Hear what our listeners had to say on Saturday’s Show >>>
Nebraska’s own Benator (Sen. Ben Nelson, D-NE) was the “National Figure of the Weekend,” tearing away the title from Tiger Woods (not the first thing Tiger has had taken away from him this week–ho! *rimshot*).
In fact, Ben Nelson’s rather surprising decision to become Vote #60 for the government’s “Universal” Health Care plan has made some major waves on the national scene:
–Mike Huckabee held a rally here in Omaha at the Omaha Music Hall, hoping to change The Benator’s mind.
–Abortion opponents stunned by Ben Nelson’s change of heart.
–Senator Mike Johanns–also a former Governor of Nebraska–has some incredibly strong words for his colleague Ben Nelson.
(Ed. Note: Regardless of where you sit on the health care debate–or what part of the political prism you reside in–you’ve got to admit it is somewhat refreshing to hear (er, read) such raw and emotional quotes from a politician. You can tell ol’ Sen. Johanns is not reading from talking points from these quotes.)
–Did The Good Life get a $45 million Medicaid windfall because of Nelson’s vote? Either way, Governor Dave Heineman is not happy.
All in all, it is interesting to see Nebraska yet again be a major player in national politics for the second time in the past 13 months. This time, however, the impact was direct and the outcome undeniable. Sen. Ben Nelson just opened the floodgates for the largest piece of legislation in the history of the United States. Which side of history will his vote (and Nebraska’s influence) fall on?
Obviously, it remains to be seen. According to the massive amount of phone calls we got while broadcasting the program Saturday morning, Sen. Nelson will end up on the wrong side of history.
It will be interesting what comes of this massive bill. It was also interesting to consider that The Weekly Grind was the first media outlet in Omaha to report on and take reaction to the biggest vote–maybe–in the history of Nebraska politics on the national scene. We appreciate all the calls. Give us some more feedback in the comments.
And to Ben Nelson: so much for your vote not being for sale, huh?
I think regardless of where one stand’s on the issue of health care, it’s pretty easy to Sen. Nelson’s handling of the issue as a master lecture from PR 101. Over time, 59 other people came to the same conclusion on the bill as he did, but his is the only name you’ll hear this week. For me, this overshadows the ethical debate because I inherently don’t trust any sentence with the words politics and ethics in it. Well played Ben, well played.
I don’t know if the decision is right or not, what I do know is that I don’t hear any other suggestions. I know that Mike’s stance is get government out, but I think that is easy to say. I would like to know what we should do if the government did get out. I am all for less government, but on this issue it seems that someone has to take the leadership role. If we left it up to the insurance companies and hospitals to figure it out, we would have to continue to pay ever inflating premiums, or we hospitals would have to refuse care to people who they think can’t pay the bills. That doesn’t seem like a solution.
My stance is not so much “get government out” as it is “what has government ever done that directly effects the private sector and been successful at it?”
I am afraid that the regulations and taxes involved with this bill–which, it should be pointed out, has been read by virtually no one who is voting on it–will impede on medical device makers to be as risk-taking and innovative as they are today. The fact that we will begin being taxed on this–directly or indirectly–starting next year, but benefits will not begin until 2014. That–according to the actuarial firm WellPoint–the average cost of health care for a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee’s yearly health care cost will rise 178%.
And to your point of not hearing any other suggestions: I agree with you. That said: how do other suggestions or voices rise when our Senate is ramming this 2,000+ page bill through the system in less than a month? Or when the White House is not even entertaining other suggestions?
Sen. Maj. Leader Harry Reid’s office added a “manager’s amendment” and essentially threw out the original bill after only 17 days on the floor of the Senate Saturday morning. Think about that. The largest bill in the history of the United States Congress lasted only 17 days on the Senate floor, and when the magical Nelson #60 vote was announced, they essentially scrapped it and threw on a “amendment” on a Saturday morning.
I don’t mind that our elected officials take a look at a problem and try to help solve it. I do mind when they jam through a nationally unpopular piece of legislation under the cloak of news cycle dark over the weekend all for the sake of “getting it done.”
From this amateur’s vantage point, this is about as irresponsible and purely political major bill passed since the Patriot Act. Unfortunately, this will likely have an even bigger impact on citizens than that did, and could end up hurting our country for a much longer time.
Lastly: having to continue to pay ever inflating premiums is a problem. However, that is another area that somehow the government has successfully placed the blame at the foot of the private sector.
In fact, government regulation–as usual–has gotten in the way of health insurance companies to be truly competitive by allowing all 50 states to ban interstate policy sales. In other words: Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Nebraska cannot sell their insurance in Kansas (or anywhere else). What do you think happens when only certain companies are allowed to provide services in a state? According to one political ad here in The Good Life, two insurance companies own over 60% of the policies in Nebraska. Is that really a truly competitive environment? Of course not. Yet somehow, the insurance companies are cast as the evil profit mongers in this commercial, and we need the government to swoop in and save the day. It’s the government’s fault this statistic exists!
Granted, this is just one piece of the puzzle. But it is yet another example of government regulation that is supposed to help solve the problem that actually makes the problem worse.