Thread: Breaking:Nelson will vote for cloture, some fed. $$$

Nelson caved for a few lines on abortion and some scheckels. How incredibly disappointing...



Breaking: Nelson will vote for cloture
posted at 9:47 am on December 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Every man has his price, apparently, and Harry Reid found Ben Nelson’s price for a cloture vote on ObamaCare. Nelson announced this morning that the language in the manager’s amendment on aborti0n will be enough to secure his support for Reid’s compromise bill, but Think Progress reports on what really sold Nelson — or bought Nelson, depending on your perspective. First, the Washington Post:

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, was prepared to announce to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.

“We’re there,â€

Sen. Ben Nelson to announce support for health-care bill

By Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 19, 2009; 9:41 AM

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, was prepared to announce to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.

"We're there," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), as he headed into a special meeting to announce the deal.

Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with Nelson on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. But Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.

Asked if he was prepared to support the bill, Nelson said, "Yeah."

With Nelson seemingly on board, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid unveiled the final version of a sweeping overhaul of the nation's health insurance system that would expand coverage to an additional 31 million Americans, coming closer to attaining the Democrats' longsought goal of universal medical coverage.

The package closely tracks the $848 billion measure Reid (D-Nev.) drafted this month, before he entered into negotiations aimed at winning the 60 votes he needs to avert a GOP filibuster, aides said. Since then, Reid has made numerous concessions to moderate Democrats, scrapping an effort to create a government-run insurance plan and beefing up prohibitions on spending federal funds for abortion coverage, a change demanded by the final holdout, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Instead of a public option, the final product would allow private firms for the first time to offer national insurance policies to all Americans, outside the jurisdiction of state regulations. Those plans would be negotiated through the Office of Personnel Management, the same agency that handles health coverage for federal workers and members of Congress.

Starting immediately, insurers would be prohibited from denying children coverage for pre-existing conditions. A complete ban on the practice would take effect in 2014, when the legislation seeks to create a network of state-based insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, where people who lack access to affordable coverage through an insurer can purchase policies.

Insurers competing in the exchanges would be required to justify rate increases, and those who jacked up prices unduly could be barred from the exchange. Reid's package also would give patients the right to appeal to an independent board if an insurer denies a medical claim. And all insurance companies would be required to spend at least 80 cents of every dollary they collect in premiums on delivering care to their customers.

Every American would be required to obtain coverage under the proposal, and employers would be required to pay a fine if they failed to offer affordable coverage and their workers sought federal subsidies to purchase insurance in the exchanges. Reid's package would offer additional assistance to the smallest businesses, however, increasing tax credits to purchase coverage by $12 billion over previous versions.

The overall cost of the package was not immediately available, but aides said it would be more than covered by cutting future Medicare spending and raising taxes in the health sector, including a 40 percent excise on the most expensive insurance policies. The package would reduce budget deficits by $130 billion by 2019, aides said, and by as much as $650 billion in the decade thereafter.

Reid officially filed the package early Saturday with plans to hold a first critical vote after midnight Sunday. Barring unexpected delays, Democrats were still hoping to push the package to final passage by Christmas Eve.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 97_pf.html

So their buying votes for a program that will harm most Americans, reduce health care for elderly Americans in order to fund care for illegals, and that the majority of Americans oppose with OUR MONEY.

Originally Posted by ReggieMay

So their buying votes for a program that will harm most Americans, reduce health care for elderly Americans in order to fund care for illegals, and that the majority of Americans oppose with OUR MONEY.

That about sums it up.....yes

What I find so interesting....even amusing to some degree maybe?.... is that all of these sheep who believe they are being just oh-so-clever in their dealings don't even realize that they are nothing more than dupes being used by the dictatorship-in-waiting posing as our "government".

They're being played for useful idiots, to lend an air of credibility and false respect for our lawful process....and they have no clue that once they've outlived their usefulness they and their families are going to be reduced to same level as the rest of We the People.

Well....IF they're that lucky, that is.

History has shown us that former elected officials and other perceived threats do not fare very well at the hands of those which perceive them as a threat........

<shrugs> Not like we haven't tried to tell 'em

[quote]Scroll down to Section 1303, which uses the same reliance on the “prohibited under HHS rulesâ€

[quote="ShockedinCalifornia"][quote]Scroll down to Section 1303, which uses the same reliance on the “prohibited under HHS rulesâ€

Fax Sen. Bill Nelson and tell him you object to Nebraska's sweetheart deal at the expense of Florida. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, and we are in the top 4 of states who will get slaughtered by increases in taxes to cover the federal govt.'s new mandate for Medicaid insurance thresholds. Don't give up yet!

For more info: http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/19/sen ... more-49646

also, re: Florida tax increase: http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/12/ ... r-states...

Originally Posted by fedupinwaukegan

Nelson caved for a few lines on abortion and some scheckels. How incredibly disappointing...

Under the current merged legislation (the version unveiled on November 18th), the federal government fully finances care for the expanded population for two years and increases its matching funds (known as FMAP) thereafter. Page 98 of the managers amendment specifically identifies Nebraska for higher federal matching funds, fully funding its expansion for an additional year:


Nelson caved on abortion and sold out for an extra year of federal Medicaid subsidies.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/19/b ... r-cloture/

Nelson is about to engage in bribery, a criminal offense.

In addition, the bribery is unconstitutional and ought to be challenged by every Governor as the bribe violates our Constitution's rule of apportionment.

Let us review a little history.

Under the Articles of Confederation which were in force during the framing and ratification of our existing Constitution, the national treasury was filled by a general tax among the states in which each state contributed a share into the federal treasury based upon the assessed value of property, real and personal within the state.

During the framing of our existing Constitution this became an issue of heated debate. Delegates from States with superior wealth objected to having to carry an unequal share of a federal tax burden and argued that wealth was not a proper object to use in calculating each state’s share of a federal tax burden which would ultimately fall directly upon the people.

Eventually a compromise was reached [Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3][b][i]“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….â€

What a bunch of traitors. I was hoping Ben Nelson of Nebaska was different. But they are all the same. I guess every one of the jerks has a price.

Originally Posted by "butterbean"

[b

]What a bunch of traitors. I was hoping Ben Nelson of Nebaska was different. But they are all the same. I guess every one of the jerks has a price.[/b]

I agree BB. But, with this administration I suspect that alot more was involved than just some payoff.

Remember, they have no compunction whatsoever when it comes to threatening those who stand in their way.