Nelson's Pound Of Flesh: Stupak AND No Medicaid Expansion

I knew it was coming. Knew it. Ben Nelson names his price:

Earlier Thursday, in an interview with a Nebraska radio station, Nelson said even if the abortion issue were resolved, he still could not support the $848 billion package, complaining that the plan to cover more than 30 million additional Americans calls for dramatically expanding Medicaid, which is partially funded by the states. 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.

(Emphasis supplied.) Now what Villagers?

Speaking for me only

< "This Is Not A Great Bill" | Diane Dimond: How Could Any Lawyer Represent the 9/11 Terrorists? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Mmmmm Mmmm Good (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:09:48 PM EST
    Bipartisanship is a part of the Obama DNA.

    What does this even leave? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Raskolnikov on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:16:56 PM EST
    Some flimsy reforms, mandates but opt-out medicaid expansion?  Insane...

    Mandate but no subsidies (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:24:06 PM EST
    It's the Republican dream proposal.

    But it will have the Dems (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:27:31 PM EST
    fingerprints all over it.  We run everything right now.  So all the bad marks go on the Dem report card.  I wonder too, does Obama think he can just dump his old hippy base and he can earn himself a Republican base that will vote him in next time?

    Whatever passes is inevitably Obamacare (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:30:44 PM EST
    To put it in basic Russian, an alliance between (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ellie on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:38:27 PM EST
    ... All Talc No Action Dry Powder Dems and All Crime No Punishment Republicans.

    IOW, what we can expect from the Village dream of "healing" partisan division, so we end up with One Party (or is that One Ring to Rule Them and in the darkness guide them).

    I really need to go back to college-era smoking, drinking and reading novels from the used bookstore, cause the storylines and characters in politics just plain blow.


    this was so obviously (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by pluege on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:32:34 PM EST
    an outcome of the obama weakness. the flood gates of caving are open. every wingnut whack-job can claim whatever they want.

    I do notice that Nelson (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:34:24 PM EST
    does not put forth any specifics on alternative methods for the states to offer coverage to their poorest residents.

    I wonder how long it will take for Obama to tell Reid to give Nelson whatever he wants.

    Once the Medicaid expansion goes, the subsidies will be next. Wonder what the Dems will come up with to justify passing the bill then.

    Subsidies go to insurance companies (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:37:55 PM EST
    They are in.

    You have a point. (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:40:15 PM EST
    I'm guessing Obama has already (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:48:19 PM EST
    told Reid to cater to Nelson. In one of the earlier linked articles talking about the bill getting voted on xmas eve, they said they were prepared for all the "grenades" the Repubs might throw. That told me they were willing to cave on anything . . . . including to the conservadems.

    If Obama lets Nelson put in an opt out (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:00:02 PM EST
    Medicaid provision and Stupak in the Senate bill , I could see a possible major revolt in the House. Which would be a good thing IMO.

    I wonder if there would be any revolt (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:15:20 PM EST
    in the Senate? Boxer, Gillibrand etc . . . .

    Thank Dawg my chocolate will arrive tomorrow and I can go into candy making land for 3 days. I just can't take it anymore . . . .


    Don't know (none / 0) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:51:20 PM EST
    Don't really have high hopes for a revolt in the House but the conditions that currently exist give way to the slim possibility that it might happen. Lots of statements of discontent from fairly high levels. Also, the CBC tried a mini revolt just recently protesting that Obama has not done enough for their constituencies. Letting states opt out of Medicaid would hurt their constituencies a great deal. The combined effect of Stupak and Medicaid could be the straw that broke the camel's back.

    Might also be wishful thinking on my part.  


    Oh heck, forget those phonies in the Congress (none / 0) (#37)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:58:04 AM EST
    What we need is a revolt in the frickin' streets.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:51:26 PM EST
    Howard Dean's stock just went up.

    I've been mocked here before for suggesting primarying in '12; How's Dean/Feingold, Feingold/Dean looking now?

    Howard Dean led the DNC charge (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:04:55 PM EST
    committed to demanding Obama get the Democratic nomination last year. That he wants a good health insurance bill doesn't automatically make him a great choice for anything.

    So he was fooled (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:19:05 PM EST
    like so many.

    Things change; maybe you've noticed.


    He absolutely did not (none / 0) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:15:08 AM EST
    "lead the charge."  He acquiesced without objection, which I wish he hadn't done and remain baffled by.  But he in no way "led the charge."  If anybody did, it was Donna Brazile, and Dean didn't or couldn't rein her in.

    We clearly saw different (none / 0) (#33)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:37:35 AM EST
    appearances of Dean last year, then.

    So, if they 86 Medicaid expansion (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:52:31 PM EST
    how does that effect the "30 million will be covered" line and the "it will save lives!" talking point?

