Opinion of Ben Nelson

[justfollowingtheelections]

I was reading the following about why he opposes public Healthcare and I wanted to see what the Atlas thinks of him:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lief 🗽]

"The public plan would be too good a deal for the American public, so I will vote to not allow them access to that, forcing them to continue to be stuck with expensive private options that won't cover large percentages of the poulation. Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the benefits of my public health insurance plan, as well as thousands of dollars of contributions from the insurance lobby."

HP

[Rowan]

FF.

Someone who will actually stand up to Dingy Harry.

[JSojourner]

HP

[War on Want]

HP but an excusable HP because of his state. I am sure Walt Minnick will do the same but I still like the guy for standing up for sanity in my state.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Disgusting. I don't say this about many people (and I don't want to become like the Republicans) but I'm ashamed to have someone like him in my party.

HP without a doubt.

[Keystone Phil]

My favorite Democrat in the Senate - FF

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My favorite Democrat in the Senate - FF

Would you have voted for him over pre-switch Arlen Specter?

[Keystone Phil]

My favorite Democrat in the Senate - FF

Would you have voted for him over pre-switch Arlen Specter?

...

I would have voted for him and worked my ass off for him over Specter at any time in Specter's career. Any time.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I don't like all of his votes, and I think he could vote more liberally if he wanted to, but overall, a FF.

[Mint]

Mostly Negative.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Truly horrible trash. He's a multi-millionaire who consistently sides with the rich on the estate tax, subsidies to large agribusiness, and defense subsidies. He's from a net welfare state with the lowest unemployment who goes out of his way to weaken the stimulus for states that need to get some more of their tax dollars back. I don't care that he's from Nebraska, he should still be kicked out of the party along with Bayh.

[Lunar]

Senator Nelson > Senator Johanns.  Enough said.

Politics isn't possible if one is uncompromising

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Senator Nelson > Senator Johanns.  Enough said.

Politics isn't possible if one is uncompromising

Are you stupid enough to believe that liberals aren't capable of compromise? It's Ben Nelson who has the problem with compromise.

[Lunar]

When did Johanns compromise last?  I forget.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When did Johanns compromise last?  I forget.

Johanns is irrelevant to this. The problem with Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh is that they loudly attack liberals instead of compromising with them or quietly voting against them.

[Torie]

"The public plan would be too good a deal for the American public, so I will vote to not allow them access to that, forcing them to continue to be stuck with expensive private options that won't cover large percentages of the poulation. Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the benefits of my public health insurance plan, as well as thousands of dollars of contributions from the insurance lobby."

HP

It is an odd style of argumentation. I tend to agree with his point however. The problem is that politics will cause the public plan to deliver stuff below cost, and snuff out the private sector competition. Then, with no competition, over time service will decline, with rationing by long wait times, etc. If you don't like your doctor, or think he is wasting your time by making you wait two hours, and you chew him out, he will just laugh. At least now, I can make MD's sweat a bit when they deliver inferior service, or misread my chart, or have not done their homework, etc. I believe in giving feedback - a lot of it.

So -- it would be better to have robust competition, transparency, and subsidies for health insurance premiums for those who can't afford whatever the cost is either partially or at all, on a means tested basis.  But I think the long term goal here is to produce a snuff film here, as it were.

[justfollowingtheelections]

"The public plan would be too good a deal for the American public, so I will vote to not allow them access to that, forcing them to continue to be stuck with expensive private options that won't cover large percentages of the poulation. Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the benefits of my public health insurance plan, as well as thousands of dollars of contributions from the insurance lobby."

HP

It is an odd style of argumentation. I tend to agree with his point however. The problem is that politics will cause the public plan to deliver stuff below cost, and snuff out the private sector competition. Then, with no competition, over time service will decline, with rationing by long wait times, etc. If you don't like your doctor, or think he is wasting your time by making you wait two hours, and you chew him out, he will just laugh. At least now, I can make MD's sweat a bit when they deliver inferior service, or misread my chart, or have not done their homework, etc. I believe in giving feedback - a lot of it.

