Ben Nelson's State "Opt-In" To the Health Bill

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 03:37:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Jon Walker has been on Ezra's case all day, worth reading, but, FDL also finds this stunning proposal from Ben Nelson, in a letter responding to Nebraska's GOP governor about the health bill:

“In your letter you note that the current Senate bill is not in Nebraska's best interest. I agree. That is why I continue to work to change it,” Nelson wrote. Nelson wrote that he has proposed that the Senate bill include an “opt-in” mechanism that would allow states to avoid the issues raised by Heineman. “Under my proposal, if Nebraska prefers not to opt in to a reformed health care system, it would have that right,” Nelson wrote.

(Emphasis supplied.) So Village Dems, Krugman, et al, you still fully support the Senate bill? Ezra reacts.

< Friday Afternoon Open Thread | How Much Did the DEA Spend on its Africa Vacation? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Ben Nelson's State "Opt-In" To the Health Bill | 63 comments (63 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Then "opt-out" of everything else, too (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by s5 on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 03:51:10 PM EST

I would be totally fine with a package that allows Ben Nelson to opt-out of healthcare, Medicaid, Medicare, all federal funding, taxation, military defense, and Congressional representation, as long as they're all bundled together.

This is BS, and I suspect the bill ends up with Snowe and no Nelson. Snowe would take a triggered public option and no abortion restrictions, which puts her to the left of Lieberman and Nelson. The White House may be too willing to water this bill down, but replace the subsidies and the Medicaid expansion with an abortion restriction, and it doesn't even meet the bare minimum of "health insurance assistance".

Opt IN (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:04:07 PM EST

No one is in. A state has to decide to be in.


Ben Nelson doesn't care about any other state. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by steviez314 on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:57:50 PM EST

Just have the bill effective in every state except ones admitted to the union in 1867.


Bleeding...Nebraska? (none / 0) (#48)
by Buckeye on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 06:06:34 PM EST

: Maybe if he came from Bleeding Kansas (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Cream City on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:30:51 PM EST

and had its history, the horrors that Kansas had to endure owing to an ineffectual Congress that also abdicated its responsibilities, maybe then Nelson would have more respect for his position and his responsibilities.
He would fit right in with the idiots in Congress in the 1850s. He's a real throwback in every way.

Ezra's cute (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 03:52:18 PM EST

while a case could be made that removing Medicare buy-in, and even the public option, wasn't harming the basic structure of the bill, it's hard to say the same for a process in which states would simply opt out of the whole thing, with no need to achieve the objectives in other ways.

So now that his precious exchange is threatened, he gets upset.

Basic structure!

Yes, because an exchange would save us (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:38:24 PM EST

All we ever needed was an exchange.


: I love exchanges too (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by s5 on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:28:50 PM EST

How about we "Exchange" Nelson's bill for single payer?

Interestingly, I think the Ins. companies (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:08:24 PM EST

will oppose this.

'specially since they have already (none / 0) (#10)
by nycstray on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:10:12 PM EST

counted their loot ;)


And they want it from EVERYWHERE (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:11:59 PM EST

: Does this legislation (none / 0) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:40:24 PM EST

have a whiff of medicaid buy-in possible at some point for consumers? Or is that just me?

Indeed (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:12:08 PM EST

I think this is Nelson's way of saying he can't vote for it.

The GOP Nebraska Governor has got him cornered.

They better try and get Snowe if they want 60.


Which is basically the same as saying (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:14:28 PM EST

dust off reconciliation.


Let's hope (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:15:52 PM EST

After all, lives are at stake.


We may have to sacrifice the Exchange. . . (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:16:41 PM EST

snicker


What will be fun is watching (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:21:39 PM EST

Ezra try to reason with Ben Nelson, as if Nelson is doing this from some analysis as opposed to Nebraska politics.


Maybe we owe Nelson a thank you (none / 0) (#23)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:24:05 PM EST

: The GOP Governor of Nebraska then (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:25:44 PM EST

And if it's reconciliation (none / 0) (#63)
by cal1942 on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:38:59 AM EST

add back the stuff dumped in the effort to get 60.


Of course they will (none / 0) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:20:22 PM EST

We can insure people 30% cheaper this way. They can't have that! We could get ideas about insuring the whole country in such a fashion. And how long before every State opts in or looks stupid or is in fact run by a slew of incompetent idiots? If we can get this, I'll walk into that great unknown darkness with anyone who wants to go with me, and I'll do it with a glad heart.


Why do you have me go read him? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:14:17 PM EST

He has everything exactly backwards!!!

If in order to declare victory the Dems (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:15:55 PM EST

decide to allow Nelson's opt in to HCR, I have a suggestion. Let the Dems pass whatever watered down version of HCR that meets their objectives provisional upon a state by state referendum in next November's election. The bill will not become permanent or implemented unless a predetermined number of states agree to participate. They would be required to provide voters with descriptions in plain English of each provisions of the law along with the CBO report and several independent reviews of what the impact on the general population would be.