    Ahhhhhhh, remember the primaries and "Universal Health Care/Coverage"?  {sigh}

    Not really (none / 0) (#34)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:37:53 AM EST
    I don't recall that Obama ever supported universal health care.

    In more than one campaign speech (none / 0) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:14:23 AM EST
    he talked about providing Universal Health Care even though his actual plan never was universal. Use to make me mad when he did this. That is why I remember it so well.

    Ah (none / 0) (#51)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 09:15:13 AM EST
    I guess I tuned it out.

    At what point does Gibbs... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Romberry on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:12:05 PM EST
    ...imply that Nelson is irrational? When does the administration play the same hardball with the Blue Dogs that they play with the progressives? Probably not a healthy idea to hold my breath while I wait...

    ... especially not (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Nathan In Nola on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 09:29:07 AM EST
    if you were hoping to see a doctor if you pass out.

    What the the Just-Pass-Anything crowd miss here (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Ellie on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:19:31 PM EST
    ... about hacking over half the population off at the knees (whether they seek an abortion or not), is how obliterating this is both into the future and backwards, too, by crushing hard-won rights out of existence.

    The Nelson-gifting DINOsaurs just have no idea of how things work with fanatics of his ilk. Even when legislation and law are on the side of choice, patients and health care professionals are harangued and persecuted beyond belief.

    And if they think anti-abortion moralists are the end of the line, the anti-contraception brigade aren't even suited up for action yet.

    Nelson doesn't belong in the Tent (or at the table), Obama doesn't care about female people, and when this blows Dems out of the water in 2010, it'll be for a good long time.

    And can we please stop the attempted guilt tripping of saying that NOT passing this POS will deprive millions of health care, when passing it will deprive millions and millions more?

    Sheesh, it almost makes me nostalgic for the perfunctory scare-and-guilt-mongering of women about losing abortion rights if we didn't do this or that on Democratic cue. (On that count, fight for us and with us or leave us the f*ck alone.)

    Not overstating political suicide for the Dems (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ellie on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 02:05:23 AM EST
    ... here. Unlike other political hot potatoes, this isn't something that can be spun, neatly revised, rebranded, renamed or denied out of existence.

    When it comes to supporting a D for the sake of having more D's only to see them worsen women's shrinking access to other health care as well, it no longer remains an abstract exercise.

    Unless you've actually worked at a clinic that provides abortion and related services, you have no idea what the blast will set off.

    Don't fall into the mind trap of thinking this is merely about politics just because pols and pundits have used abortion for their own ambitious ends.

    Just do a little math here. Do you think all those women seeking abortions were impregnated by so small a fraction of male counterparts that only an inconsequential number of those will be on the hook for child support for eighteen years?

    The ground game's completely changed since Roe v. Wade passed.

    From DNR to DNA, Dems really really don't want to mess with this, and it won't take forty years for it to sink in but forty weeks.


    If I thought that were true, I would be 100% for (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:29:35 AM EST
    killing the bill. As it stands, I think there's a very good chance that the Republicans take back Congress.

    Might be an anti-incumbent election (none / 0) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:17:44 AM EST
    Here's a statistic from the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that should send shivers down the spines of Congressional incumbents: only 38% of voters said they feel their representative should be re-elected, while nearly half (49%) believe it's time to give a new person a chance."

    That's even worse than right before the 2006 election that swept Democrats in control of the House and worse than right before the 1994 election that gave Republican control. link

    Devils Advocate (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:48:06 AM EST
    Given that Obama's lack of enthusiasm for choice, GLBT, universal health care, and a few other things was blatantly evident during the primaries, aren't the people who ignored that fact getting exactly what they asked for?

    Now, now - don't make the adequate the enemy ... (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:54:53 AM EST
    ... of the awful.

    That's a good one. (none / 0) (#38)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:00:46 AM EST
    I gotta find a place to use that.

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 09:00:01 AM EST
    Amazing how every time they touch it, it gets magically worse. The reverse-Midas touch: Democrats get their hands on it and turns to cr**.

    Remember how we were bludgeoned with Roe to not vote against Obama? How we were screamed at and whipped with Roe because only the Democrats would protect it for us? Yeah, I do too. Too bad one of Obama's first acts was appointing an anti-choicer to head the DNC. And another in an important position at HHS.

    It's been all downhill since.

    I grudgingly say just pass the thing (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:14:15 PM EST
    and do what Nelson wants.

    You want Repubs to win in 2010 (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:16:36 PM EST
    AND 2012?  Go ahead, pass the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

    May we remind you that women are -- or at least were -- 57% of Dem voters. . . .


    If you were a woman, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:18:28 PM EST
    you might feel differently.