So -- it would be better to have robust competition, transparency, and subsidies for health insurance premiums for those who can't afford whatever the cost is either partially or at all, on a means tested basis.  But I think the long term goal here is to produce a snuff film here, as it were.

This doesn't make any sense at all.  If the public plan provides subpar services, then they will face competition regarldess of the price.

[Torie]

"The public plan would be too good a deal for the American public, so I will vote to not allow them access to that, forcing them to continue to be stuck with expensive private options that won't cover large percentages of the poulation. Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the benefits of my public health insurance plan, as well as thousands of dollars of contributions from the insurance lobby."

HP

It is an odd style of argumentation. I tend to agree with his point however. The problem is that politics will cause the public plan to deliver stuff below cost, and snuff out the private sector competition. Then, with no competition, over time service will decline, with rationing by long wait times, etc. If you don't like your doctor, or think he is wasting your time by making you wait two hours, and you chew him out, he will just laugh. At least now, I can make MD's sweat a bit when they deliver inferior service, or misread my chart, or have not done their homework, etc. I believe in giving feedback - a lot of it.

So -- it would be better to have robust competition, transparency, and subsidies for health insurance premiums for those who can't afford whatever the cost is either partially or at all, on a means tested basis.  But I think the long term goal here is to produce a snuff film here, as it were.

This doesn't make any sense at all.  If the public plan provides subpar services, then they will face competition regarldess of the price.

One would hope private insurance companies could rise from the dead, after being extirpated, with MD's around to provide service, but somehow when dead, I suspect the law would evolve so using private providers will be solely out of  your own pocket. It would be just so "unfair" otherwise.

But yes, if from a legal and economic standpoint (a fair subsidy to both public and private), if the government plan went downhill, the private could be reasonably expected to reanimate, than yes, that might keep government from being totally non consumer friendly. Heck, look what FedX did for the US post office. A lot! 

[Lunar]

When did Johanns compromise last?  I forget.

Johanns is irrelevant to this. The problem with Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh is that they loudly attack liberals instead of compromising with them or quietly voting against them.

That's not what I meant.  What I meant is that there aren't enough liberals in America to pass a liberal agenda.  Case closed.  You have the choice between someone who will vote for you 0% of the time when the chips are down and someone who will vote for you 75% [or whatever] of the time when one vote makes a difference but will also rail against the "liberal establishment" or what have you on other times in order to carve an identity for himself back home that's independent of the national party.   Taking the "75% or whatever" option is compromise since it represents a positive net result towards stuff you believe in, although it carries some personal reservations.

If you eliminate all DINOs you don't get a workable majority, let alone 51 votes on most everything.

[opebo]

HP.. why is he a democrat?

And is he a 'native american'?

[Lunar]

HP.. why is he a democrat?

Stimulus Bill?

Next USSC judge?




Y'all realize that there are more Republican states than Democratic ones, right?  If both parties only nominated mainstream liberals/conservatives, the GOP would always be in the majority.

[Lunar]

newsflash: not every Senator from a Republican state can do what, say, Rockefeller does, and vote quietly.  Some states have Republican widespread political institutions that have to be "independently" challenged, and some do not.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

newsflash: not every Senator from a Republican state can do what, say, Rockefeller does, and vote quietly.  Some states have Republican widespread political institutions that have to be "independently" challenged, and some do not.

Plenty of better Senators than Bayh or Ben Nelson are from Republican states. Like the North Dakota Senators.

[Lunar]

They're not necessarily comparable.  Ben Nelson could not necessarily mimic the incredibly respectful Conrad because his state is different and far more Republican ... Nelson, in order to have a future capable of occasionally helping the national Democratic Party is forced to forcibly carve an identity out that's separate from it.


Although I see your point that the Democrats would rather not have Nelson rail against them, I think you fail to see mine that that is better than having a Republican senator NEVER vote with them.




Let's not drag Bayh into this, as he's far less inconsistent than Nelson and now, clearly, an opportunity-seeker and a grandstander