Also, I would require (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Cream City on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:47:27 PM EST

that transparency in government that we were promised. So the title of the bill also has to be changed to The Half-A**ed Excuse for Health Care Reform Bill, subtitled The Insurance Opt-In and Bailout, Giveaway, Co-opting by Corporates Bill. Oh, and I also require that in debating, voting, etc., on the bill, all Senators be required to say the above titles. No use of bill numbers or other ways around finally admitting that it is a F*cked-Up Bill.

Then, and only then, I might consider this bill useful. Not for its provisions, but for the sheer fun of making some of these Senators who continue to blather about the bill have to admit what it really is.


: I'm too tired to be this angry :) (none / 0) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:00:22 PM EST

If I get the Nelson Medicaid opt-in I have camel nose, I have camel nose and geniune bargaining catalyst with this opt-in theme. Add to that that legislators will be held accountable now state by state for how Bad or how Good they willfully treat their people and I begin to envision Medicaid buy-in.......I'm taking it and I'm running with it where ever I can go with it however fast I can get there :)

Jon Walker's critique is probably fine ... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Robot Porter on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 06:01:43 PM EST

but I cannot get beyond Ezra's abysmal writing. This is just painful. It hurts to read. Really, really hurts.

I think some on the left would say that they just want to remove the individual mandate. But if they do that, then the healthy will leave the plan, and the average premiums will be the average premiums for unlucky people, like this reader, and those premiums will quickly become unaffordable.

Do we really need writing this bad on any side of the debate?

Hmmm, did he just notice they were (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by nycstray on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 06:12:01 PM EST

taking $$ out of his paycheck?

I have a question for him though . . . If the plan is affordable and actually covers "care", why would people leave the plan? Many healthy people pay for health insurance and don't really use it much at all. We just like knowing the next time we trip over the dog, that broken arm is covered :D


His degree is in ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Robot Porter on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:49:41 PM EST

political science actually.

[pauses for laughter]

So I guess we can't expect too much.


: Poly Sci (none / 0) (#64)
by cal1942 on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:46:09 AM EST

I always get a laugh out of that. George Will and Mitch McConnell taught Poly Sci.

Poli Sci, UCLA, per Wiki. (none / 0) (#60)
by oculus on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:36:40 PM EST

This is the most convuluted bill ever (none / 0) (#1)
by cawaltz on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 03:48:45 PM EST

You practically need a scorecard for the proposals at this point and I'd say somewhere along the line President Snowe has been usurped by President Nelson. Let's see, this health bill must have an abortion clause, the subsidies must be reduced and coverage must cover a smaller number of people, no public option, no Medicaid buy in and NOW an opt out clause for states(who still will insist that the laundry list they have asked for in order to pass it even though they intend on opting out). Geez.

Opt IN (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:04:32 PM EST

I think you folks are not capturing the importance of the difference.


Mandates (none / 0) (#12)
by waldenpond on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:12:08 PM EST

only apply if a state opts in. Pre-existing coverage only if a state opts in. etc. Keep that reform coming.


More like "keep fu¢k*ng that chicken" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:14:00 PM EST

Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:55:46 PM EST

What did that chicken do that's so bad? Why is she being punished this way??? ;)


heh (none / 0) (#49)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 06:08:41 PM EST

Ask Ernie Anastos.


: I love (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 07:28:36 AM EST

the female anchor's facial expression

That's right (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:12:48 PM EST

I actually hadn't noticed (none / 0) (#26)
by cawaltz on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:39:33 PM EST

Nelson has blathered so much about his demands I've gotten to the point I halfway tune him out. Thank you for pointing it out because it is a big difference. I'm glad there is finally one Nelson stipulation I can say I agree with if the bill continues in the direction its been taking.


President Snowe will usurp President Nelson (none / 0) (#4)
by s5 on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 03:52:42 PM EST

Her vote is easier to get at this point.


: She isn't going to be the 60th vote (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 03:54:08 PM EST

That's why she's still a Republican.

: I don't know (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by cawaltz on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 03:59:03 PM EST

the GOP does a pretty good job of moving the goalposts too. The only ones who can't seem to do it are the "progressives" and that's because they are too busy figuring out what they should capitulate next on it to score their big "win"

Shrug (none / 0) (#31)
by Steve M on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:15:03 PM EST

So he's telling the GOP governor he proposed something. Big deal. When he says he won't vote for cloture unless there's an opt-in, let me know.

When he votes for cloture at all (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:24:34 PM EST

Let me know.

You seem to have the idea backwards.

The point to me is Nelson is getting to the point that he is just building excuses for not voting for the bill.

