the wealthiest people though, I don't think we will have enough to pay for universal healthcare.

I guess it all depends on the level of service the government ends up providing. Will it be a base level of service for everyone or a gold plated service that provides access to the latest technology and cutting edge medications?

I am self-employed so I am well aware of the costs of healthcare. (I write a bigger check each month for my healthcare now than my mortgage, so believe me, I would love to see a cheaper alternative.) I also have a 6-year old diabetic and I don't want to lose the option of the outstanding care he is currently getting and I don't want to hurt the incentives for the pharmaceutical industry to come up with a cure for his disease.

Like other industries, I agree that executive compensation is out of whack and needs to be changed. Not sure the best way to do that though.

Ben Nelson's statement is absurd. Competition is always good for the consumer. If the healthcare companies provide a valuable product at a fair price, there will be plenty of demand.

by tpeichel 2009-05-03 11:45AM | 0 recs
incentive to pharamceutical industry?

Is helping people not enough of an incentive?

by DTOzone 2009-05-03 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: incentive to pharamceutical industry?

Just wanting to help people is not enough to discover cures for diseases. The process is something like this:

1) A scientist or group of scientists come up with a new idea or method and start developing a drug

  1. They soon find out they need money for their research and testing so they put together a business plan to show to venture capitalists
  2. If the plan is good, they get funded.

They need to get through Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III trials, but even if they do, they can still get denied approval of their drug by the FDA.

It takes between 800 million to 1 billion to get a new drug to market, so the potential payoff needs to be huge to make it worthwhile.

I wish it was easier, but it just isn't. That being said, I'm very hopeful that some of the cutting edge diabetes treatements will make a huge difference in the lives of my son and so many others.

by tpeichel 2009-05-03 07:41PM | 0 recs
What does any of that

have to do with healthcare? How would having a public healthcare system impede that?

by DTOzone 2009-05-03 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: What does any of that

One of the healthcare cost cutting proposals is to limit patent protection on new drugs so they get to generic status faster.

by tpeichel 2009-05-04 04:31AM | 0 recs
so?

That makes it cheaper and easier to get, which is good for people who need said drug but can't afford it.

by DTOzone 2009-05-04 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: so?

In the short term it would be great for consumers as drugs would come off patent faster.

However, I believe it would have negative consequences for the next generation of drugs. Investors expect to get a return on their investment. If the patent period decreases, they will have less time to recoup the money they invested, so in all likelihood they would invest their money in other industries with less risk.

The final result, less new drugs and innovation.

by tpeichel 2009-05-04 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

I don't understand what fiscal conservative means in context. It's in context of what Nelson is doing b.s.  In context, he is saying he wants us to pay all that money but give it only to the private sector. It's corporate welfare. So when I read 'fiscal conservative' int he context of corporate welfare, i would say, no- thats not fiscal conservatism What this term like many other in DC have come to mean is conservative idealogy. Not trying to invest while keeping cost as low as reasonably possible.. He is not saying let's not pay the money to achieve savings. Indeed most conservatives including fiscal ones are saying the exact same thing. I think many o fyou do not understand what the term means. And, the issue of paying has already been put into play with both cutting costs with ending wars that are off the books, increasing revenue at the higher tax brackets and other aproaches. moreover, your version of savings is a penny wise, pound foolish. Meaning, you save a nichel now by cutting this or that, but meanwhile the cost of healthcare is going up at twice the rate of inflation and is expected to eat up more and more of the GDP whether private or public. Therefore,t he system needs to change. Most businesses that are facing problems are in part facing them due to the cost of healthcare. By theyway, I find your comments about wages ironic considering the Washington Post today has indicates not only are wages stagnant (and have been for over a decade) but also that we are entering a period where employers are applying deflationary pressure on wages. Add to this the assault on benefits, and your comments, again in the context of actual actions rather than theory makes no sense.

by bruh3 2009-05-03 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

Rep. Ben Nelson received over $650,000 donations from the insurance companies in 2007-2008. He's not about to turn his back on the insurance lobby to vote for universal healthcare. Ben Nelson is one of the Congressmen holding up Obama's nomination of Dawn Johnsen to lead the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)at the Justice Department. Nelson claims that Johnsen is a radical on social issues. He cites her pro-choice statement in a 20-year old footnote as proof and has threatened to filibuster her nonmination. Of course, head of OLC has nothing whatsoever to do with social issues. Ben Nelson is expert at playing political games. He's a DINO (Democrat in name only) and needs to be defeated in the 2010 Nebraska primary.

by CarolAll 2009-05-03 02:57PM | 0 recs
That's going to be difficult

seeing as he's not up for reelection until 2012.

by DTOzone 2009-05-03 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Ben Nelson To Oppose Public Health Care Plan

I guess he actually meant someone who will not be partisan enough to impose progressive legislation but maintain status quo. http://www.pspconverter.com Frankly right now after working so many months to elect this president my confidence in him, given the way he is handling Washington and caving to the right, is running low.

by Robert CJ 2009-05-22 09:20PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------