A partial list of concessions made to just Ben Nelson

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:00


If you think Ben Nelson is just about an attempt to add language to the Senate bill that would send reproductive rights and women's health care backward, think again.  Here is a partial list of concessions to Ben Nelson that don't have anything to do with reproductive rights:

(More in the extended entry)

Chris Bowers :: A partial list of concessions made to just Ben Nelson
  • No repeal of anti-trust exemption. Three weeks ago, Ben Nelson scored a major concession:

    A week before House passage, HuffPost reported that Reid decided not to include the repeal of the exemption but to go for it as a floor amendment instead. The move was seen as a sop to Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, an industry backer who had yet to offer his support for Reid's motion to proceed and who is a strong public supporter of keeping the antitrust exemption in place.

  • Allow states to opt-out of Medicaid.  The central public option in both the House and Senate bills is the expansion of Medicaid.  This expansion will cover 15 million additional Americans, almost all of whom currently do not have health insurance and who are low-income, with public health insurance.  And so, suddenly, Ben Nelson wants to gut that, too:

    The Medicaid expansion would "create an underfunded federal mandate for the state of Nebraska," Nelson said, arguing that states should be permitted to "opt out" of that idea and find other ways to offer coverage to their poorest residents.

    So nice of Nelson to suggest those "other ways" before demanding the opt-out.  Oh wait--you mean he didn't suggest any other ways?

    It looks like he will get his wish:

    Nebraska's governor, Dave Heineman, a Republican, has written to Mr. Nelson urging him to oppose the bill because of proposed reductions in Medicare spending and also because of the cost to the state of a proposed expansion of Medicaid.

    Mr. Nelson has said he wants to change the bill to let states decide if they want to expand Medicaid, though he has not suggested how very low-income people would otherwise gain insurance coverage. Democratic leaders said they were working on a compromise.

  • Remove the Medicare buy-in. Joe Lieberman took the lead on this concession, but he got a big assist from Ben Nelson.  Earlier this month, Nelson forged the Medicare-buy-in deal and originally said he had no objections to it:

    I asked Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), whose objections to the public option helped lead to the new plan being discussed, whether he would have a problem with any of the options even if the CBO give them a passing grade.

    "I'm not aware of anything that was raising serious objections about it, I think it was about, 'Well, that sounds okay, let's see how it scores,'" Nelson said.

    Which is why, four days later, and before a CBO score, Nelson started attacking it on national television:

    "I am concerned that it's the forerunner of single payer, the ultimate single-payer plan, maybe even more directly than the public option," he said.

    Yes, no objections to it at all.  Clearly, he was negotiating, and talking to the press, in good faith.

All of these concessions are in addition to Ben Nelson's attempt to use the health care bill to send reproductive rights and women's health care backward.  It actually makes Lieberman look like a relatively smaller problem.

It is particularly reassuring that virtually no Democratic Senators actually intend to do anything about this, except just give into Ben Nelson's demands.  No moves toward reconciliation, much less eliminating the filibuster.  No punitive actions toward Ben Nelson, just more campaign contributions for 2012 as he continues to climb the seniority ladder.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
And still, mor compromises to appease Nelson, nothing for Burris and Sanders! (4.00 / 3)
How can this be seen by ANYONE as anything other than conclusive proof that the Obama administration has no problem with going all right wing, and serving the interests of big money, but has only contempt for progressive goals? And why shouldn't the left wing react on this by insisting on getting their piece of the pie, or else letting the whole sham fail, with all the dire consequences for the BlueDogs and their enabler Obama?

Not only Burris and Sanders (4.00 / 6)
Can anyone think of even one concession to anyone from the left end of the political spectrum?

In the Senate or in the House?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
In a properly functioning democracy, isn't this reason enough to organize to remove Nelson? (4.00 / 1)
I don't know when Nelson is up for re-election, but I don't think it's terribly relevant. There should be some movement by the citizens of Nebraska to dump him, whenever his time is up. They should be not only writing letters to the editor complaining about Nelson, but also calling for candidates to replace him, and have a web site dedicated to the effort, which is controlled by the 'Dump Nelson' organization. They can mention the organization and/or it's web site in their letters to the editor.

Nelson should not be forgiven for his willingness to let people suffer in order for him to take care of his healthcare industry buddies.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


Well, Nelson is toast in 2012 (4.00 / 1)
but not against another Democrat. Gov. Dave Heineman will be term limited after winning in 2010, so it's as much as assured that he'll be running against Nelson in 2012. With Nelson having alienated a lot of the Democratic base, Heineman will probably win big.

