Ben Nelson Eyes Health Reform Delay
Ryan Grim reports that Ben Nelson (D-NE) is working with “a few centrist Democrats and several Republicans” on a plan to make comprehensive health reform less likely by pushing the Senate leadership to delay action on health care until after the August recess. That’s very nice for vacation-hungry Senators, since the fact of the matter is that it will be quite difficult to get a bill done by the time recess is scheduled to start, so a push for an August vote could lead to members of the Senate (shudder) needing to stay in town and work on a problem of national importance even when the weather is really nasty.
When thinking about this sort of thing, it’s also useful to recall the Families USA health reform ticker:
A delay of, say, seventy days is the amount of time it takes for as many people as live in Omaha to lose their health insurance. And one doubts that if the whole city were facing that fate Nelson would be so cavalier about the consequences of delay. More generally, this is an issue America has been debating for decades, it’s not as if Barack Obama just inserted health reform into his budget as a big surprise. Even just limiting consideration to the current reform drive in the United States Senate, Max Baucus and Ted Kennedy (and then Chris Dodd when Kennedy fell ill) have been doing steady work on this issue since well before the 2008 presidential election. And the topic of health reform was extensively debating in both the presidential primaries and the general election. For anyone who’s interested, there’s been plenty of time to look at the questions.
23 Responses to “Ben Nelson Eyes Health Reform Delay”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 17th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
“And one doubts that if the whole city were facing that fate Nelson would be so cavalier about the consequences of delay.”
One does not doubt that, because Nelson has made it abundantly clear by his actions that the profits of health insurers are far more important to him than the health needs of average Americans.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Gah, is Ben Nelson trying to make my head explode?
Seriously, someone needs to primary that dude and do it fast.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Given the direction health reform is going in, who cares?
We’re getting a public option that isn’t a public option, it’s welfare healthcare. Only the poorest of the poor will be allowedin. Everyone will be forced to buy health insurance. Companies will not be forced to actually provide healthcare, and workers won’t ever be allowed to leave the plans they have.
That’s not a political winner. That’s a healthcare system designed to make health insurance companies richer, not one designed to actually provide healthcare.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Look, Ben Nelson is opposed to health care reform. This isn’t actually complicated. If you need reasons why, they’re pretty simple:
1) Nebraska is a very conservative state. If you’ve never been there, please take my word for it. Nelson relies on votes from a bunch of fairly conservative voters in order to be elected. If he signs on to the plan that liberals have been pushing since the ’50s, it’s likely that the conservatives in the state will remember it and hold it against him.
2) In addition to being a very conservative state, Nebraska is also home to a number of insurance companies. Granted, not all of them are health insurance companies, but a number of them offer health insurance as one of their products. For example, my mother’s health insurance is from Mutual of Omaha. Embracing a measure that would damage insurance interests would, in fact, be harmful to a number of Nebraska based businesses, possibly resulting in job losses which could be hung around Nelson’s neck. And, of course, these companies probably give him a bunch of money.
3) Most observations point to Nelson being a fairly conservative guy. If he lived in Connecticut, he’d probably be a Republican. I’ve heard several stories from friends that moderate politicians – even in Omaha, which is way more liberal than the rest of the state – switching from the R to the D side just because the bench is more shallow. Nelson ascended to state-level politics in 1990, and it’s very likely that he did this sort of party-switching early in his career.
If liberals want a good health reform bill passed, rather than one that is written by large insurance interests, it would probably be a good idea to find a way to pass it without Senator Nelson’s help. He’s just not going to make a positive impact on health reform.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
This is one issue where Obama and Reid have to put their foot on the necks of Nelson, Conrad, etc.
Healthcare needs to get done now & frankly I don’t care if they have to delay their recess to do so.
As far as soullite’s complaint, I can’t disagree too much. However, some type of public option has to be included. It can be tweaked or expanded in the future. The bottom line is that if a public option is included, it will most likely never be cut. If it doesn’t make it in, then we’re looking at 15 years before we get another shot.
Personally, I’d like to be able to enroll in some type of public option before I am old enough to qualify for Medicare.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
If Harry Reid can convince 50 other Senators to stick around, there is no recess. More likely, if 50 other Senators can convince Harry Reid to stick around, there is no recess.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Porkbelly, a public option designed to only serve the poor will all but guarantee that it will never be expanded. Most Americans will view it as welfare, and would then refuse to be part of it even if they could.
In short, this plan would forever doom the idea of a ‘public option’ by making it something only the the lowest on the social ladder could be seen as doing. In many parts of the south, it would be viewed as ‘blackcare’. In the southwest, it would be ‘mexicare’.
Plus, it’s very unlikely you could ever sign up for it anyway. You’d have to make next to nothing. What’s worse, you’d be forever locked into your current for-profit healthcare unless it took up a full 11% of your total income. You can’t change plans simply because one is cheaper. They created ‘firewalls’ to prevent anyone from excerising any kind of consumer rights.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
One does not doubt that, because Nelson has made it abundantly clear by his actions that the profits of health insurers are far more important to him than the health needs of average Americans.
Fantastic argument. Give us moar.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
This is about blocking a filibuster.
If the bill is put to the Senate before the recess then a filibuster would only eat into vacation time. If it is put to the Senate after recess they are eating into real legislating time.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
The problem is, everyone involved knows that a public option will outperform private plans even if it is not subsidized more than the private plans are. This will result, eventually, in single payer. The opposition are going to fight any public option like it is full blown single payer insurance.
There really is no genuine compromise possible, only face-saving fake compromises.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I think you are right, but for the wrong reason. If it is designed for the poor, no one will want it because it will suck, by design.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Soullite- Again you make good points but I think some of this has to do with marketing & pr.
At this point it seems like weak initial public option or no public option.
In general, I’d rather have something than nothing. And Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP have been expanded to cover more people as time has gone on, not less.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
The fact Nelson is looking for Republicans must mean he still thinks this can come up under regular Senate rules. His offer to Reid will be, delay, but then we can pass under normal rules. He would even vote for it, because Republicans will be voting for it.
The other track, which I think health care moved to this week, is omnibus spending. Here, Dems can simply find 51 votes and we have health care. Nelson will then have to decide whether to vote for it or against it. He has no cover of a filibuster or Repub votes. Since his donors want him to vote no, but 90% (maybe more, if the public option has 70% approval, that must mean 90-95% approval among people who vote for Democrats) of his voters want him to vote yes. That is why he is trying to avoid that pickle.
With budget reconciliation, Nelson has no power. Why Reid plays along with this stuff I don’t know. Nobody is going to care (outside of the Senate itself) what mechanism is used to pass something.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
You know, Obama could simply say that Congress doesn’t get any recesses until some form of health care reform is voted on by the Senate.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Patrick: Not really. There are significant restrictions on what can be passed by reconciliation. The Byrd Rule says that any part of the bill deemed “extraneous” can be cut out unless 3/5 of Senators vote to keep it in. Reconciliation is very much to be avoided, although if worst comes to worst we’ll be able to pass something that way.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
If the Senate really wants to wrap this issue up quickly, all they need to do is drop their own competing bills and pass the House bill without further amendment. No amendment means no need for conference committees; Obama would sign it the next day; and then everybody goes home with an achievement under their belts.
The House bill isn’t perfect, but it’s the one bill the Senate could get into law very quickly, precisely because it has already passed the House. And there’s no way in hell Obama would veto it, so it would actually resolve the issue.
The Senate is not, in practice, going to do this. But if they really wanted to resolve the issue quickly, and not obstruct or inflate their own egos, they *could* do this. Perhaps someone could ask Ben Nelson whether he supports this idea, and if not, why not.
P.S. Re comment 9: I think the Senate leadership should commit to a “no recess until up-or-down votes” policy regarding all the health-care bills currently under consideration. You can’t simultaneously claim that you need more time to debate this urgent yet complex issue *and* that it’s a great time to go on vacation. The PR of trying to go on vacation without acting on health care would be *horrible*, and the Congressional leadership should feel free to use that.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
What do we get for delaying? Is there a good idea that no one has heard of before that can be a law in 70 days? Are you really ready to vote for the substance of the current bills if they are slightly tweaked? You are fine with exchanges, mandates, public options, etc and just need tinkering around the edges?
I wish you could do something like vote for this before the recess and we’ll serious work on specific objections in conference committed. You don’t get a delay and a blank check to object to the whole project later.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Self-centrist bastards.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
You can’t simultaneously claim that you need more time to debate this urgent yet complex issue *and* that it’s a great time to go on vacation.
Most people would tend to think this way, except of course for a select few brain-damaged people who just happen to have a gross overrepresentation in Republican media organizations and the United States Senate.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
THIS IS IT!
The healthcare reform bill released by the House Of Representatives is an excellent bill as I understand it. It’s a bill with a strong, robust, government-run public option, and an intelligent, reasonable initial funding plan to cover almost all of the American people. It is carefully written, and thoughtfully constructed, informed, prudent and wise. This bill will save trillions of dollars, and millions of your lives. It is also now supported by the AMA.
This is the type of bill that all Americans can feel good about. And this is the type of bill that has the potential to dramatically improve the quality of healthcare for all Americans. Rich, middle class and poor a like. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and all other party affiliations. This bill has the potential to dramatically improve the quality of life of every American.
The house healthcare bill should be viewed as the minimum GOLD STANDARD by which all other proposed healthcare legislation should be judged. All supporters of true high quality healthcare reform should now place all your support behind this healthcare reform bill released by the United States House Of Representatives, as the minimum Gold standard for healthcare reform in America.
You should all now support this bill with all your might, and all of your unrelenting tenacity. This healthcare bill is a VERY, VERY GOOD! bill for all of the American people. Fight tooth, and nail for every bit of this bill if you have too. Be aggressive, creative, and relentless for this bill.
From this time forward, go BIGGER and DEEPER with the American people every day until passage of healthcare reform with a robust, government-run public option.
FIGHT!! like your life and the lives of your loved ones depends on it. BECAUSE IT DOES!
It should also be noted that Ron Wyden’s “Free Choice Proposal” in the senate is a highly intriguing proposal and possibly a brilliant idea. And an Idea that should be strongly looked into as a way of increasing consumer choice, and consumer access to a government-run public option.
SPREAD THE WORD
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSM8t_cLZgk&feature=player_embedded)
God Bless You
Jack Smith — Working Class
July 17th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
[...] if universal health coverage isn’t achieved at some point in the near – or, who knows, maybe not-so-near (or maybe near after all – go here or here) – future, there must be a way for working artists to [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
[...] This effort to gum up the works is inexcusable. Healthcare reform is the most critical thing Congress will do this session, the thing that will do the most to help the most Americans. Matt Yglesias demonstrates why: [...]
July 19th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Most of the countries in the world have single payer, yet we do not. Their is no profit incentive in having single payer, therefore it will not pass unless working people demand it, want it, fight for it, and die for it. We are such a pathetic nation: all people want is to be safe, and not thrown out into the streets. I can guarantee that if there is no single payer plan, then we will go down the road to ruin, and flames.