    Yep. I'm watching the Primary Stupak site (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:27:26 PM EST
    with checkbook in hand.  Here 'tis.

    Heck, if the Dems don't stop this cr*p, I just may get so angry that I send a check to a Republican running against Stupak.  Same difference, as da Yoopers say dere.  (Btw, I love the UP and the Yoopers -- amazing sense of humor they maintain there against the onslaughts of the seasons.)


    My wife, (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by cal1942 on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:47:43 PM EST
    a yooper living in exile under the bridge and married to a troll, thanks you.

    Exactly what I mean about Yooper lingo (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:54:53 PM EST
    is that wit.  I have a map of Michigan as viewed by a Yooper, and it's a marvel.  Give her a hey for me and ask if she knows all the lyrics, as I do, to "Shirley the Girly from Hurley." :-)

    She's from the (none / 0) (#56)
    by cal1942 on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    eastern UP and doesn't know the words to the song.  But, we do have friends from Ironwood.

    My wife met them under the bridge among the trolls because they, like she, had to go under the bridge for school and work.

    Anyway, she says hey.


    This will serve us, not rule us; abortion's unique (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Ellie on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:23:59 AM EST
    ... in that far too many jackwads profit and gain from keeping it in a nebulous, falsely blurred moral "grey" area they can cynically use at will.

    At this point, the effigy of Abortion Girl is finally losing its magical powers to bludgeon women for votes and dollars, to smear (actual) Liberals -- or centrist Dems -- in any branch of public service, and to rally all but the most wacko of wackazoids at first sniff.

    In relation to health coverage and health care, the truth is that abortion and contraception will continue to be sought, and any attempt to send women back to Coat Hanger Alley for a legal, commonplace medical procedure is going to blow back fiercely.

    Because that's all abortion is.

    Imagine the hue and cry if medical medievalists decreed that testicular procedures, including for cancer screening, get the same treatment as abortion rights.

    Well hang on to your sacs, boys, cause your nuts just got shifted into the category of reproductive and sexual health-related plumbing.


    Do you know if there are any potential (none / 0) (#29)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:59:27 PM EST
    candidates willing to primary him?
    I'll be donating, that's for sure.

    I already emailed Stupak (none / 0) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:09:37 AM EST
    back when he first got that amemdment through that I would not only support any primary opponent, but would contribute cash to his Republican opponent, no matter that person's views.

    No hard feelings, of course, he just needs to find another line of work.


    He can go back (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:18:36 AM EST
    to being a State Trooper....

    We really need to watch this beyond (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:44:11 PM EST
    expanding Hyde. An article I linked earlier has been updated, (info gone) but it also mentioned strengthening the "conscience rule" (wasn't Obama supposed to "fix" that?!) and teens/alternatives to abortion (that raises a red flag with me) that were in compromise drafted by Casey that Nelson rejected as not strong enough.

    It's a d*mn good thing I'm not in smacking distance of Nelson and friends . . .


    Medicaid expansion (none / 0) (#17)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:49:29 PM EST
    That was one of the few redeeming qualities left.

    If that is left out, I'll have to change my view from "let's pass this thing" to "screw it, it's not worth it".

    Nelson is doing the repubs governors bidding (none / 0) (#42)
    by pax on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:29:54 AM EST
    The republican Nebraska governor of Nebraska sent Nelson a letter urging him to vote against health care reform because of the medicaid issue. from the Omaha World Herald

    BTD reasy to say kill the bill? (none / 0) (#44)
    by jedimom on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:10:00 AM EST
    BTD are you ready to say kill the bill?

    running out of time for meaningful pushback and calls to Senate

    no doubt that is why all the kabuki w/ the P.O.L that never would be...to keep people from fighting it until it is too late

    Nebraska Govt old Nelson yesterday to kill the Medicaid expansion

    as I have been saying ad nauseum, EVERY governor who does not have a 'special' deal like Nelson, FL, Landrieu, will say kill Medicaid growth

    there is NOTHING worth saving in this bill

    dean (none / 0) (#45)
    by jedimom on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:12:35 AM EST
    is on CNBC Squawk now

    This (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:28:22 AM EST
    is the way it is: every new "adjustment" just makes the bill worse and worse. There simply is nothing good about this bill anymore. It does nothing for the most part.

    Is Nelson even needed? (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 09:20:15 AM EST
    Snowe's public option trigger is starting to sound really good right now...

    I'm pretty ready to say "kill it" if he gets his pound of flesh.

    I honestly don't see how it passes at this point anyway.  The house is more scared of their constituents.

    Lieberman has said he will (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 09:27:59 AM EST
    filibuster any bill that contains even a public option trigger.

    i figured (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 09:43:21 AM EST
    that much.  But she is pro-choice.  I wonder how she feels about Medicaid.