[ Parent ]
Exit Strategy (4.00 / 1)
Yup.  And Nelson knows it.  So you can be certain that he's just engineering his way out of the Senate into a highly lucrative career as a lobbyist or "public affairs advisor," earning his gig now by watering down this bill -- he'll get his payback in 2013 from insurance cos, PHRMA, etc.

[ Parent ]
OK, but not good enough (0.00 / 0)
A vibrant democracy in NE would include a group of vibrant Democrats, who will be simultaneously organizing against Nelson, as well as cultivating non-corporatist sellout replacements.

What if Heineman dies, unexpectedly? What if he has a major scandal, or decides that he'd really rather be a professional ping pong player?

Waiting on opposing parties and groups to do their thing falls short of what I would call a "vibrant democracy".

Furthermore, if Heineman gets elected, and performs just like Nelson, what will you do, then? If Heineman knows that betraying the public trust means 1 term and then you're out, he'll be less likely to become a Nelson clone.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
As fror the underlying reasons for the government always capitualting... (4.00 / 2)
...to demands by big money interests (delivered through corrupt Senators), pls read the excellent article Glenn Greenwald has just posted:
Even if one grants the arguments made by proponents of the health care bill about increased coverage, what the bill does is reinforces and bolsters a radically corrupt and flawed insurance model and and an even more corrupt and destructive model of "governing."  It is a major step forward for the corporatist model, even a new innovation in propping it up.  How one weighs those benefits and costs -- both in the health care debate and with regard to many of Obama's other policies -- depends largely upon how devoted one is to undermining and weakening this corporatist framework (as opposed to exploiting it for political gain and some policy aims).  That's one of the primary underlying divisions Kilgore identifies, and he's right to call for greater examination and debate over the role it is playing.

http://www.salon.com/news/opin...

Greenwald nails it, as almost always!


The really sad part is (4.00 / 2)
even with all these concessions, Obama still won't get more than a single Republican vote. Either way, this is going to be a Democratic bill and the Republicans are going to bash it throughout the election cycle. Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln and Landrieu are doing all the dirty work for the Republicans.

Yes, exactly. (4.00 / 2)
It seems, to me at least, that the destruction of the Democratic Party is not a stupid side product of the destruction of healthcare reform, its the main point.

There was, because of; the war, Bush, the right's destruction of the economy, destruction of the federal budget, the simple deep meanness of the American form of corporatism, corporate capitalism, a chance for reform, even major change. The desire for that change coalesced around Obama, and promised, even if he wouldn't lead it (ha), at least he wouldn't work against it.

The Senate is the sink of our dreams, the pit from which no hope will ever escape, the black hole from which nothing escapes. It is "our" Senate. We could win this fight, we could do what we knew was possible even days ago: make the kind of reforms that allowed people to understand that their democracy could be used to solve their problems. It could have been used to show that the problem was not "government" qua government, it was Republicans and conservatives "proving" that government didn't work by bad policy. If the Senate was a democratic body, if votes of 56 to 44 meant that not only did it pass, it was by twelve votes, as opposed to now, where such a vote fails apparently by 5 votes.

How is that allowed. Why does that seem like the question of "someone who doesn't understand"- it amazes me.

But that is not what happened. Expectations were raised for the sole purpose of dashing them. It has been, since approximately the 60's a main driving aim of the powers that be, to lower expectations. Not only "can't you have that" - but don't ever expect to do anything where anything like that is possible.

Democracy is not for governing, it is a rallying cry only, it is for ginning up the troops, and for pumping up donations.

Let me say this one more time, I have said it too often, I am now a spammer: the Members of The Senate Democratic Party Caucus are "allowing" by error or design, the end of any pretense for democracy. 60% is not needed to pass a bill in a democracy. 58 or 59 democratic Senators are saying its his fault while pointing in various directions (Obama, Leiberman, Nelson, what have you) but it is not. It is their fault, they have the power to help the American people and they refuse.

Happy Hollandaise.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Nelson, Lieberman face no consequences! (4.00 / 1)
Why shouldn't Nelson try to weaken the bill further?  No consequences have been laid out for any Democrat by the Administration for any stunt that has been pulled so far by Lieberman, Nelson or any of the others.   Given that environment, there is no check on either one to stop their antics, and they get paid off by their insurance cronies to boot!  A win-win for them if I ever saw one.

I'm amazaed the Administration is so naive to think that just because they have given in on every demand so far, that Lieberman and Nelson won't keep demanding further concessions.  They haven't even made a trade to take out certain provisions like the PO or the medicare expansion for leaving the abortion language and medicaid provisions intact!  Great bargaining tactics there, not!

I'm not sure what, if anything passes, but the Obama crew has done everything to pass the weakest bill possible, and at the same time demoralize their base dramatically.  


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox