Nebraska gets a free pass for voting for health care

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
I wonder how many other deals have been made. I fail to see how anyone can keep a straight face and say this bill is a good idea. I guess Louisiana didn't hold out long enough, Nebraska and 5 other states are getting a free pass forever.



http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/19/cornhusker-harvest-nebraska-gains-in-nelson-compromise/
The state of Nebraska is going to do well under the compromise struck by Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson to ensure his support for health overhaul legislation. In the final deal-making, the senator won a commitment that the federal government would pick up Nebraska’s share of the bill’s proposed expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor.

Senate aides suggested the change would cost less than $100 million, but it quickly drew criticism from Republicans.

“You’ve got to compliment Ben Nelson for playing, ‘The Price Is Right,’” said Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.). For people in other states, he said, the language means “you’re going to pay taxes to make sure that Nebraskans don’t have to pay any portion of the Medicaid expansion.”

Mr. Burr called the deal the “Nebraska windfall,” a reference to the “Louisiana Purchase” that helped secure the vote of Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in an earlier Senate vote on health care. In that deal, a Medicaid-spending provision was added to help the hurricane-hit state.

Mr. Nelson had feared the bill’s proposed expansion of Medicaid would cause financial turmoil for his home state. After the changes, he suggested Saturday that his concerns were addressed. “I’m comfortable it’s taken care of,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Mr. Nelson didn’t get special treatment. “I worked with every Democratic senator” to make changes to the bill, Mr. Reid said. “Ben Nelson was just like the rest of them.”

The majority leader added, “If you read the bill … you’ll find a number of states are treated differently from other states. That’s what legislation’s all about: compromise.”

Five other states, including Massachusetts, also won additional federal Medicaid assistance
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
We all know that only corporate shills oppose health care reform. Anything is better than the status quo.

It's called a cruel irony.
 

RaistlinZ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
7,629
10
91
Nebraskans should be sending this man Christmas cards. They'll get tens of thousands of new people health care coverage who previously lacked it, and their state won't have to pay for it. Don't see how they could complain about that. :)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
The thing to remember is that this is a tiny story compared to the big story onhealthcare reform:

That the corporate interests (in healthcare in this case, but in other industries too) own our political system so badly that the American people are little more than the people to be lied to currently.

The evidence includes the black and white clear message that while there is a *30 percent* margin of the public who want more - like the 'Medicare for all' approach IIRC - the committee chairman, who has had big industry donations, invited 43 people for testifying and not one supported what the public wants - it waqsn't considered. While the industry IS getting what it wants, the federal government using the law to force all citizens to buy a for-profit product from the industry, giving them 30 million new, coerced, customers.

That's the lesson we need to understand.

(And yes, I'll add a reminder, the only real group opposing the corporate sellout ar ethe progressive democrats, who are strugging in the Democratic party now against the corporatists.)

This is exacly what I've said for a long time but the healthcare bill, the financxe reform bill, are putting a spotlight on it. We need the Corrupt Republicans and the corrupt Democrats out, and more progressives.

We should support the Bernie Sanders, the Alan Graysons, the Dennis Kuciniches, the Henry Waxmans, the John Conyers and the other progressives.

It's wrong to give credit or blame to 'the Democrats' as one monolithic part. There are factions in it at war.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
We should support the Bernie Sanders, the Alan Graysons

Wow, I always suspected you were genuinely crazy, this just cements that notion ;) Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist, and Alan Grayson is just flat-out insane in his approach to civil discussion.

It's wrong to give credit or blame to 'the Democrats' as one monolithic part. There are factions in it at war.

Why not? You have already deemed all Republicans evil.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
The Dems who watched the Reps make war based on ideology decided not to be outdone, and chose to do the same with our health care.

Congrats, this was completely foreseeable in both cases.

I'm glad I'm not part of a group.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
I sent an email to both of my Senators expressing my contempt for their actions in regards to the health care bill. Both of them rolled over with nary a whimper proclaiming their support for this bill. They did not hold out and in doing so achieved nothing for our great state. Now we'll not only be paying our greatly increased Medicaid costs, we'll be paying a portion of Nebraska's too.