Tomorrow he will have thought of another one.

Man, sometimes I am amazed at how the obvious escapes people.


Shrug (none / 0) (#37)
by Steve M on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:29:29 PM EST

you're always complaining that people don't respond to what you actually posted. Then when they do you complain that they didn't respond to something else!

To answer the rhetorical question in the post, I can't imagine why anyone would change their opinion on the Senate bill because Ben Nelson "proposed" something objectionable. When there's an indication that the bill might actually be changed to include an opt-in, then it's fair to ask if people still support it.


It is my surmise that Nelson is a No vote (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:35:01 PM EST

no matter what now. but I do not know. He says in plain English the bill will have the opt-in provision.

You choose to interpret as an empty threat. In a way, I concur.

But the words themselves are pretty damn clear it seems to me if you think the words have value themselves, as opposed to what they are signalling.

I think your interpretation simply does not stand scrutiny. At the very least, it is clear Nelson will require SOME gutting of the Medicaid expansion. And that is a best case.

But we can wait and see.


How can he call for a Medicaid gutting (none / 0) (#40)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:54:09 PM EST

and an opt-in clause at the same time? I mean I guess he can do whatever he wants to do but that makes no sense to me, and the letter to the Governor actually seemed to make some sense. He said he even cared about what was happening to the people of Nebraska and he knew they were strained. Does he just write driveling crap to other government leaders? His letter sounded to me like as long as he can make himself not personally responsible for the state of Nebraska insuring people that it may not be able to afford to insure in the opinion of some.....that he could do this. I'm most likely wrong, it was my take though.


Not you too (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:55:57 PM EST

Sense has nothing to do with it.


It's Christmas (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 06:02:10 PM EST

I believe.....until I'm once again squashed. I don't know that much about Nelson. I've realized as he has taken center stage these past days that I mostly ignored him up to this point. It's a good letter though, it has a certain warmth that has captured my imagination :)


: Hee Hee (none / 0) (#65)
by cawaltz on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:22:59 AM EST

I'm imagining a riff off of Yes, Virginia There is a Santa Claus right now.
Dear Sun,
All my little friends say Congress isn't for real they've sold out to special interests. I am writing you because Pappa says if you read it in the Sun it must be true(nod to a time when we might have had real journalists). Is Congress for real?
Sincerely,
A disillussioned Democrat

Click on Ezra's link (none / 0) (#51)
by s5 on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:04:21 PM EST

Nebraska is getting a sweet deal. 93% of the Medicaid expansion is paid for by the feds, and Nebraska already gets lots of money in funding. This will not harm them in the slightest.


: So is Nelson going to demand a Medicaid (none / 0) (#61)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:38:37 PM EST

gutting? If his state almost literally has to pay for none of it is he going to do that?

The health bill will end up (none / 0) (#45)
by waldenpond on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:58:44 PM EST

as an anti-choice bill by the time Nelson is done. I think Nelson will vote for that.


Your plain English (none / 0) (#52)
by Steve M on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:21:25 PM EST

is apparently much different from my plain English.

To me, what he is saying in plain English is "I have proposed something, here is what would happen if they adopted it."


I see EK takes a Sanders yea for granted. (none / 0) (#32)
by pluege on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:23:20 PM EST

Maybe others in the 'Kill The Bill' caucus.

: I think that is almost certain (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:25:08 PM EST

Heck, at this point they got Nelson there to kill it.

: He will vote for cloture (none / 0) (#35)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:25:24 PM EST

Whatever you do, don't turn on C-SPAN 2 (none / 0) (#36)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:26:21 PM EST

Kerry bumbles. . .

Details? (none / 0) (#39)
by nycstray on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:50:08 PM EST

: No, just Kerry being Kerry (none / 0) (#41)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:54:25 PM EST

They've adjourned until 6:45AM, tomorrow.

We need to stop treating the Nelsons and (none / 0) (#43)
by Anne on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:55:49 PM EST

Liebermans like spoiled, petulant children who cross their arms and push out their lower lips and no matter how sweetly one offers this or that, keep saying "NO!!!" and relishing the ability to make Mom or Dad tap-dance to their tune.

In other words, someone has to step up and be the adult in this sea of attention-demanding children; too bad I can't really think of one.

So, the behavior continues apace, the changes will continue, and by the time there is a vote, no one will be able to figure out what the hell they're voting for.

But we'll all be expected to be grateful and suitably in awe of the political prowess that made it all happen.

[Urp]

Early Sat AM vote, and Schumer (none / 0) (#66)
by andgarden on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:25:22 AM EST

is glad-handling Ben Nelson on the Senate floor. I think they're going to come up with something he'll accept. But I don't think we're going to like it.

: One hopes (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 11:46:48 AM EST

that they are discussing health care and not, say, their experiences with flight attendants.