We can only hope that they learned a valuable lesson from this. Whoring one's self out has been proven to be in the best interest of the politician, the state and the electorate.

No vote should go un-bought.

A couple of lightweights. Well, maybe not Stabenow.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
The Dems who watched the Reps make war based on ideology decided not to be outdone, and chose to do the same with our health care.

Congrats, this was completely foreseeable in both cases.

I'm glad I'm not part of a group.

Matt Tiabbi made the same point on Bill Moyers.

He said the Republicans are now in the same position on healthcare Democrats were when the Iraq war went bad - sit back and watch the other side create a disaster.

Not being apart of a group - well you overrate that, you have less power, less say, you are victimized.

At least as a Democrat I can push for addressing the problems in the party. And there are big ones.

It's almost childishly naive - and harmful to your cause - to say 'I'm pure I don't join a party'.

How influential would Howard Dean be with his criticisms of the current bill if he weren't in the party? How influential would a Congressman you like be without being in a party (Sanders, Liebermann excepted).

I understand the repulsion to the party system, but grow up, there's a reason the US has had a two party system we'd rather not have for our entire history starting with Washington.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
This whole process has been absolutely disgusting from the start.

For those of you who supported this bill, get ready for the unintended (or intended... who really knows at this point) consequences. We're going to look back on the good old days of ONLY 1.4 trillion deficits.

Maybe the good news in all of this is nobody has any money left to buy our debt and the whole thing will finally collapse.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Interesting thing about Washington, and that he had a chance to watch party politics in action. Consequently, he formed the opinion (which I share) that if something is going to bring the nation down, it will be them. Not intentionally of course, but consider the reality of how people come to power in the US, especially at a national level.

The first requirement is that you are a Republican or Democrat and have been approved and selected. The only almost exception to that was Howard Dean, but he didn't fit the mold which would perpetuate Democratic dominance. As you've said one has to be in power to exercise it. Dean was a rogue and a threat to the overall Democratic corporate image. Consequently they found a way to ding him.

And therein lies the problem. You say that Progressives should be in charge. Progressives aren't seen as being mainstream, and therefore while they are tolerated they aren't pushed in general. The Dixicrats which some abhor are also in the Dem party. Why? Because if the Dems put people you support into the South then it would be ruled almost entirely by Reps because of the culture. So you think that they should be driven out, but if you do you will lose. Because of your philosophy (the generic you) you have to lie in their bed out of expediency. You've whored your values out.

I realize that living in the real world requires that at times you must compromise, but sitting above all this are people who will use you to acquire power and prestige. They can and will use you for that end, and this health care bill is a perfect example.

Nevermind what I think of it for the moment, but people allowed, no insisted on being used. The Democratic leadership (and I use them in this example because it's involving their bill) said it would get a health care bill through. If they didn't then they believe their chances of being re-elected diminish. Therefore they will pass something, anything. Hey, you can't say they didn't effect reform.

Those of partisan nature will do what they always do. They initially imagine that their particular view is correct, and their party is correct and therefore whatever they think is right the party will support.

The Religious Right believed that abortion was THE issue for the most part. The Republicans were the only party who would listen to them, and among other reasons threw in their lot with them. Think about what really happened over those eight years. Was there any significant change in how Roe V. Wade was legally interpreted? Was there really any action put with word? Did Bush and his party push nearly as hard for it as they did for Iraq or tax cuts? No they did not. Why bother? The RR was going to support them no matter what.

In the case of health care, some decided that the fix for health care was government intervention or control to different degrees. My personal opinion is that there is a tendency of some people to appeal to government to provide for their needs and abhor anything that goes against that opinion. Consequently, UHC or some government provided option was the panacea. At once it would cut costs in half (according to some) and everyone would have insurance. I think that's fairly absurd on the face of it considering that the examples used don't apply to our way of doing things here. In France, everything is subservient to the government and that includes medicine. The whole system was created from the ground up with that philosophy in mind.

Here it's entirely different. Control isn't assured. In fact our whole founding philosophy was that citizens are the master of government and the Constitution was created not for the purpose of telling us how we must live under the government, but tame an all powerful beast. The Constitution exists to protect us from government. Unfortunately, that's not really the case these days and people are happy to play the part of Esau.

So the government is how to go. The government is run by the parties. The parties are run by themselves. The parties ARE the government.

And now we find ourselves in a perfectly predictable situation. One must stay in power to legislate. Politicians are power seeking creatures, and therefore they will have to use everyone as long as they remain in control. The Dems cannot at once have a number of points of view and be monolithic at the same time. You cannot have control and freedom concurrently.

And so the party faithful make excuses for themselves by pointing at the other party for their lack of intellectual rigor. Rather than taking the time to craft something worthy of consideration, the consideration is that there's no time like the present to be crafty.

And that's why I abhor partisanship. A created creature with only one real goal (to stay in power) is used by people to promote their agenda only to find that the Dragon only cares about them peripherally. Since you are wed to the Beast, you'll endure virtually everything and defend it to the death although it rapes you. What a dysfunctional relationship.

Then again it's said that we have the governance that we deserve. I tend to agree with that.


So will you cling to your party and defend it or say "this is not what I believe in. This is wrong. I will not support these people"

I'll wager that in short order this will be completely forgotten except for the occasional grumble and like too many abused women go right back home.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,991
26,872
136
Why not? You have already deemed all Republicans evil.
Republicans are evil.

In this health care debate, many Dems have also shown their red slips, whoring for the insurance industry at the expense of their constituents.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Face it, guys. Repubs have been united in opposing heaalthcare reform regardless of the impact on their constituents, seeing it as a way to "Beat Obama!". That's what they've been about this particular go-round, and have said so.

So when there are 40 votes against cloture, any democratic senator who can hold out, threaten to swing the balance will have unusual power. So it didn't take a huge amount of corporatist influence to hold the process hostage, morph it into something to their benefit. Nor will additional subsidies to Nebraska make much difference in the greater scheme- it and a lot of other red states are already heavily subsidized through the federal redistribution of funds from blue states.

And Dems are so afraid of "Losing", basically of losing face, that they've bent over backwards to make something happen, even if that's just giving the corporatists one last bite at the apple before moving on to something that makes sense.

Repubs have really forced this compromise, yet they get to disown it, even if it serves their campaign contributors and their ideological bent better than they could have done it themselves. The saddest part of it all is that red state constituents really have the most to gain from real reform, which they won't get this time around.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Since the Republicans shut themselves out of the process, it gave a handful of "democrats" complete power to wring out money for themselves.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Face it, guys. Repubs have been united in opposing heaalthcare reform regardless of the impact on their constituents, seeing it as a way to "Beat Obama!"

I stopped reading here, due to your idiocy. What the Democrats have proposed is NOT reform. THAT is the problem. Welfare != reform.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
I stopped reading here, due to your idiocy. What the Democrats have proposed is NOT reform. THAT is the problem. Welfare != reform.

Public option and removing profit from healthcare is reform. Partisan hackery on the internet does nothing to diminish this.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Public option and removing profit from healthcare is reform. Partisan hackery on the internet does nothing to diminish this.

I agree. Neither of which is going to happen. The second would require taking a previously multi trillion dollar for profit industry, of which most people's retirement accounts and employment is dependant upon, and making it either non profit or government owned. Good luck with that.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Since the Republicans shut themselves out of the process, it gave a handful of "democrats" complete power to wring out money for themselves.

Yep. Which is evident by donations from the industry this year into Dem's pockets. Highest year ever on record. I dont hate em for it, its part of the game. But too many people have pipe dreams of what will and wont happen. The irony is, if the Dems got their own house in order, they could almost do whatever they wanted.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Public option and removing profit from healthcare is reform. Partisan hackery on the internet does nothing to diminish this.

You ARE NOT going to remove profit from health care with reform. The $'s will just be handled differently. Instead of private citizens deciding where to put the money into the economy, the government will decide.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Senator Nelson secured +$100 million for Nebraska in exchange for his vote.
Senator Landrieu secured +$300 million for Louisiana in exchange for her vote.

What did your Senator secure for your state?
Redistribution of your states wealth to Nebraska and Louisiana?

Everyone should call their Senators office on Monday and ask them what handouts they are getting in exchange for their votes.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Senator Nelson secured +$100 million for Nebraska in exchange for his vote.
Senator Landrieu secured +$300 million for Louisiana in exchange for her vote.

What did your Senator secure for your state?
Redistribution of your states wealth to Nebraska and Louisiana?

Everyone should call their Senators office on Monday and ask them what handouts they are getting in exchange for their votes.

Senator Harkin from Iowa has secured jack shiz...or atleast nothing that's been widely reported. However, he did admit that the endgame is socialized medicine. “What we’re getting here is a starter home. It’s got a good foundation,” and “But you can add additions as we go along in the future.” and “I have no doubt in my mind that at some point in time we are going to have to go to some kind of a public option, some kind of single-payer system to bring the costs down,"

What a lying sack of shit. Single-payer would do nothing to bring costs down without lessening the quality of care. But he is right about the left trying to ram this through because they know it'll be easier to add on incrementally. It's what socialists have been doing for decades - they just rarely admit it.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Face it, guys. Repubs have been united in opposing heaalthcare reform regardless of the impact on their constituents, seeing it as a way to "Beat Obama!". That's what they've been about this particular go-round, and have said so.

So when there are 40 votes against cloture, any democratic senator who can hold out, threaten to swing the balance will have unusual power. So it didn't take a huge amount of corporatist influence to hold the process hostage, morph it into something to their benefit. Nor will additional subsidies to Nebraska make much difference in the greater scheme- it and a lot of other red states are already heavily subsidized through the federal redistribution of funds from blue states.

And Dems are so afraid of "Losing", basically of losing face, that they've bent over backwards to make something happen, even if that's just giving the corporatists one last bite at the apple before moving on to something that makes sense.

Repubs have really forced this compromise, yet they get to disown it, even if it serves their campaign contributors and their ideological bent better than they could have done it themselves. The saddest part of it all is that red state constituents really have the most to gain from real reform, which they won't get this time around.

What are you calling Health Care reform?

For American Joe citizen; what has been accomplished that benefits him vs what he had last year.

What has made Health Care better for him and his family.
Is he able to get better care?
Is he able to get the same care for less cost?

If not, where is the reform.

What the bills have is a cost shifting from the have nots to the workers and/or taxpayers AGAIN with no benefit :(
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
as if we need anymore proof that neither Dems or Republicans care about anything other then staying in power. I wonder when people are going to wake up and do something. is it going to be before we doom our children and grandchildren to high tax's to support those that just want a buck? health reform is a great idea. shit like this just proves that you can't have the Government do it.

more i see that obama is doing the more scared of him i become.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,991
26,872
136
more i see that obama is doing the more scared of him i become.

He isn't doing anything. Obama's lack of leadership has allowed Congress and the lobbyist puppet-masters to run wild with proposed health care legislation. At this point it would be better to let the legislation die. We're going to have to let the current health care/insurance system finish off the economy before Americans finally start voting their self interests and elect folks who will implement reform.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Public option and removing profit from healthcare is reform. Partisan hackery on the internet does nothing to diminish this.

Neither will magical thinking.

The annual tab for health care is about two trillion. There isn't enough profit in private insurance to make a huge change in that figure. By using magic Voodoo Health Care Economics we can violate the laws of the Universe and make 2+2=2222222.

Seriously you can make any claim you like but you can't back them up. Well, Reality is a partisan hack. Sucks, doesn't it?